Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 November 22

< 21 November	23 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Withdrawn Mhiji 00:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC) As nom I withdraw AFD...I did not realize this was still in user space. The Eskimo (talk) 20:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep; withdrawn by nominator after expansion and sourcing improvements; no remaining delete !votes. 28bytes (talk) 15:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wasp Motorcycles[edit]

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

I can't find any sources to show that this company meets the notability guideline - WP:CORP. Unless secondary sources exist to demonstrate its importance, it should be deleted. SmartSE (talk) 23:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTADVERTISING. All citations, apart from a telephone listing, are from the company's own website. Yoninah (talk) 00:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Change vote to Keep. Good job on providing references to prove notability! Yoninah (talk) 14:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious advert, no third-party coverage beyond directory listings. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have been able to add some better refs, includung the book: Classic British scramblers: all post-war two-stroke and four-stroke scrambles motorcycles, AJS to Wasp which definately established notability. Pl;ease note that this article was never intended to be an 'advert' for Wasp, we are just trying to document the few remaining British Motorcycle manufacturers - so if anyone can help improve the article it would be very much appreciated Thruxton (talk) Thruxton (talk) 20:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, change to neutral. Advertising problems are solved. Still not convinced enough has been done to meet notability, but it's an improvement on what there was. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it looks like the rescue effort is a good one. This is now a well referenced article, much better than a lot of other stubs out there. --Biker Biker (talk) 22:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, looks better sourced now. Nice work. bobrayner (talk) 00:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^squeal 00:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improved sourcing. SnottyWong ^squeal 00:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: ~~Weak delete~~ depth of coverage is (still) minimal, and restricted mainly to enthusiast sources/websites etc. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - not any more. Now several published books added as references. --Biker Biker (talk) 11:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Off-Road Giants!: Heroes of 1960s Motorcycle Sport is still-still the only substantive source. But its chapter on the topic is probably enough to turn this into a 'keep'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination based on the Off-Road Giants reference which just about provides enough coverage for the article to be kept. Apologies for not spotting it before "wasp motorcycles" as a quote doesn't bring it up in gbooks. The sourcing is still a bit inadequate, but my deletion rationale is now moot. SmartSE (talk) 12:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dasho[edit]

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

Unsourced, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Triwbe (talk) 21:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. Also does not assert notability and provides no sources capable of satisfying WP:N. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a dictionary definition. It might be useful as a redirect if we had an article on the Monarchy of Bhutan but we don't, and the infornmation about it scattered across various articles. -- Whpq (talk) 20:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to wiktionary and Merge to Monarchy of Bhutan . 76.66.194.212 (talk) 06:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Importance of Question in negotiation[edit]

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

Very essay-like, no references, and lacks notability. Winner 42 Talk to me! 21:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads like an essay, and not a particularly good essay. (As a snarky aside, shouldn't the sisters wait until the father is dead before fighting over the ring?)--SPhilbrick T 00:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fundamentally unencyclopaedic. This is an essay, not an article, and in as much as there could ever be any amount of encyclopaedic material on this topic it would be appropriately covered in negotiation. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The author would do better in trying to imitate the punctuation and capitalization used by Salacuse [1]. I'm afraid that nobody is going to help edit this before it's supposed to be turned in to the teacher. Mandsford 15:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above: Question asking is a very important tool in negotiations. Negotiators often overlook the power of questions in negotiations to help them achieve their goals. When posed correctly, questions are potent tools that can help them meet three particular negotiation goals: information gathering, relationship building and persuasion. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (G3, hoax) by Metropolitan90. Non-admin closure --Pgallert (talk) 05:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley and Rachel Christmas adventure[edit]

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

WP:Crystal Notability is Questionable Winner 42 Talk to me! 20:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G3; tagged as such. Two Ghits, both Wikipedia. Erpert (let's talk about it) 22:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - WP:MADEUP WP:HOAX and needs to immediately go POOF! - Pmedema (talk) 22:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete by Orangemike. Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 22:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

China lifts environmental bar on rare earths producers, exporters[edit]

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

WP:Not News Possible copyright violation Copied from newspaper? Winner 42 Talk to me! 20:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Ryen[edit]

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

This article is about an actor that fails to establish notability through significant coverage in reliable sources. His film and television work is not substantial. His stage work does not appear to have attracted a lot of notice . The play "Fat Pig" appears to have had the most coverage with this review claiming the cast is strong, but then goes on to only talk about one cast member's performance in any detail and it isnt' James Ryen. The Boston Globe's review is behind a pay wall, but regardless of its content, there isn't sufficient coverage of his stage work to establish ntoability. Whpq (talk) 20:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Happily, I get full text of the Globe through my local library's database, and the sum total of the subject's citation is "Somewhat surprisingly, "Fat Pig," with Liliane Klein and James Ryen has a kinder, gentler heart than some of LaBute's better-known plays, and threaded throughout the provocative ideas and wicked skewering are some good belly laughs and a rather sweet love story." That's it. His credits at IMDB are extra roles: "Seaman," "The Agent," "Young Doctor," "SWAT Officer," "Co-worker #3" and the like. Lead roles in local theater productions and extra credits do not WP:ENTERTAINER meet. Ravenswing 17:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an up and coming actor but not there yet. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Little for a prior precedent. Bearian (talk) 22:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't meet WP:ENTERTAINER. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 11:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Giuseppe Gabriele Canetto[edit]

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

No indications of notability. The only results one finds when searching for this name online is that it is the name of a choral group in Madrid. The original Spanish version of this page ended with the phrase "Canetto -- myth or truth? Who knows?" I'm going to have to vote "myth". WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.
Speedy delete, likely hoax, vandalism, and attack page. Were this fellow a genuine historical figure, I would not expect Google Scholar and Books to draw a blank. All that I was able to find, like yourself, were references to a chamber choir out of Madrid [2], apparently an all male vocal group. None of the websites explained the name. This would appear at minimum to be a hoax; and possibly some kind of stealth attack page, given that it seeks to apparently associate a men's choir in Spain with a fictional castrato. The fact that this appeared in Spanish rather than, say, Italian, where the fellow is supposed to have been active, furthermore suggests that this is an elaborate leg pull. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Assuming good faith, I suspect less of a hoax and more of an attempt by a member or fan of said choral group to try to explain the significance of the group's name. Nevertheless, without any valid sources, it should be deleted. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That might be as well. There's a nice version of Beati mortui on that website to download, at any rate. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even without the middle name, the 2 Gbooks hits seem to be someone else. Unverifiable at best. Edward321 (talk) 13:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 11:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of San Diego Padres no-hitters[edit]

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

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

Mainly for several reasons. First, there are no lists here; that is, neither the New York Mets nor the San Diego Padres have ever thrown no-hitters in either of their franchise histories. These two lists - both of which, as well as other similar lists, were created with boilerplate headings and sections (I'll question the validity of the other ones later) - can be basically summed up in one sentence, which is what I stated above. To that end, it makes no sense to have a list article without a list. Moreover, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so we should not have empty lists on the presumption that either team may in the future get a no-hitter. Lastly, this acts to confuse and mislead readers into reading a list in an attempt to find a list of no-hitters that team was gotten, only to find nothing. –MuZemike 19:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —–MuZemike 19:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —–MuZemike 19:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(before I could transclude this to the deletion sorting pages) The creator does not object to the deletion of either list, as indicated here. –MuZemike 19:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I opined that this would happen at Template_talk:Lists_of_no-hitters_by_franchise where I got no response. I'm surprised these lists were actually created. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all It makes no sense to create a team no-hitters list when the team hasn't even thrown one yet.—Chris!_c/t 20:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both The text of these two articles is basically identical fill-in-the-blank "The ______ are a Major League Baseball franchise based in ______. Established in ____, they play in the __________ division. Pitchers for the _____ have thrown __ no-hitters in franchise history. A no-hitter is officially recognized... etc. etc." I don't see the point in any of these articles anyway. There's a sortable table within the excellent List of Major League Baseball no-hitters that will show which teams have had a share of the 269 no-hitters in MLB history (that one could be improved by showing the common link between teams across history the Boston-Milwaukee-Atlanta Braves). Mandsford 20:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both It's a sizable, well-written article with references. ..yet it's a ton of writing that amounts to zero content about a San Diego Padre or New York Met hurling a no-hitter. Zero no-hitters, zero cred for article to remain. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 23:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Neither of those team has ever thrown no-hitters in franchise histories, but I'm pretty sure that Padres and Mets will throw no-hitters in the future, but who knows?, maybe either team may throw their first no-hitter next season. Whenever they do, then we can recreate those articles. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 02:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per other delete recommendations above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- otherwise I'd have to create List of New England Patriots no-hitters, List of Boston Breakers no-hitters, and List of Boston Bruins no-hitters. Ma^t_chups 05:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
20-Mule-Team Delete: For pity's sake ... THIS much detail with THIS many sources about something that has not yet happened and may never happen? This is the type of completionist idiocy that has led to Sudan in the 2006 Winter Olympics and Scouting in the Vatican City type articles. Ravenswing 17:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pretty rediculous idea for a list... -DJSasso (talk) 15:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. arguably speedy delete under CSD A3 - no content. I will say, though, that if these articles are deleted, I will miss them greatly. Still, they don't even qualify as articles. harej 19:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to empty set. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per harej, this fails under CSD A3 - It has no content, and frankly, it's a ridiculous idea for a list in the first place. Bin it. Barking Fish 01:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I disagree. There is plenty of content. Pointless, trivial, and nonnotable as it may be, there is content. Ma^t_chups 01:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect both to empty set per Newyorkbrad. I think that is a cleverer solution than deleting. Rlendog (talk) 21:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, 20 mule team deleting is more clever than that, and, like the borax, more effective. Yeah, redirect to empty set, I get it. QSMAO-- quietly smiling and saying "bravo" even more quietly. Mandsford 19:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sensual Meditation[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTE, lack of significant secondary source coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject. The vast majority of the article is cited only to primary sources. There is a most inappropriate subsection called "notability" within the article itself, which purports to put forth smatterings of brief mentions from a few sources. See also relevant prior AFDS, including Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Honorary Guides of the Raëlian Movement, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raëlian Embassy for Extraterrestrials, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raëlian Church membership estimates. -- Cirt (talk) 19:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC) -- Cirt (talk) 19:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural delete. There should be a PROD category that goes something like "should have been bundled with previous AfDs". ScienceApologist (talk) 20:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If anyone is interested in what a merged article will look like see User:Kmarinas86/Raëlism.Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) ^{19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86} 15:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While this apparently at best barely-discussed topic could have been included in previous discussions, I think we can reasonably give the nominator the benefit of the doubt in perhaps reviewing the available sources for each article individually. I would also advise that any attempts to make substantial changes to the main Raelism article based on the deletion of these pages be not made until and unless other individuals agree to the proposed changes. The Raelism article is currently at GA, and, however committed certain editors might be to material regarding that movement, the article might, potentially, be placed under GA review if the material is unbalanced in the eyes of others. Also, WP:OWN indicates that no one editor should feel he has the right to make changes to such a good article based on their own opinions. I think it would make most sense to propose changes to that article on the talk page first, and only make them after a clear consensus for such changes is established. John Carter (talk) 19:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lowestoft Albion[edit]

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

PROD contested by author. New team in a very, very low division. Not notable. Courcelles 19:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The fact that even the league doesn't have a wiki article doesn't bode well. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 23:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete local parks league team, miles below the generally accepted notability cut-off (eligibility to enter the FA Cup) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly non-notable low-level team. Giant Snowman 14:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Good effort, and I hope the creator sticks around, but no sign of meeting the notability guidelines. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomadic user[edit]

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

This article is pretty obviously WP:OR, and the author appears to have cited his own MSc thesis as a source (I removed that). Guy (Help!) 16:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with the reason for deletion. Article appears to center around the thesis, which would make it WP:OR.--NavyBlue84 17:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR, or failing that as not being notable per WP:N. The sources linked are largely authored by a single individual, which raises concerns about their independence, reliability, and plurality. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The nomadic user is a direct consequence of ubiquitous computing. It's unclear to me how well established research into the namodic user is, so I am neutral for now. -- Whpq (talk) 20:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DAFT and Speedy delete. This article is a joke. --Nat682 (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This is far from a joke. What speedy deletion criteria do you think this meets? -- Whpq (talk) 19:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to DAB. As I mention before, the "nomadic user" identified in this article is a direct consequence of ubiquitous computing, and is being researched in that context. For example, [3] is about such a nomadic user. However, nomadic user is also used to identify somebody who uses mobile computing: see [4]. After poking around, I am not convinced that "nomadic user" in the current article's sense is sufficiently differentiated from the topic of ubiquitous computing to make a good separate article. Combined with the fact that the same term is used to denote a mobile computing user, I suggest the page be turned into a disambiguation page with links to ubiquitous computing and mobile computing. -- Whpq (talk) 19:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christian mysticism, Theosophy and Freemasonary[edit]

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

Contested prod. Clearly original research dealing with the author's synthesis of how four vaguely similar kinds of Christian mysticism are all inter-related, with the obligatory nod at the Greeks, Chaldeans and Yogis. The Jesuits get a look in too. andy (talk) 16:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 16:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I previously suggested a merge on the article talk page to Theosophy, however I am uncertain if there truely is any content here that would benefit that article. This is a user essay failing WP:SYNTH. Fæ (talk) 16:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I considered a merge but couldn't see any worthwhile way of doing it. The material is too contaminated with POV. andy (talk) 16:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as yet another attempt by this author to push his own POV by synthesizing new conclusions from disparate sources. (See WP:Articles for deletion/Differences between Christian mysticism and Evangelical mysticism. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not just a personal POV. See: Ancient roots
Some modern scholars believe that in the early stages of Christianity a nucleus of oral teachings were inherited from Palestinian and Hellenistic Judaism which formed the basis of a secret oral tradition, which in the 4th century came to be called the disciplina arcani. [Frommann, "De Disciplina Arcani in vetere Ecclesia christiana obticuisse fertur", Jena 1833.] G.G. Stroumsa, "Hidden Wisdom: Esoteric Traditions and the Roots of Christian Mysticism", 2005.] [E. Hatch, "The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages upon the Christian Church", London, 1890, Chapter 10.] Important influences on Esoteric Christianity are the Christian theologians Clement of Alexandria and Origen, the main figures of the Catechetical School of Alexandria. [Jean Danielou, "Origen", translated by Walter Mitchell, 1955.]
Early modern esotericism:
In the later Middle Ages forms of Western esotericism, for example alchemy and astrology, were constructed on Christian foundations, combining Christian theology and doctrines with esoteric concepts. [Antoine Faivre, "L'ésotérisme", Paris, PUF (« Que sais-je?»), 1992.]
In the 17th century this was followed up by the development of Theosophy and Rosicrucianism. [Weber, Charles, " Rosicrucianism and Christianity " in Rays from the Rose Cross, 1995] The Behmenist movements also developed around this time. In the 18th century, Freemasonry came about.""
Directly as per encyclopedian article : http://en.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/1008906 —Preceding unsigned comment added by WalkingInTheLight2 (talk • contribs) 04:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You appear to be summarizing your hypothesis supported by a synthesis of sources rather than putting forward a reason to keep. If you wish to make a point, brevity and pithy tends to work best in AFDs as few people will spend time working through complex arguments. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 09:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note that the "encyclopedian article" there is just our Esoteric Christianity article. Uncle G (talk) 20:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Fæ. Edward321 (talk) 13:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there are reliable sources that has shown the link between the 3 seperate movements. It is thus not original research. I adjusted the article to make this point clearer. Apart from this, the article has value to those involved in Christian mysticism, and unaware of its relationship with Theosophy and Freemasonary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WalkingInTheLight2 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda tan sock hua[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 15:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Promotional from beginning to end: ....a business coach and entrepreneur living in Singapore and expert on team management, leadership and organizational culture, and development .... Being dynamic, confident and driven to succeed in life, Brenda believe in 3 major investments, namely reading self-improvement books, attending courses and having a good coach. She have multiple coaches for my business, fitness and personal interests such as competitive ballroom dancing and meditation. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:N WP:BIO etc... and is pretty much a WP:RESUME - Pmedema (talk) 22:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - bollocks and puffery, lacking any verifiability. Bearian (talk) 22:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 01:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Davis-Cates[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP of an individual that seems to fail WP:MANOTE. The external links are for her eulogy, scholarship fund, and memorial--these all fail WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Article has been tagged for a lack of notability for over a year and a half and there still are no sources or real indications of notability. When this article was discussed at the June 30, 2010 martial arts article review, no support was given for keeping it. Astudent0 (talk) 15:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Astudent0 (talk) 15:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article has problems due to lack of references. The person described in this article (if the claims are true) is notable. I do not believe that deleting an article is a solution to fixing an article lacking references: this article is fixable. jmcw (talk) 16:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. The cornerstone of Wikipedia is verifiability, which means there must be reliable sources. Also, what claims in the article showed notability to you? High ranks alone don't show notability or everyone who's ever created their own system would have an article.Astudent0 (talk) 16:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - See Wikipedia:Wikilawyering Practice 3: 'Asserting that the technical interpretation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express;'.
    - Have the people here read this article? This is not about someone running a dojo in their garage; it is about someone who is purported to have performed much public service. jmcw (talk) 19:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Have you read the reliable, independent sources confirming all those assertions? If you have, would you mind sharing them with us so that any degree of notability could be established? Presuming that it can be, of course, because there's nothing at all notable - as Wikipedia defines it - about helping out with Special Olympics, conducting self-defense clinics, doing demonstrations at pep rallies and all the other "public service" you infer from the article. Ravenswing 20:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Presuming the claims are true - and that's a large "if" - so what? American martial arts dojos hand out Umpteenth Dan Black-and-Blue Belts of Sublime Ineffable Mastery like candy bars on Halloween. A claim of notability is just that - a "claim" - without reliable sources to back it up. There's no evidence of the same, nor evidence this subject passes the GNG. A Google search turned up nothing but blogs, Wiki mirrors and dojo websites. There are zero hits on Google News. Ravenswing 18:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While a black belt is a laudable achievement, there is no significant coverage about her in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 20:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources support notability. The article says she's notable because she was the highest ranked woman in an art with 3000 practioners, but I'd say that's less notable than being the mayor of a town and they fail WP:N. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 23:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found no reliable sources that show she's notable, nor do I see any achievements in the article that show notability. The community service mentioned in the article is typical of all the martial arts schools I've been involved with. Jmcw, I don't understand why wanting reliable sources is "wikilawyering". Papaursa (talk) 21:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wanting reliable sources for every article is a goal of Wikipedia. Deleting articles because they have no reliable source is (IMO) wikilawyering or gaming the system. The art of wikipedia lies in differentiating between topics that have not yet reliable sources and those with high improbability of having reliable sources. In this case, we have several references that are not strong enough: I do not find it higly improbable that they exist. I believe that articles in this gray zone should be appropriately tagged (to warn readers) and allowed to exist. jmcw (talk) 08:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but it is in direct conflict with WP:V, which holds, "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it" and "All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source," as well as including this quote from Jimbo: "'I really want to encourage a much stronger culture which says: it is better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources.'" This is far from "wikilawyering;" it is obeying the fundamental content policy of Wikipedia. If you disagree with it, your only recourse is to hit the WP:V talk page and see if you can get consensus around making it optional. Ravenswing 14:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - What unreliable sources do you believe hint at there being reliable sources to be found that can establish notability? Of the references provided, there is only one with a working link for me, and that's the USADojo obituary. But based on the URLs for the dead links, it is quite clear that these items are far from independent of the subject. My own search did not turn up much of anything beyond automated aggregation sites, so I see no hint that sources are out there. -- Whpq (talk) 15:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Ateneo de Manila University people. I'm going to turn it into a re-direct for now, to make it easier to merge any sourced and relevant material. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Atenean[edit]

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

Not encyclopedic IMHO, and unsourced Melaen (talk) 18:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Added sources. Better? Object404 (talk) 14:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Term might not mean much to you, but it carries weight in the Philippines. Article is a stub. Expanded it a little. Do not delete article. Object404 (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 15:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong redirect to List of Ateneo de Manila University people and merge salvageable content to Ateneo de Manila University#University traditions. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 15:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Atenean/Atenista goes beyond Ateneo do Manila as there are many Ateneo schools. Contents do not fit in either article.Object404 (talk) 07:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then why does the article treat it as exclusively Ateneo de Manila term, with the token passage of the other Ateneo schools? –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 13:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a stub. It was just started and is in need of content. -Object404 (talk) 17:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is a stub, but the info should still go to the respective "Ateneo de ____ University" articles. Currently the article is about sports which is covered in the Ateneo Blue Eagles article, "subculture" which should go to the "University life" of the main ADMU article, and the sports rivalry with La Salle which is covered in the Ateneo-La Salle rivalry article. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the contents of List of Ateneo de Manila University people is wrong. That term connotes members of faculty, staff and people who are part of the administration/infrastructure, whereas Atenean clearly means students and alumni. Creating List of Notable Ateneans and moving some content there. Thanks for the link to the Ateneo-La Salle rivalry article. I didn't know it existed. Adding the link to the article.

No. it is not wrong. That list is meant to include all persons associated with ADMU. No need for a separate list of alumni article. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 18:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, as a Filipino, "Ateneo de Manila Person" sounds completely different from "Atenean". "Ateneo de Manila Person" sounds like faculty/administration/staff. Nobody says "Ateneo de Manila Person" when referring to Ateneans. They say "Atenean". Same thing if you say "De La Salle University Person" or "University of Santo Tomas Person". No one ever says those terms when you talk about students or Alumni. You say La Sallian/La Sallite or Thomasian. If you say "_Name_of_University_ Person/People", it clearly sounds like faculty/administration/staff. I think the confusion here is that you're trying to apply American university conventions, and in those cases it makes sense because there are tons of Universities/Colleges in America's 50 states so it's hard to pin a term on those students/alumni, whereas there are only a few major universities in the Philippines and the terms for their students/alumni have entered the language and have different meanings/attributes tacked onto them by society. Object404 (talk) 14:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, as a Filipino who is not an Atenean, "Atenean" means anyone associated from any of the Ateneo schools. Apparently, a Lasallian is different from a Lasallite, so are going to have two separate articles for those? American universities do have terms for anyone associated with it: Indiana University are Hoosiers, USC are Trojans. Although these are not derived from the actual names of the schools themselves, they each have their own culture, how the students ought to behave and their own vision/mission. There's no difference is essence between being a Hoosier and being an Atenean in ADMU. Now if the Ateneans in Quezon City and Davao City have exactly the same Arrneow accent, the same culture, etc. as what has been argued here, and there are third-party references for that, then the article should be kept. If not, and is ultimately the case, then this should be deleted. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 16:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Again, Atenean goes beyond AdMU and to duplicate the contents of "Atenean" onto every entry of each Ateneo school would not be appropriate. Article currently only has that bit about sports as it's a new article and there aren't enough contributors adding content to it yet.-Object404 (talk) 16:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd assume being an "Atenean" will be different on the different Ateneo schools just as being a UP student from University of the Philippines Diliman as compared to being a UP student from University of the Philippines Visayas. No duplication there. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 18:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, there are commonalities that bond all Ateneans together. There are standards that Ateneans are expected to uphold, drilled throughout from grade school to college. They are the same throughout the country -Object404 (talk) 14:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an assertion that you have yet to prove. Rmcsamson (talk) 06:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are differences between the Ateneo schools throughout the country just like with any school that has many branches as HTD mentioned, but there are common standards & values shared by all of them that make them all Ateneans (sorry for the recursive definition). Can we not make this personal? Your last statement is starting to turn this into a PinoyExchange forum-type discussion. -Object404 (talk) 07:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then tell us what these "commonalities" and "differences" are. And once you have, it may be necessary to distinguish between kinds/subclasses/variations of Ateneans, which will only underscore the fact that the definition used for this article is problematic, in addition to not being up to par as regards the Wikipedia standards of notability and so forth raised earlier. The definition you have raised is recursive, and that is just one of the problems about this article and this discussion. And please, this is hardly being personal. I am simply pointing out what you have failed to establish as the principal proponent of this article's continued existence. Rmcsamson (talk) 22:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does Aquilino Pimentel (Ateneo de Cagayan/Xavier) have the Arrneow accent? Shouldn't all people, no matter what their allegiance is, follow what an Atenean is supposed to be? (Translation: Ateneans don't exclusively possess on how an "Atenean" should be like.) –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 16:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. - My principal objection to the article is that the subject matter of the article is in itself not notable, or is at least something that does not meet the standards set in WP:N and WP:NOT. Individual Ateneans are notable, but the term is in and by itself not notable. As pointed out by Howard the Duck, one solution might be a redirect to lists of notable people from the respective universities, or taking the salvageable content, assuming any can be salvaged and properly sourced, and placing it in the respective articles. But that solution doesn't address my objections, and the objections raised by Melaen. This is why even after extensive editing, articles such as the Ateneo de Manila University article do not even cover the subject matter of what Ateneo people are called, because that matter is irrelevant and unnecessary. I also have a problem with how the article has been currently developed, which is to throw possibly popular but ultimately unsourced trivia together (the bits about the jokes, etc.), as well as the obvious slant in relation to Ateneo de Manila University. Rmcsamson (talk) 06:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Expanded the article a little and added some sourcings (by no means exhaustive). There is a slant towards AdMU because only one person has been updating the article so far. Edited the article further, added some citations. Is it better? You guys will have to pardon the slow pace as I have limited time to contribute edits. Object404 (talk) 14:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been expanded, but it still fails when set against the standards of WP:N and WP:NOT, since the subject matter and the content are irrelevant and non-notable, and therefore have no place in an encyclopedia. As crafted, all this article has is a random smattering of "popular" and yet ultimately unreliable information. It also fails the standard of WP:NPOV. My position that the article should be deleted has not changed.Rmcsamson (talk) 05:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then help improve the article. Just because its current form is not up to standards yet doesn't mean that it should be deleted. The term is significant enough to have entered the Filipino language and carries weight in Filipino culture & society, same as "taga-UP", "la sallista", etc. Those terms are significant enough to have the equivalent weight and connotations in the Philippines as Ivy League does in America.

My position has been to delete the article. I see no use in trying to salvage an article that fails to meet the standards raised, particularly those with regard to notabilty. Rmcsamson (talk) 22:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged the article to further enumerate some of the problems. There are too many specific instances of the occurrences of these problems to mention. However, it remains my position that even if this article is edited, it will still fail the guidelines for notability. Hence, it is still my vote to DELETE this article.Rmcsamson (talk) 06:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tags. The fact remains that the term is a significant topic of interest in the Philippine society, psyche & culture and merits its own article. Again, since there are a number Ateneo schools that produce notable Ateneans, it would be better to have a single List of Notable Ateneans article than to list all those Ateneans in each individual Ateneo school article.

The term "Atenean" is in and by itself notable? By what standard? According to whom? This is precisely the objection that no amount of embellishment will address. Rmcsamson (talk) 22:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately, the "fact" that it is a significant topic, it can still be merged somewhere such as on the "University Life" section of the ADMU article.
Scrutinizing the references, we'd see the Ref #1 is not a valid reference. It must be a third-party reference, same for Refs #4, 5, 6. Ref #2 uses the term "Atenean" in passing and doesn't explain what it is -- it just used it as a placeholder for "People who studied at Ateneo," same for ref #3. Some references (and I dunno if they can even pass WP:RS, some are blogs, PinoyExchange is even cited!) do not even mention the word "Atenean"! Majority of the references are about Ateneans, not what an "Atenean" is. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 16:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - At this point, it may be necessary to ask for intervention from an administrator. Rmcsamson (talk) 22:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen AFDs like this were the creator is the only one in favor of keeping so the fate of the article is pretty clear now. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 02:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys. Consider the concept of La Sallian vs La Sallite: PEx link 1, PEx link 2, blog post talking about it a little, La Sallian guiding principles. The definition I posted was just an arbitrary thing I came up with that might be wrong, so there's probably a difference between an "Ateneo person" and "Atenean" or a plain student/alumni (is a student who was expelled considered an Atenean?). Current definition is rather simplistic as there are ideals an Atenean must aspire to. Consider the article written & published at the Philippine Post by respected columnist & Ateneo-UP-MIT alumnus Larry Henares back in '99: Raul Manglapus, The quintessential Atenean (reposted on a blog - sorry, it's a rather opinionated example and a bit belittling of the other institutions, but that was just a result of quick Googling).

I've contacted a member of the Ateneo administration to clarify the definition of Atenean so let's hold off until we get the official definition. Yes, I suggest a wikipedia administrator step in as the discussions here have been extremely unbalanced - it's just the three of us talking. Can you guys hold off on the *DELETE* screams until the matter is more thoroughly and rationally discussed by a much larger group as well as the proper authorities? It's rather unfair that this matter becomes the sole discretion of a few individuals. Moreover, you guys haven't given the article the chance to organically shape into the proper format + proper citations & balance it out with content relating to the other Ateneo schools outside of Manila. It's extremely new and as I'm the only person updating it right now (with limited time on my hands), it's going to take time to fix it.
-Object404 (talk) 09:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which pretty much confirms that there are no sources that'll pass WP:RS for any of these terms. Pinoyexchange? A blog? The Ateneo's official website? The Ateneo administrator? The first three fail WP:RS, the last one is worse -- see WP:OR. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 12:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about Pinoy Exchange (a bit of lazy Googling on my part), but isn't the last part of your statement like saying Americans can't be allowed to write about Americans/America on Wikipedia or that Filipinos can't write about Filipinos/the Philippines? Ateneo and other major Philippine universities are respected academic institutions and publishers. They produce scholarly material and fall under reliable sources. They are different from WP:SPS and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Avoid_self-published_sources. -Object404 (talk) 16:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, the Ateneo website is not a scholarly journal. Hence, we can not use that as a reliable source (we can't even use that as a neutral source). Same for blogs, and even valid articles that pass WP:RS with flying colors when it doesn't discuss the matter on hand. I've checked several references and they all deal with the word "Atenean" in passing. For example, we can't use an article as a reference to "Filipino people" on an article solely about Jose Rizal w/o discussion who the Filipino people are. No one's stopping you on editing the Rizal article using books published by Ateneo. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 17:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we agree leave this at Wikipedia policy:Lack of neutrality is not a reason for deleting an article for now and lay off the deletion trigger-happiness until the matter is discussed throughly by a more significant number of people? Our current discussion is pointless as it's just us 3 individuals stating personal opinions. Thanks. -Object404 (talk) 17:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We're not even arguing WP:NPOV on this one. It's mostly on WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:NOT. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 17:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is my position that the article as put together violates WP:NPOV. This is one of the problems, aside from incompatibility with WP:RS, WP:N, and WP:NOT. And with the same unanswered points above (none of them have been answered), my position is still delete.Rmcsamson (talk) 03:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact remains, no single Ateneo school has exclusive claim to the term Atenean. To say that members of the other Ateneo schools in the rest of the country are not Ateneans would be an insult and it would be wrong to simply redirect the entry to the Manila campuses. Please read this piece about the late Sen. Raul Roco and note the value Naga alumni place on the concept of being an Atenean - In Loving Memory of a Great Atenean - Raul S. Roco, 1941-2005.

As for WP:NPOV, current wording of the article is currently skewed, but it can be fixed by other editors. WP:NPOV is not a reason for Wikipedia article deletion. Thanks. -Object404 (talk) 09:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While it may very well be that all students of the different Ateneos in the Philippines are all called Ateneans, that does not address the problems raised earlier, namely that the term "Atenean" in and by itself has yet to have its notabilty established, especially in a manner that does not fail WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:NOT, among other concerns. And it will be better to improve lists of people for the different Ateneo campuses instead of insisting on this problematic article. Rmcsamson (talk) 19:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge sourced content to List of Ateneo de Manila University people; no need for two lists about substantially the same topic. Sandstein 07:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. We can merge the sourced content and edit it for suitable use in the List of Ateneo de Manila University people article as well as the equivalent articles of the other Ateneo schools, and then delete this one.Rmcsamson (talk) 08:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge ditto. Sourced content to List of Ateneo de Manila University people; no need for two lists about substantially the same topic. Also, a first problem with the article (and the target article) is intermixing those who has been given an honorary degree with students and alumnus. That typically is not done in Wikipedia. For those interested in keeping the Atenean article, you may want to look over honorary degree as it is used in:

-- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as it is well-sourced, or merge if that is the consensus. Bearian (talk) 21:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brandun DeShay[edit]

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

Procedural AFD. I've just declined a speedy on this as I think he just scrapes through A7, but I'm not convinced this actually is worth keeping. Procedural nom so I abstain. – iridescent 19:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. As far as I can tell, only one of the cited refs provides the kind of coverage that contributes to notability, the urb.com cite. Some of the others verify a producer credit on a work, but only as a passing mention, and others only verify the existence of the work without verifying that DeShay had anything to do with it. Would need at least one more notability-contributing cite (per WP:GNG, significant independent secondary coverage in a reliable source) to establish notability. —chaos5023 (talk) 03:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. More citations have been added since the AfD was created, and between the lot I think it's clear that the subject is at least marginally notable. —chaos5023 (talk) 16:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly feel this is a classic case of Ephemera. Glorified artist with references mainly from blogs. No true notability. However my delete nomination is to abstain. – Osatmusic (talk) 03:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)2010 November 22[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)2010 November 22[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 15:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 20:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fatih Sözen[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has never played in a fully pro league. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 17:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep was topscorer in the Luxembourg top division. Eldumpo (talk) 11:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How does this make him notable? There is no guideline that states the top goalscorers are notable, and he stills fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. J Mo 101 (talk) 16:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)2010 November 22[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as he fails both WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. --Carioca (talk) 21:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 20:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hamilton Island Triathlon[edit]

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

Failed PROD. Article does not meet general notability guidelines as well as guidelines presented in WP:NSPORT and WP:EVENT Barkeep^{Chat | $} 14:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)2010 November 22[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NSPORT and WP:EVENT. a relatively small event that does not warrant a WP article. LibStar (talk) 13:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Airports with Full Body Scanners[edit]

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

This article was originally "prod"ed with the reason given as "Non-useful list. Given the state of the full body scanner controversy in the United States, these scanners will eventually either go away or become ubiquitous." Prod removed by an IP editor with no other history of edits. So, we'll let the AFD process run. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Until all airports worldwide either install or abandon this technology, this list is one of the more useful lists for those of us with Tin foil hats. In the absence of a policy based reason for deletion I can only conclude it should be kept, wikified and expanded to airports worldwide. Yoenit (talk) 13:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This strikes me as a rather pointy reason to keep an article. We are constructing an encyclopedia here, not an airport watchdog list. Tarc (talk) 14:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The major problem I see with this list is whether it can be maintained. It's a great resource, drawn from a USA Today article, and I've added the link into the article full body scanner. It's current as of November 20 and shows a TSA list of 68 airports in the U.S. that have the scanners. The 69th, 70th, 71st are going to be less certain. I suppose that someone could make a regular search of the news to find a local news article that says that the airport has added a scanner, along with the predictable "what-did-you-think?" interviews with people who have made the "scans or hands" choice. Whether someone could do a regular update doesn't mean that someone would. Mandsford 14:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We will never know if it can be maintained if it is deleted now. Why would no list be better than an incomplete list? We can always add {{outdated}} to warn users. Yoenit (talk) 14:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Mainly on WP:NOTDIRECTORY grounds. An online encyclopedia is not a venue to make policy/ideological stances like this. While the subject of controversial body scans is certainly notable, an article simply listing the airports that conduct such searches is not. The link to the USA Today article would be perfect for the external links section of the appropriate article on the subject. Tarc (talk) 14:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- your assertion that such a list is not notable is contradicted by the fact that the USA today , Jaunted [5], The Consumerist [6], Gizmodo [7] and CNN travel [8] all have articles containing a list of body scanners. There are also several articles who link to the official government list of bodyscanners in air ports. I also don't see any "ideological stances" being taken, or which part of wp:NOTDIR applies here, so would you be so kind to clarify that? Yoenit (talk) 16:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - No amount of sourcing is going to make a laundry list of airports into anything but a simplistic directory. Just because said screening is controversial and notable does not mean that the collective airports are notable for performing them. There's just no need for this information to be in an encyclopedia article, other than as an external link. Tarc (talk) 16:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to full body scanner. Everyone has their own idea of what "ought to be" in an encyclopedia, and sometimes those feelings run strong. I believe that this is certainly something that people would consult an encyclopedia to learn about. The issue is whether it merits an article of its own, rather than being placed or linked within an existing page. If not kept here, it should be kept somewhere; I think that a merge consensus would be more likely to keep the info or link from being edited out. Mandsford 17:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree completely with the prodder ... this is like a List of stores stocking the hot new album by That Guy. Thousands of these devices are on order, and maintaining this list to anywhere remotely close to accuracy will be next to impossible. For my money, by the bye, if I want to know if my local airport has these scanners, I'm about a hundred times less likely to decide that Wikipedia must have accurate information on it as call the damn airport. Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Ravenswing 18:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and a current list is already in the external link section of the full body scanner article. MilborneOne (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; unmaintainable list. If some reliable source ever manages to maintain an up-to-date list of airports using full body scanners, it would be.a great EL in the full body scanner article. bobrayner (talk) 15:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thein Myint[edit]

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

Not very many reliable sources to confirm. I checked google and could not find anything. Sillytimmy1 (talk) 17:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 15:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The source linked in the article confirms participation in three Olympics, passing WP:ATHLETE, and this confirms the Asian Games gold medal. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Olympic athlete in 3 Olyympic games as noted in the source. -- Whpq (talk) 20:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy Williams[edit]

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

Notability outside of groups not established. Google search did not help the cause either. Fixer23 (talk) 05:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know some editors may feel that she is part of two notable bands and thus her article should stay, but I plan to nominate those group articles for deletion in the near future as they do not seem to be notable either. Also, this article is not likely to ever be expanded (at least in the foreseeable future).Fixer23 (talk) 05:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I made this, back when I had high hopes for Wikipedia. But, let's face it, Wikipedia is a failure. Nobody is going to edit this again, except maybe to vandalize it. Fewer people are editing Wikipedia all the time. And if it is vandalized, nobody will bother doing anything to fix it. Please feel free to go through my contributions and delete anything else you wish. I won't bother debating notability, because nobody knows what that means. It is whatever a few people who show up at AFDs think it is, and then the random admin shows up,and makes a decision based on whatever they feel like. On a side note, the nominator has removed most of the small content of the article with the verbose description of "cleanup". I only mention that, to illustrate what a failure this place is, and what will be normal editing for an article like this. I know the article doesn't live up to current BLP requirements, but those requirements keep changing, and people make an article at one point,to have it fail future requirements. But, nobody is going to go back and fix all the old articles. So, to trash it is. --Rob (talk) 05:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you need to take all this less personally. Notability of group members differs from solo artists. Sarcastically remarking on my cleanup isn't going to help you and you're case of the failure of wikipedia. I removed all information that pertains to the group to illustrate that the subject has not done anything outside of the group. If that is information is grounds for an article why don't all of the members of PYT have an article? If you made an article that is of questionable notability then (as I'm sure it was), of course it's going to be deleted in the future. There's no point in having so many articles of individuals that are not likely to rise to notability and whose articles are likely to remain as stubs even after they "retire". Chill.Fixer23 (talk) 08:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem unfamiliar with the meaning of the term "sarcastic". I'm actually quite fine with deletion, and might even do a mass PRODing and/or nomination of other articles I made, if I find an efficient way of doing so (though I hope others will simply do it for me). You keep arguing for against a non-existant position. Notice how I didn't put back the content your removed. If I cared for it, I obviously would have. I figure you've obviously gotten invested enough in this, that you'll do me a favour and remove many other articles, that I now see no use for. --Rob (talk) 12:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're telling me describing one word as "verbose" isn't sarcasm? Anyway, I'm confused as to why you are upset over the "demise" of wikipedia and its everchanging polices when you agree that such articles have no use. You could have just supported without interjecting your own take on why wikipedia is dying which in this case you feel doesn't even have to do with the nomination. You brought it up.Fixer23 (talk) 22:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 15:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep - pointy cleanup and nomination. Being a member of a notable musical group is one of the factors of artistic notability. Bearian (talk) 19:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the policy you cited, the artist has to have done things of note outside of their band, being in one doesn't automatically make them notable.Fixer23 (talk) 10:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Non vote and a comment. I definitely do not agree with the practice of "cleaning up" an article, and then nominating it for deletion, even though it happens all the time...and I'm sure your intentions were good...it just seems like a slippery slope IMO. The Eskimo (talk) 20:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep that in mind next time. I'll just state what I removed so other editors will know. I removed about 3 lines of accomplishments of her first band (not hers, she has no reported notable activity outside of her bands)[9] as someone cited that (the fact that she had been on tour with other notable artists as part of the band) as grounds for keep. Just trying to highlight the fact that she has not done anything of note as an individual.Fixer23 (talk) 10:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Member of two notable bands. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But both bands' notability are questionable at best.Fixer23 (talk) 10:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say barely notable, not questionable. thats still notable. (others may disagree, currently being tested at AFD, if either close delete, my opinion here is not the consensus so my !vote here would be wrong and should be put aside.) duffbeerforme (talk) 12:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Member of two non-notable bands. Abductive (reasoning) 14:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced BLP and per Abductive. /ƒETCH COMMS / 21:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Whitehaven Beach. Content may be merged at editorial discretion. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whitehaven Beach Ocean Swim[edit]

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

Failed PROD. Article does not meet general notability guidelines as well as guidelines presented in WP:NSPORT and WP:EVENT Barkeep^{Chat | $} 14:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no coverage [10]. LibStar (talk) 03:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge There seems to be enough out there to confirm that this is not a hoax. If it currently seems too slight, it would best to merge to Whitehaven Beach or Ocean swimming which are both substantial topics. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

could you please pick one. if it is keep it must satisfy a notability guideline. LibStar (talk) 13:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both articles link to this one. There is no obvious priority. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I meant out of keep or merge. LibStar (talk) 23:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are here to decide whether to delete the article and its history or not. Both keep and merge are not-delete cases and so equivalent for our purpose here. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)2010 November 22[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Whitehaven Beach, no seperate notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Merge to Whitehaven Beach, a very short article. Abductive (reasoning) 14:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Civilization. Sandstein 07:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

World civilisations[edit]

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

Multiple reasons. 1: All civilisations (at least that I know of) exist in the Earth. Therefore, this title is redundant. 2: It is divided up into POV sections, including "Ancient civilisations" what qualifies as ancient? 3: All the content here is just a summary of seperate articles, and, if not, that content should be on those pages. 4: This uses a different spelling than the main article, civilization, so it should at least be moved, or possibly merged. ☻☻☻Sithman VIII !!☻☻☻ 22:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason given here for deleting the article is not proper.The link (ie, Earth ) given to show that the content exists elsewhere doesnot contain any thing pertaining to the present article. How does the title becomes redundant? Doesnt the article list different civilizations?

The purpose of the article is to give important information regarding the different civilizations and links in a compact form and in one place. Those who might want more info can look at the main articles whose links are given.

Dont you think what is mentioned are civilizations and some are very ancient?

What doesnt constitute summery? Every article is that way only. Because no article in web can give all the info in one place. Also that is quite irrelevant as well, because that is the job of a book. That is why every article is divided into sections with a heading and include only relevent info not otherwise.

The spelling is used differently in different countries and we cannot expect everyone to stick to one particular way. If the spelling is a problem it can be changed or otherwise the article title can be changed to make it more neutral.

If some content is missing, that can be added anytime to make the article look more complete rather than deleating it. Regards27.57.171.187 (talk) 03:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I meant that title is redundant, because all civilizations are "world" civilizations. Also, you couldn't split the sections, they each already have their own articles, and contain no information not already contained in said articles. Also, my personal opinions are irrelevant in an NPOV dispute, as are anybody's. What matters is that it is neutral, which the artificial divisions in this article are not. ☻☻☻Sithman VIII !!☻☻☻ 00:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ancient civilization, but delete the redirect (history merge them) The article seems to be about ancient civilizations, so should be merged there. However the current title is wrong, world civilization =/= ancient civilization, therefore the article histories should be merged and the redirect deleted. Yoenit (talk) 14:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Civilization. It seems like both pages cover the same material in different ways. I also think the list of civilizations is rather redundant, we might as well link to the article directly. Draksis314 (talk) 00:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gemma Scott[edit]

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

Non-notable TV presenter. Subject does not appear to satisfy WP:N or WP:ENT Catfish Jim & the soapdish 12:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I met Gemma the other weekend at the Classic Motorcycle Show where she was presenting their main stage, she has plans to present at Autosport International and Goodwood Festival of Speed. I disagree that she isn't notable and hope that as others provide their input and background this page will build up to quite an indepth profile of her —Preceding unsigned comment added by JulianTurner99 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added career highlights to her page and will try and build up the background section as I get the time too - unless someone else can come along and add in the meantime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JulianTurner99 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 15:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't look particularly notable - just someone doing their job. What she has plans for is of no relevance - see WP:CRYSTAL. I'm not saying she isn't good at what she does, but that she doesn't yet fit our standards for notability. Peridon (talk) 15:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent coverage found with Ghits or Gnews, and presenting a shopping channel and a late-night premium rate quiz line is a long way from significant roles in notable television shows required by WP:ENT. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 23:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I take your points, but unsure of how this compares to someone like Diana Binks who has had much the same exposure. --JulianTurner99 (talk) 09:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Existence of one article doesn't mean another should. That's in a policy somewhere. (Someone'll tell us which...) I agree that she doesn't look in much better case - maybe she'll get tagged too. It happens like that sometimes. Chain reactions, even. Diana does have more references, though. That could be it. Personally, I've not heard of either of them before, but as I don't watch TV (and wouldn't be watching what they work in even if I did) that's not surprising. Peridon (talk) 12:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dons nerd hat WP:OSE and WP:OTHERSTUFF Catfish Jim & the soapdish 13:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete, A7 by User:Od_Mishehu Lenticel ^(talk) 00:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Bomber[edit]

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

As tragic as the events described are, there is no independent notablility asserted for the subject, and searching various news sources fails to uncover anything past trivial coverage. Article fails WP:NOTMEMORIAL Catfish Jim & the soapdish 12:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 15:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under A7. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's My Fish[edit]

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

Prod contested by the page's creator. I can find no substantial coverage in reliable third-party sources to demonstrate that this game meets notability inclusion criteria. The kimby.co.uk source does not reference the game and appears to be a hoax (there is no "kimby challenge cup" golf tournament). Gonzonoir (talk) 12:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At last! Some clear defining rules for WMF (Whats my fish). Please keep it, hoorah for Kimby! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.120.121 (talk) 13:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, WP:MADEUP Catfish Jim & the soapdish 14:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. To my mind, pointless. (That's not a ground for deletion, and nor is 'sad'.) One thing that puzzles me - why is there no alcohol involved? This sort of thing usually involves alcohol. (That's usually the whole point of the game...) Incidentally, the Facebook group seems either to be very recent - or else they're not all that keen on playing it. Only four games listed as completed..... The Kimby reference is just a load of drivel too, and doesn't establish anything worth talking about. Peridon (talk) 14:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now here's a surprise. The drinking version has just appeared in the article. Nice try, but no. Peridon (talk) 14:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Congratulations on pointing out that there is no "Kimby Challenge Cup", but you will notice from the article that the cup mentioned was infact "The Kimby Cup" which is a largely unknown, but very real amateur golf competition which started sometime in the 90s, and is quite well documented on Kimby.co.uk[11], and if I remember correctly was referenced in the 2007 Guinness Book of Records for some record involving the number of golf balls held in one hand. Drivel it is not!. --95.131.110.118 (talk) 14:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone for a Game What's my Fish? --PhilPhil2 (talk) 14:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:MADEUP. WuhWuzDat 14:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Breeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeem? I can confirm that both this game and The Kimby Cup are real, although I doubt very much that is worth anything. The World record mentioned was set by Simon Wake on Aug 20 2005 and appeared in the 2007 book —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.201.24 (talk) 14:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please note Parroting won't get you anywhere. (Not even parrot-fishing...) Proving notability to our standards will. This isn't a head-count - it's based on compliance with policies and evidence. Peridon (talk) 15:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, did you hear the one about the two parrots sitting on a perch? One turns to the other and says, 'Can you smell fish?' Peridon (talk) 15:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of sources anywhere. WP:MADEUP from what I can tell.

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hurt VI[edit]

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

Presumed forthcoming album... tracklisting unknown, title unknown, status as album unknown... fails WP:BALL and, indeed, WP:HAMMER Catfish Jim & the soapdish 12:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I call it WP:CRYSTAL, being of a more poetic nature... Peridon (talk) 14:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 16:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above.Fixer23 (talk) 12:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hamlin Junior[edit]

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

Non-notable baseball player. Appears to fail WP:ATHLETE Catfish Jim & the soapdish 12:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "a former American College baseball player for the Fresno State Bulldogs" but all the statistics are from his High School days, so far as I can see. While 'College' seems to be notable for American athletes, surely High School isn't. (If it is, then can I claim notability for winning a sack race in the juniors, too?) His journalistic career doesn't seem much to be noted either. The paper named appears to be a university paper, and hardly notable. Peridon (talk) 13:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 15:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD A7. --Muboshgu (talk) 03:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Tsovolos[edit]

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

Contested prod. Non-notable footballer who thus far has only played reserve team football. J Mo 101 (talk) 12:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 13:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 15:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 14:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as he fails both WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. --Carioca (talk) 21:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Walshe[edit]

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

Contested prod. Non-notable footballer who thus far has only played reserve team football. J Mo 101 (talk) 12:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, per WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG.DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 13:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 15:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as is the case for almost all footballers who don't play at fully professional level. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 23:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 14:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as he fails both WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. --Carioca (talk) 21:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. While WP:OR is a strong argument, the discussion has addressed various ways in which any OR problems can be addressed editorially without having to delete the whole article. Sandstein 07:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of UK locations with large ethnic minority populations ‎[edit]

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

This article suffers from problems of original research and synthesis. Since official UK national statistics data on ethnicity isn't detailed enough to allow us to know the number of people of, say, Polish ethnicity (see Classification of ethnicity in the United Kingdom), the article instead draws together data from a number of sources. We have no idea whether these sources all use the same definitions and combining them therefore constitutes original research and systhesis. Moreover, the question of what constitutes "large" and an ethnic minority are also not based on a reliable source. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Cordless Larry (talk) 11:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. —Cordless Larry (talk) 11:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see the problems with WP:SYN that the nominator sees. The sources are not being used to formulate any novel arguments. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 14:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Take a look at the Italian communities section as an example. There are six cities listed. Each is of these is referenced with a different source. Some sources, such as this, are for the number of Italian-born people (i.e. regardless of ethnicity), whereas others such as this state the number of people of Italian origin (i.e. regardless of country of birth). So these figure are not comparable, yet they are being used as sources for a single concept - the Italian ethnic minority population. The fact that different sources are being used suggests that the criterion for listing a city is whether statistics are available. If there was a single source for the cities with the largest Italian populations, then the list might be viable, but as it stands this is just a mish-mash of figures with no clear defintions. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that some of the statistics are questionable, but others are from the Office of National Statistics which is about as authoritative as you can get. Statistics such as Italian communities can arguably be deleted or explained in context, but that's a content debate, not a deletion debate. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of the statistics are indeed from the ONS. But as I point out above, these are on country of birth, not ethnicity. The ONS does not publish ethnicity data as detailed as the categories in this article. A list of locations with large foreign-born populations could be based on the ONS data, but not one on ethnic minorities. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, if anything it's the other way round. I quite easily found census information on ethnic background such as this page (admittedly on the London health authority area rather than Greater London), but all the data on country of origin comes from other sources. At the most, this is an argument for removing the categories that relate to country of origin (and even then, it would probably make sense to move that to another article based on nationality). Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 23:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, ethnicity data is available for groups such as Black British, Asian British etc., so we could restrict the article to that. However, we'd still have the problem of defining "large", and because the data is broken down by authority, it might take a lot of work to go through and find which ones have the largest minority populations. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - For that matter, "location" isn't defined either. Is a location a settlement, a local authority, a parish? And given that these locations are likely to vary in size, is large defined in absolute or percentage terms? Cordless Larry (talk) 23:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:IINFO and WP:LSC for having a non-specific inclusion criteria. A "large and/or significant" population is not objectively defined. Further, I agree with Cordless Larry above that the numbers being used in this list are not comparable due the the variety of source definitions being referenced. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 21:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I contributed a great amount of valuable information to this article, I agree that it is a bad idea to mix sources as it means comparing populations can be difficult. I therefore propose that such sections as 'Italian communities' which have varied sources should be removed however groups such as Indians, Pakistanis and Ghanaians be kept due to the figures being comparable and from one source. Stevvvv4444 (talk) 18:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I could agree with keeping groups that are detailed in ONS statistics, which includes Indians and Pakistanis, but Ghanaians are not one of those groups. The available data source for Ghanaians is different to that for Indians and Pakistanis. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Publicity Guaranteed[edit]

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

Subsidiary company which managed to get in the news in 2007 for publicly shaming a client into paying an outstanding debt. Other than that one mention - originally brought about by a press release from the company, I can't find many reliable sources indicating the subject's notability. There's also a clear problem of COI and paid editing which, although (eventually) declared by User:Eclipsed (only after he was offered a full-time job with the parent company), is a serious concern. I have also blocked the creator of the article as a single purpose advertising-only account. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 11:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no inherent notability to distinguish this company from many similar organisations. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary coverage outside that one incident, which is not enough to meet WP:CORP. January ^(talk) 18:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP with most mentions appearing to be rehashes of news releases by the company. Johnuniq (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the CEO of this entity, I agree that the article shall be deleted. Although there are several other media reviews of Publicity Guaranteed, it does not rise to "substantial coverage", required by Wikipedia for inclusion of corporate profiles. As it's a small unit of our group and we don't actively promote it, it's unlikely that "substantial coverage" will develop. AKonanykhin (talk) 13:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - because it doesn't really meet requirements of WP:CORP. Currently only has reliable sources for 1 incident related to the company, but nothing else to denote real notability. Eclipsed (talk) (code of ethics) 14:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of top-rated TV shows in the Philippines[edit]

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

Possible hoax, no reliable source from reliable survey company. The only source cited is a web blog. — JL 09 ^{talk (site)}_contribs 10:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete poorly sourced. I could not locate sources, but I am not well-versed in Philippines searches. I am concerned that this list is apt to grow out of date quickly, and Wikipedia does not have sufficient volunteers to maintain it. Racepacket (talk) 11:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless better sources are found. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Webhat/Asynchronous follow[edit]

The result was Delete: Creator requested deletion, I tagged G7 and user:Beeblebrox deleted the page while I was typing my reply below. For some reason he also deleted the AFD itself under G6, which seems a bit unorthodox, so I recreated and closed (wp:NAC) Yoenit (talk) 11:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Was a placeholder under my page where I created the article. It can be deleted. Webhat (talk) 09:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under G7 "Author requests deletion". Please note you put this in the wrong place (mainspace instead of userspace). If you want to create a subpage for an article draft put it it at user:Webhat/"articlename" or use Help:Userspace draft. Yoenit (talk) 11:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Major Dr. Shah Nawaz Khan[edit]

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

Non-notable biography lacking in reliable sources per WP:MILMOS/N and WP:RS. Anotherclown (talk) 08:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Anotherclown (talk) 08:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - was contested prod. Anotherclown (talk) 08:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nominator, I don't believe this meets the requirements for significant coverage in reliable sources. If kept, though, the article needs quite a bit of work to bring it into line with WP:MOS and WP:NPOV. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 15:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I note that some editors above have said that the subject lacks coverage in reliable sources. Could they please say what they found lacking when they checked the five sources listed in the "references" section of the article? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Certainly. The bulk of the references appear to be passing mentions in newspapers during the period of his life. The requirement is for 'significant independent coverage' which would suggest to me that there needs to be coverage in serious secondary or even tertiary sources (i.e. books). Also many of the 'sources' and external links which have been added are also just passing mentions (see the google book entries for instance) or links to articles the subject wrote. IMO none of these indicate notability per our standards. Equally the majority of the text is completely uncited and reads like it was written by a member of his family, and as such most of it isn't verifiable either. Anotherclown (talk) 20:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - For clarity could you please say whether you base the statement that "the bulk of the references appear to be passing mentions" on reading the sources or on guesswork? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've made my case, now you make yours. Anotherclown (talk) 08:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is going to be tricky to source. Shah Nawaz Khan isn't an uncommon name. We have articles for four individuals with such a name. Unless a definitive source about this man in particular can be found, I don't think this can be kept. The article itself is a mess, far out of line with WP:NPOV: illustrious son... a famous companion of the promised messiah... married to a very noble soul. To me this reads like a memorial, and likely needs to scrapped completely since much of the article reads like a family history. AniMate 12:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy otherwise Delete As per comments above, in its present state the article requires significant editing to reach WP:NPOV and verify WP:N; further it will probably be tricky to find WP:RS (in part due to the commonness of the name), although given time, if the subject is notable, it may be possible. So while I don't think the article qualifies for WP:INCUBATOR, I think it may be ok in Userspace to give the creator time to get used to Wikipedia and improve the article. Also it seems like the editor, Drfarid69, has put a reasonable amount of time trying to create the article and I feel confident that there is a chance this article could develop further with the right sources and I don't want to WP:BITE. -- Aeonx (talk) 09:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ivanpah-Pahrump Watershed[edit]

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

One of over 200,000 USGS HUCs that are not all notable. Major watersheds can be notable but the little ones that are not well know do not need an article. This one simply does not meet the notability guidelines. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable HUC. Ivanpah Vally and Pahrump Valley could potentially have individual articles, but no reason to mash them together outside of the USGS classification. Kmusser (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Searchlight Pass[edit]

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

One of over 200,000 USGS HUCs that are not all notable. Most mountain passes are not notable and those that are are well know. This one simply does not meet the notability guidelines. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any source reference about this pass. It isn't even a USGS HUC, it is just a pass or "saddle", according to its page. While I can see that there logically is a low point along a drainage divide near the town of Searchlight, the name "Searchlight Pass" does not turn up anything relevant in Google Books, or elsewhere as far as I can find. There is no GNIS entry for "Searchlight Pass". It does not appear on any map, USGS topo or otherwise, that I can find. Pfly (talk) 22:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete also same reason as Pfly, also unreferenced, and extremely short. Additionally, I have a feeling that this article or something similar has been deleted before. Shannon^talk _contribs 23:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Searchlight Triple Divide Point? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pfly. Kmusser (talk) 17:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stranger (masturbation)[edit]

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

Masturbation technique that doesn't seem to have caught on. A Google search only turns up sites like Urban Dictionary and Yahoo! Answers, and the one reference in the article doesn't even mention the term. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sorry, but I agree that this term is far too new and undocumented per WP:NEO. If someone can find RS, I will reconsider. — Becksguy (talk) 08:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not for things made up one day Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Schofield Pass (Nevada)[edit]

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

One of over 200,000 USGS HUCs that are not all notable. Most mountain passes are not notable and those that are are well know. This one simply does not meet the notability guidelines. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless some notability can be found. As with Searchlight Pass this isn't even a USGS HUC, just a pass. My searching for additional info turned up some info about a Schofield Pass in Colorado, but essentially nothing but this one in Nevada. Pfly (talk) 22:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pfly Kmusser (talk) 17:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. What and how many sources are needed for notability is something that people can in good faith disagree about. Sandstein 07:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Armenia–Denmark relations[edit]

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

neither country has resident embassies, coverage in gnews seems to focus on non resident ambassadors such as [12]. no evidence of significant relations like treaties or major trade deals. yes Denmark gives Armenia foreign aid but so do most Western European countries. LibStar (talk) 06:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep – LibStar (talk · contribs) has clearly not even looked for sources. For instance, this one is entitled "When the Cannons Talk, the Diplomats Must Be Silent": A Danish Diplomat in Constantinople during the Armenian Genocide, and for those who have access to it (and even for those who don't! – though I'm happy to provide copies), it is largely a discussion of this very subject.
I'm just on my way out to work now, but I'm going to try and find further references when I get back later. ╟─Treasury Tag►belonger─╢ 09:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A further article about the history of Danish foreign aid and its links to Armenia. ╟─Treasury Tag►Speaker─╢ 09:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An OECD report touching on an agreement between the two governments. ╟─Treasury Tag►international waters─╢ 09:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That was not a very long workout. SnottyWong ^chat 17:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good one. ╟─Treasury Tag►without portfolio─╢ 18:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the OECD source makes one small mention on p.4 hardly indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 23:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Am I to assume that you have no problem with the other ones, then? ╟─Treasury Tag►Tellers' wands─╢ 23:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. LibStar (talk) 23:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. I wonder why you didn't mention that, then, but only chose to pick holes in one. And I also wonder why you have still failed to explain your opposition when asked about it. Hmm... ╟─Treasury Tag►without portfolio─╢ 23:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
gee, haven't had time to check out your other sources. you're rather pushy aren't you? LibStar (talk) 00:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pushy? Who nominated this article for deletion without carrying out the obvious and essentially required check of searching the subject on Google Scholar? ╟─Treasury Tag►directorate─╢ 00:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
you expect me to refute every single source you've found. now you want to argue, suggest you WP:CHILL and let the AfD run its course. LibStar (talk) 00:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I found all those sources within a ten-minute-search of Armenia Denmark relations on Google Scholar. Since you are expected to make basic checks such as that yourself (read WP:BEFORE) – yes, I do expect you to have a good reason for claiming that those sources are invalid. Of course I do. You can't just say, "no their no good lulz," without providing a justification. It's stupid and it's disruptive. ╟─Treasury Tag►directorate─╢ 09:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LibStar: I'm shocked (shocked, I tell you) that you didn't take account of the actions of Danish individuals decades before the modern state of Armenia existed, and a single OECD report that vaguely mentions an agreement between them. I'm sure if we looked harder we'd also find that a couple of Danish tourists have visited Armenia and that an Armenian official went to university in Denmark. We should also contemplate renaming WP:BEFORE to WP:KITCHENSINK. ;) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hrafn, you seem to favour sarcasm, attempted wit and borderline incivility over sensible, level-headed discussion, which is unfortunate, given that you have chosen to participate in a collaborative process. ╟─Treasury Tag►sheriff─╢ 09:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And you, Treasury, seem to favour argumentum ad nauseam -- to the point that you're trying LibStar's patience (just as you recently tried mine). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TreasuryTag. Racepacket (talk) 11:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the majority of the text was copied from the Danish foreign ministry site. I have removed the copyright violation and notified the editor who did it.--TM 12:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: lack of resident embassies, lack of significant high-level relations, and lack of relevant secondary source coverage (governmental and OECD sources being primary). I would point out that the activities of individual Danes, long before the modern state of Armenia existed, are hardly the topic of this article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OECD is a primary source? Really? Who owns/runs/publishes/controls it, then: the Armenians or the Danes? ╟─Treasury Tag►constablewick─╢ 16:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to read WP:PRIMARY. Whether a source is primary, secondary or tertiary is not a matter of ownership. The OECD report is a primary source in the context of this article, because its subject matter is Clean Development Mechanism Project Implementation in Armenia (a set of "political decision[s]", per WP:PRIMARY). A secondary source is needed to interpret what this means for "Armenia–Denmark relations" (particularly as all it says about Denamrk is the very brief and vague "An agreement on cooperation in the field of CDM projects has been entered into between governments of Denmark and Armenia"). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most governmental or quasi-governmental reports are primary sources, as they exist to document political decisions and agreements. There would be some exceptions, where the analytic content outweighed the documentary content -- but they'd be a rarity. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^gab 17:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not appear to satisfy any of the guidelines for bilateral relations articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations#Bilateral relations. I can't support the existence of a bilateral relations article on two countries that have almost zero interaction, and no resident embassies. SnottyWong ^gab 17:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can't you? Oh dear. Perhaps you could, instead, see your way to supporting the existence of a bilateral relations article on two countries whose relationship has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? ╟─Treasury Tag►senator─╢ 18:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a guideline, a suggestion from a wikiproject, not policy. Outback the koala (talk) 02:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TreasuryTag's findings. And to the two deletes that complain about not having a resident embassies, be aware that many nations can't afford to or just don't see any reason in this day and age to have them in every single country out there. You can easily fly over to speak to someone, or use a phone or internet, to communicate if necessary these days. And one nation giving another nation money to help it, I think its quite notable. They didn't just pick a nation out at random to toss a bag of money at, but instead had a relationship established with them. Dream Focus 21:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"can easily fly over to speak to someone, or use a phone or internet, to communicate if necessary these days" then what is the point on any embassy? most countries are looking to expand their embassies especially in Asia. embassies host trade delegations and open up more formal communication channels. LibStar (talk) 03:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dream Focus mostly. Treasury is certainly correct here, just look at the sources. Outback the koala (talk) 02:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would suggest that editors that are citing "TreasuryTag's findings" as a reason for a 'keep' !vote take a good hard look at these meagre and/or irrelevant materials, and put thought to how much material in this article can be referenced to them (remembering that material on the involvement of individual Danes to the Armenian genocide belong as a footnote to that article, if anywhere). To date, the answer would a appear to be a sentence at a stretch. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - another fictitious topic, the existence of which has never been noted in the real world by third-party sources, but has instead been concocted by a few Wikipedians who for some reason take pleasure in stuffing these sorts of articles full of trivia as part of a fevered attempt at "rescuing" them. Yes, Danish diplomats can find Armenia on a map, and vice versa. And yes, the richer country has given money to the poorer, but that has zero contextual relevance—had the donation been discussed in a source on "Armenia-Denmark relations", it would be one thing, but of course it hasn't. And needless to say, the activities of Danish citizens in one bit of the Ottoman Empire has zero bearing on relations between the Kingdom of Denmark and the Republic of Armenia. And no, the topic's fictitiousness is not reduced by reduplicating the text on the diaspora, itself of dubious notability and also of negligible bearing on the alleged topic. For the sake of our academic integrity, let's stop going around inventing topics for no good reason, drop the pretence that this topic exists in reality, and delete. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if I agreed with you, don't you think deletion is an extreme response compared to option such as merging the article to the two foreign relations pages? There is no need to throw cited and useful information away. Outback the koala (talk) 05:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to a redirect and maintaining a little box at Foreign relations of Armenia and Foreign relations of Denmark. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems easy to find evidence of notability. For example, the UN documents a recent treaty between the two countries. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Which proves merely that a (rather banal) treaty exists, not that the two have notable relations. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Our notability guideline explains that notability is not a matter of absolute importance but of notice in reliable sources. The UN has noticed this treaty and they are reasonably reliable on such matters because this is their business. The treaty is a formal relationship between the two countries. We do not yet need a separate article about the treaty but it would form a proper part of this article and so the encyclopedia is built, in accordance with our editing policy. Deletion would be disruptive to improvement of our coverage this topic and so should not be done. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Colonel Warden is misrepresenting WP:N: it requires reliable INDEPENDENT sources. The article, as it stands, is cited almost exclusively to the Danish and Armenian Foreign Ministries. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hrafn misrepresents my comments as the source I provided is independent and has to be added to the article. We are here to discuss the article's potential for improvement, not to make or require these improvements immediately. The fact that I could so easily turn up documentation of a treaty which had yet to be found or discussed by other editors, indicates that we are at the early stages of work upon this topic. Our editing policy is to persevere in such cases, keeping the article in mainspace so that editors may find and improve it further. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        If Colonel Warden is only talking about the link to the source on the treaty he cited above (not the full body of citations in the article, which was what I was discussing), then HE IS AGAIN MISREPRESENTING WP:N, as that guideline calls for ~~SUBSTANTIAL~~ [SIGNIFICANT] coverage, and the coverage he cited is ONLY A SINGLE SENTENCE. The fact that Colonel Warden can only turn up a single sentence indicates that the reliably-published independent sources on this subject are very scarce, at best. I would suggest that nothing in WP:IMPERFECT suggests that continued perseverance is required, in the absence of ~~substantial~~ [significant] coverage in reliable independent sources. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I would further point out that this source is explicitly simply a "Cumulative Index" of "Treaties and International Agreements Registered or Filed and Recorded with the Secretariat of the United Nations", and thus is itself a WP:PRIMARY source. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        No, the primary sources in that case would be the treaty itself and the related discussion papers. The UN account of the matter is secondary, being one step removed from the formation of the treaty and being a summary of same. As you do not represent the nature of this source correctly, your derivative arguments thus fail. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        No, an explicit index to a set of primary source documents is no more a secondary source than the index on a phonebook would be -- as it serves exactly the same purpose. It is purely documentary, having no discursive or analystic content -- so it is not a secondary source. (And even if you were right, that does not negate my first point that it is only a single sentence -- not ~~substantial~~ [significant] coverage.) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        No, WP:N does not use the word "substantial"; it advises that source coverage should be "significant". Significance is defined to be such that "that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content.". We have this in this case and so the source is quite satisfactory. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        [References to "substantial" replaced by "significant", to correctly quote WP:N.] You are MISREPRESENTING again. The definition of "Significant" explicitly includes "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention..." -- and a single sentence is clearly trivial mention. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        No, even a single sentence may be rich with significance. Triviality arises when the mention is a passing one which is largely irrelevant. This is not the case here because the treaty is not a passing mention of but is part of the substantive content of the document which exists to record facts of this sort. We have a corresponding article ourselves - List of treaties - and this seems well-established as valid content. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        (i) By the same argument, "even a single word may be rich with significance" -- argumentum ad absurdum. (ii) The sentence in question establishes no significance, it simply establishes the bare existence (WP:ITEXISTS) of one agreement out of the thousands that the UN indexes each year -- the vast majority of which (including this one) are too insignificant to be listed in List of treaties. Your arguments are getting very very silly -- have a WP:TROUT. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Your counterfactual straw men are both silly and irrelevant. The item which I have contributed is not a single sentence but a paragraph in the source and contains several significant facts including the parties, a summary of the content, the place of signing and its date. The source is a compendium which is constrained by conventional paper document limits and so is correspondingly brief. We have no such constraints, per policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Colonel Warden: your meritless argumentum ad nauseam long since became as tedious as it has been uncompelling. Tacking on a referencing "Copenhagen, 30 Apr 2003 (I-40904)" does not, except in an excessively tendentious interpretation, turn a single sentence into a paragraph. We all know that you consider everything to be notable, and will say pretty near anything to give even the thinnest appearance that there may be a viable argument (no matter how tenuous and contortionist) for the claim. Continuing such meritless arguments simply further lowers your credibility. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Please see paragraph which explains the concept. The entry in the source is clearly distinct, being typographically marked out with a new line, a bold heading, a separate reference code &c. It seems adequate for our purpose in demonstrating that the United Nations has noticed specific relations between these countries. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        So it is a single sentence, 25 word paragraph (excluding the titling and referencing) -- if you want to POINTLESS SPLIT HAIRS. It is only one out of 22 agreements mentioned on that one page, which is only one page out of a 484 page index, making it only one out of approximately 10,000 agreements listed. It is about as "specific" as a single fan at a rock concert, and about as significant as a baboon's bout of flatulence.
        Colonel Warden: you expressed distress at other editors expressing their contempt for you in blunt terms, I put it to you that it is threads like this that earns that contempt. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        You have repeatedly claimed that because the UN-treaty source is "a single sentence, 25 word paragraph" it should not be regarded as significant coverage. So please do this for me: take a look over WP:NOTE, and quote me the section containing the minimum word-count for significant coverage. ╟─Treasury Tag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 09:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Ah, the Colonel's apprentice in argumentum ad nauseam returns. I will leave to one side the question of whether I said "a single sentence, 25 word paragraph" only once or "repeatedly", and only point out that a single agreement, out of an index of approximately 10,000 such agreements is NOT "significant coverage". You may rabbit on to your heart's content about "how many angels may dance on a pinhead", but that will not alter this pragmatic, real world conclusion. On your, and Colonel Warden's further and endless tenuous & tendentious claims, I will observe WP:DNFTT. Anything further either of you have to say, you will be speaking only to yourselves. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Baseless accusations of bad-faith trolling are considered personal attacks. As I'm sure you are well aware. ╟─Treasury Tag►most serene─╢ 17:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the good old Colonel. one treaty or agreement does not equal notable relations, many bilateral articles have been previously deleted despite having one or two treaties. third party significant coverage of relations that are notable is what we are looking for. LibStar (talk) 12:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination stated that you had found no evidence of treaties and yet when I make a brief search, I soon found one. Your statements lack verisimilitude. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

simply finding one treaty does not equate to notability. LibStar (talk) 03:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep- as it stands, this article seems to be a bland synthesis of unimportant and run-of-the-mill information. Two countries that have nothing to do with each other nod their heads politely at each other from time to time, and we call this a topic? However, it is reliably sourced. And I think that if we merged it with the more interesting and relevant but utterly sourceless Armenians in Denmark (the reciprocal Danes in Armenia does not exist), we might actually have an article that can stand on its own merits. If this suggestion finds no support, please regard this instead as a delete !vote. Reyk _YO! 03:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to include this information into the article, however because of the sourcing issue you raise, other editors here removed it. The info should be included though. Outback the koala (talk) 05:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt there are many Danes in Armenia: someone from a stable, advanced democracy ranked the least corrupt on Earth with a per-capita GDP among the top 20 has little incentive to move (at least on a permanent basis) to a rather poor, highly corrupt, insalubrious, wretched little dictatorship that's probably going to be invaded by its neighbor in the coming years. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: very substantial sources provided. The article just needs more prose; that's not a reason for deletion. Nightw 07:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion those of us who want to keep the article should expand it to show viability as a standalone article. It will probably be kept, but expanding articles such as this should be our primary goal, not arguing endlessly here.--TM 04:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: as of 05:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC), we have in the article 5 citations to the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs and one to the Armenian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Add to this various brief mentions in governmental/OECD/UN primary sources, that have been raised in this AfD. This does not total to "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably because a large number of independent sources – including ones from academic journals, which you seem to have conveniently forgotten – have been listed in this discussion but not yet added to the page. ╟─Treasury Tag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 09:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As nobody cited any such "academic journals" articles (or any other independent secondary sources) relevant to this topic, it is hardly surprising that I have not mentioned them. I also "have conveniently forgotten" the Easter Bunny, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, Russell's Teapot and who knows what other mythical and/or irrelevant entities. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep leaning towards snowball strength, per TreasuryTag and as the article boasts an original Groubani map. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

having a map in no way advances notability. LibStar (talk) 02:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ofer Glanz[edit]

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

Only reference is personal blog; not notable jsfouche ☽☾ talk 05:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 15:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's hard to believe that someone this politically active wouldn't meet our loose standards of WP:GNG if Hebrew-language sources were readily searchable, but we've deleted articles of people more notable, and kept articles of people less notable, and I fall on the deletionist side of the debate. THF (talk) 17:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 05:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ronni Chasen[edit]

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

The late subject of this article does not seem sufficiently notable and has not received any coverage previous to her recent murder (WP:BIO1E). Google News shows only brief mentions in the archives, and I highly doubt that a publicist is notable enough for an article. /ƒETCH COMMS / 02:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 04:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the above. Fixer23 (talk) 08:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's lots of people with articles on wikipedia who only became notable when they were murdered and received no coverage prior to their deaths. Leno_and_Rosemary_LaBianca, Mary_Jo_Kopechne, J_D_Tippit, Ron_Goldman, John_Birch_(missionary). In most of those cases the person who murdered them or caused their deaths are notable while the subjects themselves are remarkably non-notable. Ronni Chasen at least appears to have been a notable person to notable people before her murder. Ecwfrk (talk) 09:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Also, please prove that Chasen was notable before her death by citing a reliable source. /ƒETCH COMMS / 21:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 15:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and redirect/rename to Murder of Ronni Chasen; it's not clear to me that this article will overcome WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:PERSISTENCE standards, but the odds are better than even that they will be, and those standards are rarely enforced. I don't think she meets WP:BIO independently; secondary sources mention her, but there's not independent coverage about her. THF (talk) 17:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She may not have been all that notable before, but she sure is now. Keith Henson (talk) 19:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is related to my point. Just being murdered does not make her notable; please see WP:BIO1E. /ƒETCH COMMS / 21:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She was a well known person in the movie business before her death, and her death is now creating a lot of news in Los Angeles. 22 November 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.142.12.66 (talk) 19:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just being well-known does not make one notable. For example, many YouTube stars are well-known but are not notable by Wikipedia standards. Also, just because her death is causing a lot of news does not make her notable. Many deaths cause big news. What if this disappears in another day? /ƒETCH COMMS / 21:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Ronni Chasen. Given that she was frequently interviewed/quoted in various news sources, I think a strong argument could be made that she was notable as a Hollywood publicist before the murder (i.e. passes WP:GNG). Location (talk) 04:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:GNG, and I am sure even more information about her will be in the media over the next few months. betsythedevine (talk) 04:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Ronni Chasen. She was well-known within the industry as a particularly effective publicist for Academy Awards campaigns (among other things), and sources do now exist to support an article. For example this one at CNN.com"Slain publicist was master at stirring Oscar buzz". As others have said, the volume of press makes it, ultimately, futile to assert non-notability now.--Arxiloxos (talk) 07:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Volume of press" doesn't necessarily mean notability—I'm just looking for coverage of why she was notable before her murder (i.e., if she had not been murdered, would she be notable enough still?). Being well-known in the industry is a start, I suppose, but are there any more sources stating that? /ƒETCH COMMS / 17:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just read a lengthy article with a lot of details about her career in the December 1, 2010 weekly print edition of The Hollywood Reporter (apparently not yet on-line, although that website has a number of shorter articles that contain some of the same information.[13]). The New York Times article about the murder also goes into some detail about her prominence, with lines such as: "Ms. Chasen was one of a handful of elite strategists employed by studios to influence the Oscars."[14] Entertainment Weekly writes, "Chasen was an institution in Hollywood, a fixture since the 1970s . . . for the last 20 [years], she ran her own agency, Chasen & Company, which, among other things, specialized in extremely effective Academy Award strategizing. Although her name was seldom evoked at the podium, her PR campaigns contributed to at least 150 Oscar nominations and wins for films like The Hurt Locker, Slumdog Millionaire, No Country For Old Men, Shakespeare in Love, and Driving Miss Daisy." [15] More, similar results can be found by Googling her name together with the name of one or more of those Oscar-winning films.--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and keep as Ronni Chasen. Not only was she affiliated with such notables as Natalie Wood, Michael Douglas and the Zanuck family, she was one of the most recognizable PR people and she was one of the few women to hold the positions that she has held in Hollywood, including being the vice-president of PR for MGM and the PR person for former studio American Pictures International. To have a female in one of the leading PR positions internationally, this should be noteworthy on its own to have her listed in Wikipedia - but the additional issue of her unusual death makes the story unquestionably something that should be noted in Wikipedia, especially since she was noteworthy enough to be noted on the "Recent Deaths" pages - why is adding a link with detail about who she is even a question. I'm sure if this was the male counterpart of PR execs in Hollywood this wouldn't even be questioned. As mentioned above - read the newest released article on CNN.com about Chasen and then you may have a much different opinion. I'm not even in "the biz", live on the opposite coast, run in a different world and even I had knowledge about Chasen before her death - knowledge of her because of her achievements as a woman in a group/world that is very much dominated by men. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmc33 (talk • contribs) 11:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless she was murdered by Elvis or Liberace this is barely news. If it weren't for the connection to the current film release, the story's on page 24 locally and not picked up by wire. There will be an arrest, and that's the last we'll hear of it.Vytal (talk) 18:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:ONEEVENT (his death), lack of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE of it, and no apparent qualification under WP:BIO. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above rationales, and nominator doesn't need to retort every time a Keep is posted.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a discussion. I'm allowed to discuss. If someone's reasoning is not sound, why not point it out and help them learn? /ƒETCH COMMS / 21:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Click the Google news archive search at the top of the AFD. There are articles published about her BEFORE her murder. She got coverage for other things. Dream Focus 00:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chasen commented and spoke on behalf of newsmakers. She was not a newsmaker herself until her murder. Her job was to get newsmakers ink. Effectively, she was a marketer.Vytal (talk) 13:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, PR people are essentially marketers. Some of them are notable and some of them aren't. Chasen seems to have been one of the notable ones. betsythedevine (talk) 13:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Chasen seems to have been one of the notable ones." Really? What "significant coverage" has she garnered for herself (as opposed to being mentioned in passing whilst drumming up coverage for her clients), except for this WP:ONEEVENT? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the articles are hidden behind a paywall, but the titles of these search results for "Ronni Chasen" suggest that she appears in them because of her work, not her clients: "Invasion of The Movieflackers; For Their Premiere Product, Directing a Multimedia Assault" (1987), "For Your Consideration: The Oscar Publicists" (2008). Note that the Google news info for "Ronni Chasen" is missing both those stories--it is not a complete list. Look at the search results from Variety for her name. She was notable in Hollywood if not a "newsmaker."betsythedevine (talk) 15:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do these two articles say about her? Do they give her significant coverage or is she just mentioned in passing as another example of a publicist? Or, to put it another way, what biographical information do they add to this biographical article? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Los Angeles Times felt her so notable it had an article about her promotion. "Ronni Chasen has been named senior vice president of worldwide publicity for MetroGoldwynMayer..." And she is notable enough for them to seek her expert opinion and quote her on things. Just look through the first few news results that appear. Dream Focus 15:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The Los Angeles Times felt her so notable..." that they devoted three short sentences to her. And of course they quote her -- she's a publicist -- and part of what publicists do is offer quotes about their clients, to publicise them. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a paid subscription to them? The full article requires money to see it. Dream Focus 15:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't: [16] And sorry, that was 5 short sentences if you include the two-sentence post-1993 update (which brings it up to exactly 77 words). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I had the wrong link then. Anyway, she does get quoted often, so she is considered notable by the media. http://theenvelope.latimes.com/la-et-globesmood11jan11,0,6362520.story says Golden Globes: An article in Friday's Calendar section about the Golden Globes quoted consultant Ronni Chasen as saying the awards were "the only show where you have the TV people and the movie people together."

That and many other mentions of her, before her murder even, I think would qualify is being notable. Dream Focus 16:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as Ronni Chasen. I agree that she was notable as a Hollywood publicist before the murder, especially when compared to others currently in the Category: Public relations people http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Public_relations_people . BTW, if we're going to start debating bios of dead publicists, how does the same rationale apply to this guy, David Hans Schmidt? Just wondering. MrEguy | ♠♥♣♦ 21:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have seen not only publicists and marketers but also bloggers and journalists come under attack in AfDs as people whose profession makes them experts in self-promotion, rendering every media mention suspect. If Ronni Chasen was working to get publicity for herself in her lifetime, she did a darn poor job of it. And if she's so bad at promotion, it is funny that after 40 years in the industry she is getting hired by big studios to promote big movies like Wall Street3 and Alice in Wonderland. betsythedevine (talk) 22:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She was probably able to scrape notability before being murdered, e.g. some smalls articles about her in the LA Times - after her murder, notability is solid. No need to rename it. Fences&Windows 22:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep- Even before her murder, I think she would have been worth a stub article. The fact that she represented major movies and actors and was murdered in a spectacular fashion makes her even more notable. V. Joe (talk) 03:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep - she was highly regarded in the industry before her murder and a whodunnit victim now. The only reason to delete her would be for the power trip. Applemask (talk) 15:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^speak 16:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. News articles mentioning Chasen date back more than 30 years before the murder. Jokestress (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to University of Dhaka. Courcelles 01:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Faculty of Business Studies, University of Dhaka[edit]

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

This is probably content forking and doesn't warrant its own article D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete departments, notable alumni, belongs to UD, blah blah blah. Isn't notable enough. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 01:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 04:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to University of Dhaka. Most of this article consists of promotional boasting and nonencyclopedic trivia, but there is a small amount of salvageable content that can be merged to the parent article. --Orlady (talk) 05:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to University of Dhaka. Racepacket (talk) 11:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to University of Dhaka. Courcelles 01:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Faculty of Biological Science, University of Dhaka[edit]

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

A trivial article that is mostly just a list of faculty members D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comments above. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 02:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 04:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the salvageable content to University of Dhaka. There is very little here that's encyclopedic, but that small amount can be merged into the university article. --Orlady (talk) 05:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to University of Dhaka. Courcelles 01:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Faculty of Arts, University of Dhaka[edit]

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

Somewhat trivial article, and all self-sourced D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comments above. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 01:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 04:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to University of Dhaka. Most of this article consists of nonencyclopedic trivia, but there is a small amount of salvageable content that can be merged to the parent article. --Orlady (talk) 05:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This discussion is solely on whether to include the article Myogauge Corp. in Wikipedia. Consensus is to delete this article. Something about Stanley Kaplan is for another discussion. /ƒETCH COMMS / 21:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Myogauge Corp.[edit]

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

This article fails WP:GNG, WP:CORP and WP:NRVE. ITasteLikePaint (talk) 01:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am the creator of this page. I feel as though it is objective and factual and does not contain promotional language. All of the claims made here are legitimate and I can substantiate everything. I do work for the company, but I feel as though any conflict of interest is a moot point as long as the article is written in an unbiased factual way. Someone who is a part of a company needs to be able to help explain their product. The Myogauge is a real technology and is fast becoming generally accepted. I am also interested in giving credit to the inventor and CEO Stanley Kaplan for his contributions to multiple industries and sciences. I would not be apposed to turning this entry into a more biographical article and renaming it if that makes it less questionable. I am a huge advocate and fan of Wikipedia. I fully understand and appreciate the rules. In this case I do not feel as though I have broken any rules. Csbruggers (talk) 01:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I may be involved in the company now, at one time I was a third party looking in. I became involved with Myogauge and with Stan Kaplan because of their legitimacy and integrity. One of the Wikipedia guidelines is that a third party must find enough merit in the subject to write an article unsolicited. Well I was so impressed with the subject matter that I asked to be involved with it full time, and I am not currently getting paid for my work. How much better of a third party endorsement can you get? How different would it really be if I chose to write this article before I accepted a title? This is not autobiographical either. I am writing about someone else's accomplishments.Csbruggers (talk) 02:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. My good faith searches are unable to uncover significant coverage in reliable independent sources. To Csbruggers, there is no Wikipedia guidelines that says "a third party must find enough merit in the subject to write an article unsolicited". The requirement is, instead, "significant coverage in reliable independent sources". There is no evidence your article is either "reliable", "independent", or, for that matter, "coverage". Please see WP:N for our notability guidelines. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like our discussion is mostly in regards to Myogauge itself, am I right? I am more interested at this stage in seeing an article about Stanley Kaplan. I would be happy to move the article to one about Stanley instead and make Myogauge a subsection of that article. This way it would be a secondary biographical article about a noteworthy inventor and not about a company written by one of its members. I can direct you to patent filings with the US government that contain his name and the name of his earlier company which would correspond to products that are still widely used. If you agree with this proposition please assist me in doing this. I am an admitted newcomer to Wikipedia editing. I ask only that the community bear with me and help me make this as acceptable of an entry as possible through proper editing. Thanks. Csbruggers (talk) 02:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Presuming that the Stanley Kaplan you are referring to is not the Stanley Kaplan we already have an article about then I am unable to find any evidence whatsoever that your Mr Kaplan is notable within the Wikipedia meaning of the term. Please carefully read our policies on notability and the five pillars of Wikipedia and then consider whether Wikipedia is the right place for this information. Not everything that you are interested in, or that other people may potentially be interested in, belongs on Wikipedia. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not the same Stanley Kaplan. You should actually read the article you are discussing, I say that specifically. Are you suggesting that you are interested in everything that makes it onto Wikipedia then? Isn't it interesting that just about every building in the United States built after 1965 makes use of his inventions? I am pretty sure the Wikipedia guidelines talks specifically about your preposition of interest, in favor of the article. It says you shouldn't base your criteria for nomination under the Articles of Deletion on whether you are interested in the topic, but on the quality of the information. Wikipedia is meant to be a collaboration of all human knowledge. How many people do you know who have made such a large contribution to a single industry over a 60 year career, who is still inventing and starting companies at the age of 82? I suggest that this Stanley Kaplan is worthy of coverage as a noteworthy inventor and American Industrialist. As I said, I can provide evidence of his ownership of all those patents, and his being the Founder and President of Unifast Industries for over 30 years, from 1958 until 1988. Unifast Industries was a multimillion dollars international manufacturing company and was once traded on the New York Stock Exchange. I have spoken to people older than myself who were customers and investors in this company. It becomes very hard to provide web based references for an organization that existed in its entirety before the dawn of the internet. Csbruggers (talk) 03:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I read both articles, plus anchor bolt. I am unable to find any evidence that Stanley Kaplan is the inventor of the anchor bolt. Once again, all you need do is provide significant coverage in reliable independent sources establishing the notability of the topic. As you can imagine, a very large number of people start articles on Wikipedia every day with the sole intention of publicising their unremarkable businesses and products. Wikipedia is not an advertising service, and so it is important to establish clear guidelines on what articles are and are not acceptable. Every other article on Wikipedia is required to pass the guidelines at WP:N; this is not a personal attack on you, Mr Kaplan, or Myogauge. Either you can find significant coverage in reliable independent sources for your topic, or you can't, and that is the end of the matter. PLEASE NOTE: your references need not be "web-based". See WP:RS for our policy on reliable sources and WP:CITE for how to cite them. You can use contemporary books and periodicals; the only requirement is that they be cited in sufficient detail for another editor to check them. For offline sources a short quote of the relevant material is also helpful. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, please give me a little more time to organize some sources of reference to this effect. It will not be hard. I have access to a stack of patent issue documents. I also have a stack of annual reports from Unifast. Myogauge may seem unremarkable at this time simply because it is fairly new, but it is soon to be a household name. I assure you that the technology is noteworthy and plenty of independent parties are accepting it. Unifast and Stan Kaplan's life story is anything but unremarkable. I could find dozens of articles about people who are far less accomplished than he is. I will provide links to the patent office website to show he is the inventor of the common wedge and expansion anchor. I will also find a way to provide the annual reports and SEC filings from Unifast with his name on them. Please let me know if this would be a sufficient breadth of reference. Csbruggers (talk) 03:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: -- I was the first to propose this page for deletion, and I can't see this AGF contributor understands the basics of Wikipedia. There is absolutely nothing to confirm notability and no references at all. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 03:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you move to delete an article about Stanley Kaplan you would have to delete any article about any other businessperson, innovator, or inventor. You are failing to allow for the fact that his noteworthiness is less aparant on the internet because much of it was prior to the dawn of the internet. When you are making claims about historical figures there is a certain about of faith that needs to come with it. I am offering to provide evidence of his prior fame and noteworthiness but it's going to take a few more days. I am very clear on the basics of Wikipedia. I spend as much as three hours a day reading articles. This is just my first real contribution. I am willing to provide documentation as to Stan Kaplan's notoriety based on the values present in any other article about a person who's made similar contributions to human knowledge, who are granted Wikipedia pages. There is an air of hostility in these commentators posts that does not seem in line with the spirit of Wikipedia. Please try and keep an open mind. This is not self promotion, this is a legitimate attempt to bring to light a person whose amazing life story has yet to be recorded on the web. Csbruggers (talk) 03:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 04:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Myogauge does not appear to have received any significant coverage in reliable sources. Regarding CSBruggers' request to create an article about the company's founder, I suggest that he create the article in his user space (e.g. at User:Csbruggers/Stanley Kaplan (entrepreneur)) and request feedback from some experience editors prior to moving that article to mainspace. Whether or not Kaplan is notable, this company is not. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link I just added that leads to a bank of old PR NewsWires containing Stanley's name as President of Unifast Industries: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-6162450.html. I am not opposed to changing the name of this article to Stanley Kaplan(Entrepreneur). Myogauge may not be noteworthy enough yet to have its own page, but Stanley certainly is. Myogauge can be a subsection of the article on him. Part of what makes Stan remarkable is that he has over twenty patents to his name and is still starting companies at the age of 82. He has Myogauge as well as The Wedge King. Csbruggers (talk) 14:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some links to the patents associated with his inventions:

These patents go back to 1962. Csbruggers (talk) 14:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Irrelevant. This discussion is not about Kaplan's notability; it is about Myogauge's. Please restrict comments in this AFD to the topic at hand. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This conversation is about both Stanley Kaplan as an inventor and about Myogauge. I have already agreed to change the name of the article to Stanley Kaplan(Entrepreneur)or Stanley Kaplan(Industrialist)/(Inventor) whatever. If someone would show me how to do that I would do it now and drop the case about Myogauge as it's own article. As I continue to search I am coming up with endless links like that to patents for anchor bolts and expansion anchors that he invented. Originally I was only trying to get Stanley recognized for his contributions to the science of Anchor Bolts. Csbruggers (talk) 15:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Please see my comments on your talk page. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To everyone involved in this conversation, I am now working on a User article entitled Stanley Kaplan (Entrepreneur). So far as references, I am providing patent links with Stan's name on them dating back to 1962, and links to press releases dating back to Unifast Industries and American Body Armor, which should prove that Stanley all but created the business of anchor bolts, wedge anchors, expansion anchors, toggle anchors, etc, and also contributed heavily to the establishment of reliable body armor used extensively by the US Government.

Please read my talk page for longer explanations of Stan's involvement in these sciences and what prompted him to innovate the way he did. He also has a patent on record just filed for in 2010 which proves that he is continuing to innovate even at the age of 82. I spoke to Stan today. We demonstrated Myogauge for a large multi-state health and fitness organization based in New York who loved it. He is going to spend a little time writing a short autobiography, a history of Unifast Industries, and a history leading up to the creation of American Body Armor, and also the details of the founding of Myogauge. My goal is to have a section for each of these businesses as well as a personal history of Stan.

Feel free to check in on my article as it develops and give me feedback in the talk section as I go. Stanley Kaplan deserves recognition for his 60 year career as an innovator and inventor and I intend to make sure that happens. Thanks for all your help and feedback as I try to learn how to write for Wikipedia. I am an avid reader and now I plan to be an avid contributor. I see Wikipedia as one of the most important record keeping projects on earth. I understand and appreciate all the rules. Csbruggers (talk) 21:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Searching just by "Myogauge" reveals absolutely nothing towards establishing notability. There are only 239 Google results. Abductive (reasoning) 14:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Dennis William Sciama. The sources provided are either not independent, or not significant. Additionally, it can hardly be surprising that notable scientists speak there, it's in Oxford after all. If it were notable, there would be far more scholarly references. Ged UK 14:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Sciama Memorial Lectures[edit]

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

To my disappointment, I can find no WP:RS at all for this lecture series. Anyone have better results? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The forthcoming lecture is on the front page of the Department of Physics at Oxford. The 2006 lecture was delivered by Prof. Stephen Hawking and included international video broadcasts and had Jocelyn Bell-Burnell (discoverer of pulsars), Roger Penrose, Joe Silk (Savilian professor), Roger Davies (chairman of the department) and author Philip Pullman in attendance. The series is a notable occasion for international academic staff to meet with colleagues and discuss current research trends in broad terms, all the way back to 2003 (Institute of Cosmology & Graviation, University of Portsmouth). I would like to expand the article to detail the speakers and their lectures. 4DCat (talk) 01:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find no results when searching for "Dennis Sciama Memorial" in GNews, GBooks and one paper in GScholar, taking one step further, no matches in JSTOR or Scopus. There seems no reason to expect the article to demonstrate sufficient impact on the historic record in order to meet WP:GNG in the near future. Fæ (talk) 01:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 01:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dennis William Sciama. There doesn't seem much to say other than that these lectures exist, and that's already in the article about the person. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that such a redirect would be best, if the article is not kept. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article was only created 2 days ago, I am working on expanding the subject matter, conclusions and participants of these multi-institutional lectures. FWIW, they are notable in my field and I think this could become a good complimentary article (it seems a bit strange to put an honorary lecture series inside what is (currently) mostly a biography). 4DCat (talk) 16:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — there are references and the lectures are by notable scientists. I have added information and references. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 04:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not automatically conferred by attendance, for an event to be notable the sources (meaning more than college publicity) must demonstrate the impact of the event itself otherwise information about it would be better merged (depending on interpretation of WP:IINFO, one of the parent articles listed under Category:Culture of the University of Oxford may be suitable). For example a taxi driver may transport many notable celebrities over their lifetime, this does not make the taxi driver notable. Fæ (talk) 08:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^verbalize 00:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG are not forthcoming. SnottyWong ^verbalize 00:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: wholly sourced to lecture-convenor's website. No evidence of substantive independent reliable sourcing from find-searches. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per 4DCat's arguments. Notable people in the scientific world speak there, so it must be thought of as rather highly, and surely such event would be get coverage somewhere. Science might not be as interesting to the masses as a famous woman flashing her underwear at photographers, and thus doesn't have as many magazines and whatnot covering it, however its still notable. Dream Focus 00:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google news archive search shows one result for "Dennis Sciama Memorial Lecture". [17] Dream Focus 01:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. What a strange AfD, started by someone who wanted to keep. Almost certainly doesn't meet WP:PROF, but nevertheless, there is no clear consensus on whether the sources provided are sufficient to meet the GNG. Ged UK 13:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aryeh Nusbacher[edit]

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

Keep. The subject is clearly notable as a known military expert and adviser/commentator in various tv programs (documentaries, Time Commanders,...). The sex (change) of a person is a fundamental part of who they are and must be included in it if a source can be attributed to it. -- fdewaele, 28 October 2010, 20:16.

Comment/Question: User:fdewaele's contribution above with his vote seems to be counted as a delete by the Afd statistics caclulator. Can anyone change this in some way? I have asked and looked elsewhere for more info. on this caclulator but to no avail. (Msrasnw (talk) 09:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I've changed "Oppose deletion" to "Keep" in the sake of clarification, so the count is currently 4-3 in favor of keeping the article -- fdewaele, 25 November 2010, 11:35 (CET).

The article contains nothing properly documented apart from bibliography. Wikipedia is not a tabloid and repeating tabloid gossip is not biography. NetNus (talk) 13:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A widely cited expert on military and defense issues meets the standard of notability. Article needs expansion with additional available reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 22:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable as an academic: a PhD thesis, one published article, a children's book (200 worldcat holdings), & one non-academic book (82 worldcat holdings) do not make an authority in the subject; Neither does being used as a source for news interviews. Not notable as an author: ditto. The only review in GNews archive is just a note. And I do not consider her enough of a public figure for the personal information to meet BLP. DGG ( talk ) 22:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - (a) Topic seems to (marginally) have sufficient coverage in reliable independent sources to found an article and pass WP:GNG, and (b) procedural keep on the basis that the original nomination does not appear to cite a reason for deletion. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG. --Crusio (talk) 08:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notability evident from key role in many (all 24) episodes of a BBC prime time TV show Time Commanders (and other history programmes). Key role was one of the two experts on old military tactics and capabilities who introduced and then commented on the performance of the contestants. Now listed by Sandhurst as on secondment to UK Cabinet Offfice - itself a prominent position: Dr Lynette Nusbacher, Head, Strategic Horizons Unit, Joint Intelligence Organisation, Cabinet Office, UK (http://www.icsr.info/news/attachments/1241530063ITIFLYER.pdf )(Msrasnw (talk) 10:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

* Extra Sources for notability as TV personality on Time Commanders :UKGameshow:Time_Commanders at UKGameshows.com and Time_Commanders at IMDb at IMDb. Are these OK as souces to add to the article? On Youtube searching for Aryeh Nusbacher one can see many old episodes and verify that he has a really prominent role in the shows. (Msrasnw (talk) 12:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Delete, basically per DGG. Too little to show to demonstrate notability per WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR - few publications, no citability, no significant published reviews of the subject's writings, rather small library holdings - nothing else to hang one's hat on. I do not find the claims of notability as a news-commentator/media personality on the topics of military history convincing. A Googlenews search[18] shows just a few hits. Fails WP:BIO too. Nsk92 (talk) 11:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I am really failing to see how the evidence produced by the keep voters adds up to notability (particularly when we're getting youtube and imdb). There is no significant coverage of academic work, and the news coverage is far too thin to justify an article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My understanding is he is notable for his role on the TV show - Time Commanders - where he was employed as an expert from Sandhurst. If you have a look at Youtube (and I am not saying we use this is a reference) then his role in it is clear and this was a prime time TV show in the UK. I suppose we could add references to the shows directly (Msrasnw (talk) 11:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

If there aren't any sources meeting WP:RS that establish notability for this role, then assertions on notability are unconvincing. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extra reference: Would this reference - The Guardian (2003) TV Guide, Thursday, Watch This, Aug 30, pg D86 - which has a blurb recommending Time Commanders -(Watch This) The Battle of Trebia, mentioning Dr Aryeh Nusbacher's (Senior Lecturer in War Studies at Sandhurst) role as an expert? - Or would citations directly to the BBC episodes help? (Msrasnw (talk) 21:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

If that's how deep you have to dig for references on this one, then I think that's quite telling in relation to notability. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if this is really deep digging. I think Dr Nusbacher is noted because of his appearances on a prime time BBC2 TV series (rather than as an academic per se) - reviews of the TV programme or the programme itself would seem to me to be useful and appropriate sources to cite. But best wishes anyway (Msrasnw (talk) 20:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 20:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Crehan[edit]

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

Unsourced autobiography about a one-time teenage bicycle racer who competed successfully at the amateur level. JNW (talk) 14:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mike, your efforts to provide references are appreciated, but the issues remain: it's an autobiography, you don't appear to meet notability guidelines, and the sources aren't acceptable, per WP:RELIABLE. Pictures of magazine covers, youtube videos and blogs don't suffice; what's needed are publications that featured articles about or interviews with you, i.e., objective sources that support your notability. A look at WP:ATH might be most helpful, because it includes guidelines for notability for racing as well as for amateur sports. JNW (talk) 00:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added 20 references from National BMX Mags, local news papers, websites, etc. This is all the doc's that i have, please see it in your heart to let this stay. This is not self serving in any way, it's a record for my children to have. I know your busy, thanks so much for helping me.User:Mikecrehan

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JNW (talk) 14:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am troubled that it is an autobiography, not in the normal wikipedia prose format, and has not attracted any other editor to verify the sources and the contents of the article. Racepacket

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Cirt (talk) 21:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Capriccioso[edit]

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

Reporter without notability established. Contributes lots of places, but so do lots of people. Was deleted twice before. AW (talk) 23:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Aboriginals, and related indigenous peoples of North America on Wikipedia. Capriccioso is no less a notable Native American writer than the Native American writers listed at Native American writers. User:Awiseman|AW appears to live in the same city of Washington, DC as Capriccioso, I respectfully ask that User:Awiseman remove himself from editing this page due to potential bias towards the subject. Hochungra

That may be, but I see no notability established. Saying somebody is just as notable as some other article that exists isn't an argument that can be accepted. And I disagree that living in the same city makes me biased and thus not allowed to edit the page. Should no one be allowed to edit pages about places they live, for example? --AW (talk) 22:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I checked to see which other Native American writers were listed before creating this page. Capriccioso is a notable NATIVE AMERICAN journalist. Most links are not to his own sites but to Indian Country Today, the primary source of news that Native Americans in the U.S., Alaska, Hawaii and Canada turn to. Cappriccioso is well known to his readers. Perhaps not notable to you but he is to the Native American population. Please do not discount Native Americans who turn to Wikipedia for their schoolwork assignments etc. Deleting his page will dilute the presence of notable contemporary Native Americans from Wikipedia. I suggest you somehow know him since your editing isn't normally of writers, and that you for whatever reason, given your proximity to him, hold a bias against him. You've tried repeatedly to delete his page. Let others editors work on his page, if he doesn't hold up against the standards we've used for other Native American writers then those editors can make the decision to delete. --Hochungra (talk) 19:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Reasoning as follows: (1) The article is required to pass the test at WP:N of "significant coverage in reliable independent sources". While the article cites many sources, they are mostly not about Capriccioso but rather by him (and are therefore neither signifcant coverage of the topic, nor independent). Those sources not by him do not mention him by name. (2) The article claims Capriccioso is a four time winner of the Native American Journalists Association media awards. Generally winners of notable awards are assumed to be themselves notable. However, while the NAJA is a notable organisation, I can find no evidence that this particular award is a notable award. (3) For the above reasons I can find no evidence that this journalist is notable within the Wikipedia meaning of notability and the page should accordingly be deleted. (Also, for what it's worth, I see no conflict of interest problems in Awiseman's contributions above.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken the liberty of reformatting the following comments by Hochungra to reflect the fact Hochunga has already !voted above. Please revert if you feel I have unfairly altered their intention or relevance. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Bias and ignorance against the Native American Journalists Association and Native American writers/journalists is again raising its ugly head on Wikipedia. The NAJA entry was once deleted as well because the editors who chose to delete it had no idea of its significance. The NAJA Awards are recognized in the multicultural journalism world as very respectable and important. Just because a random Wikipedia editor has no knowledge of that world does not make them insignificant. Capriccioso is one of the only Native journalists who reports from Washington, D.C. on policy and political matters involving tribes. The articles he has been awarded for support that fact. I also submit that user Awiseman should not be allowed to edit this page, as he is a DC blogger who likely has a conflict of interest. - User:torrenceg —Preceding undated comment added 14:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
(cont) - The Native American Journalists Association was also marked for deletion as not being notable, and was then deleted by a Wiki editor. I had to reinstate that entry Feb. 2010 as a notable organization, which took hours of work. Their awards are as notable as those of the African American, Asian, Latino and other journalism organizations. Capriccioso is a notable journalist, per every one of the 600-plus tribal chairmen and tribal leader in the U.S., those who interact with tribal issues (tribes are located in the majority of states in the U.S. and that is what Capriccioso covers) and tens of thousands of readers. Students assigned to study Native American issues use Wikipedia as an encyclopedia to study just such noteworthy people as Capriccioso, and other Native American writers, whether their work appears in books or other print media.--Hochungra (talk) 14:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(cont) - I found and added three (3) references to Capriccioso in books he has not authored.--Hochungra (talk) 16:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The above references are more than sufficient. Dcwash nov 22 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcwash (talk • contribs) 23:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The new references are just quoting what Capriccioso has written elsewhere. They're still not ABOUT him, in that you couldn't use them to write an article about who he is and what he's done. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I note that Torrenceg and Dcwash are recently created accounts with very small numbers of edits, who have apparently stumbled onto this discussion despite never participating in an AfD before. While good faith is assumed, participants are reminded that it is against Wikipedia policy to canvass for votes (WP:CANVASS), operate multiple accounts (WP:SOCK) or contribute to a discussion a friend is involved in so as to create the illusion of a wide range of agreeing viewpoints (also WP:SOCK). - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also concerned about these accounts. Torenceg's only edits are in December 2008 on an early AfD of this article, and this month, first on this AfD and then on NAJA. DCWash's edits are not quite confined to this and the earler AfD as he has also created one article. Dougweller (talk) 17:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment - Please note I am in no way connected to users Torrenceg or Dcwash. Also for the record the related Native American Journalists Association entry is again marked for deletion, this time for alleged copyright violation, which I have refuted. I don't understand this ugly bias against Native American writers. I am not seeing this pattern against African American, Latino or Asian journalists or their journalism organizations. This page is turned over to the Indigenous project on Wikipedia, for honing by those editors knowledgeable in Native American issues and affairs. Do not delete.

--Hochungra (talk) 21:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Lovers and Friends Show[edit]

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

Notability is questionable at best. Google gives me videos, videos, some DVDs, but not much in the way of coverage. This AfD should cover Nicole Piña, as her notability is tied exclusively to this. Xavexgoem (talk) 05:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Webshow with no substantial coverage in secondary sources. Abductive (reasoning) 14:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ged UK 13:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Center on Media and Child Health[edit]

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

Delete based upon lack of notability. I am seeing very minor references in the news media- in passing- but nothing that demonstrates the notability of this organization. Basket of Puppies 08:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 04:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Children's Hospital Boston. The article lists a lot of references but they are mostly citations to studies published by the center; none of them is coverage ABOUT the center as required by notability requirements. Google News provides dozens of hits but they are all passing mentions, mostly just identifying someone they are quoting, as in "So-and-so of the Center on Media and Child Health said..."; again, no in-depth coverage by independent sources. The merge should be only a sentence, not the vast amount of information in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 15:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Though a merge/redirect to Children's Hospital Boston sounds great at first glance, the actuality of the situation is that “Center on Media and Child Health” is only based at the hospital. There is no mention of an affiliation with the hospital other than sharing an address. With regards to a keep opinion, though the nominator is correct in stating “…very minor references in the news media- in passing” the policy for Notability does go on to say “… The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability”. This can easily be fulfilled by a simple Google News search, as shown here [19] where organizations from the New York Times and Fox News to the Globe and Mail and the BBC report on the Centers findings. In addition, the Center is cited and named in numerous Google Scholar papers, as shown here [20]/ Finally, a Google Book search shows quite a few references to the organization, as provided here [21]. Likewise the article itself is cited. Taken in all, the organization has fulfilled our requirements for inclusion here at Wikipedia. Thanks for listening. ShoesssS ^Talk 20:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Shoessss. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Merge/redir would be very fine with me. Basket of Puppies 15:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Most of Shoessss' "sources" are merely passing mentions or self-written bio blurbs, which are absolutely useless for establishing notability. (How much of an article could you write based on "Dr Jones was quoted in this newspaper, and they apparently employed a Dr Smith, who was willing to speak to the media...") However, Murray's Children and television: Fifty years of research (ISBN 9780805841398) actually says something directly about the organization's founding and activities, which is an actual indication of notability. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The Art of Losing. Ged UK 13:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Breakup Song[edit]

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

A stub of a song which has not charted and does not have any significant independent coverage. A fairly comprehensive check with google did not turn up any coverage of note. Fixer23 (talk) 23:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge In addition to general notability, fails WP:NSONG. Merge to album The Art of Losing. Barkeep^{Chat | $} 14:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The Breakup Song to The Breakup Song (They Don't Write 'Em). Much more notable song, and potentially put a hat to the album The Art of Losing. - Theornamentalist (talk) 14:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 20:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Little Smoky-Newark Watershed[edit]

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

Per this. Hike796 (a supposedly banned user who hasn’t been unblocked, see the recent WP:SOCK entry for US40AL-01) recreated the deleted category in article space. Shannon ^talk _contribs 21:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Pfly in the discussion for Hot Creek-Railroad Watershed. Clearly this lacks notability as would be expected when you try and create articles for over 200,000 items listed in a database. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable HUC, Little Smoky Valley and Newark Valley could potentially have individual articles, but no reason to mash them together outside of the USGS classification. Kmusser (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 20:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of 100% Entertainment episodes (2009)[edit]

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

TucsonDavid (talk) 16:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What's the basis of the nomination? Mandsford 17:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not a really good looking list article, but we generally keep list of episodes articles for notable television shows. Jclemens (talk) 23:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's definitely a model of inefficiency, though badly done presentation doesn't detract from notability of the subject. Yeah, I get it, Xiao Zhu and Xiao Gui were the hosts day after day after day-- does that have to be mentioned every time? Basically, a list of dates and, if it's not already evident from the title, guests-- would be sufficient. "Cynthia Wang - I Have a Star at Home" had Cynthia Wang as the guest, "Cosmospeople - 100% Entertainment King" had Cosmospeople, "Joe Cheng Fans Fun Meet" had Joe Cheng... makes sense to me. I can't say the same of the nomination. Mandsford 01:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While the show is entitled to an episode list, there is neither the length nor detail here to justify a separate list for each season. The article should be deleted until such time as a more reasonable single-article episode list is created (unless someone feels energetic enough to merge all the separate year articles into a single list). - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Basically DustFormsWords put it into words that I couldn't. Also I think the article could be alot written alot better also shouldn't it be translated? I'm new to wiki so I might be wrongTucsonDavid (talk) 16:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 20:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gabbs Watershed[edit]

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

Per this. Hike796 (a supposedly banned user who hasn’t been unblocked, see the recent WP:SOCK entry for US40AL-01) recreated the deleted category in article space. Shannon ^talk _contribs 21:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The creator is not currently blocked and his block log is clean. What evidence is there that he is a banned user?. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is User:US40AL-01, a banned user with a new username. Shannon ^talk _contribs 00:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore this is basically recreating a deleted page with the same content, except that he has moved it from category space to article space, and that doesn't make the subject any more notable. Shannon ^talk _contribs 00:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just found the relevant SPI case. It seems he's been cleared. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His IP address changes consistently. See the history of pages like Feather River, Owens River, North Fork Feather River etc. Also note the similarity of their edit summaries and the rudeness of their comments on talk pages. Shannon ^talk _contribs 02:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Pfly in the discussion for Hot Creek-Railroad Watershed. Clearly this lacks notability as would be expected when you try and create articles for over 200,000 items listed in a database. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect – To Gabbs Valley Range. In that the watershed is a verifiable geographic location, part of the Gabbs Valley Range, which has an article here on Wikipedia, it makes sense to just merge and redirect this information to an already existing article. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 19:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 20:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dry Lake Watershed[edit]

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

Per this. Hike796 (a supposedly banned user who hasn’t been unblocked, see the recent WP:SOCK entry for US40AL-01) recreated the deleted category in article space. Shannon ^talk _contribs 21:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the basis that, as I understand it, a general discussion was held about the validity of articles on watersheds (as opposed to some other system of geological/geographical classiciation), and the watershed method was deprecated resulting in the deletion of watershed articles. Therefore this is a recreation of a page deleted in a previous deletion discussion and would be a candidate for speedy deletion. (I am wiling to change my vote if I've misunderstood the history.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pfly in the discussion for Hot Creek-Railroad Watershed. Clearly this lacks notability as would be expected when you try and create articles for over 200,000 items listed in a database. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on grounds on lack of notability. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 11:46 23 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Khatri. Ged UK 13:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bedi clan[edit]

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

A user on Twitter raised the concern that this might be a hoax article. It's certainly extremely messy, and I think it might be better deleted or redirected rather than the unsourced mess it is at present. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 03:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 03:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stubify or redirect Doesn't seem like a complete hoax but a total mess, unverifiable, and doesn't really seem notable enough for a real article, with just a quick Google search. /ƒETCH COMMS / 04:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- earlier revisions were much clearer. Uncle G (talk) 04:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stubify or redirect as per Fetchcomms. --Kudpung (talk) 10:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 00:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Spooks. As nobody's actually said where to merge it to, I presume everyone is happy with Spooks Ged UK 13:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jools Siviter[edit]

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

Unreferenced article about a non-notable character who appeared for an extremely short space of time (just one episode?) ╟─Treasury Tag►sundries─╢ 19:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Google Scholar link above actually has one hit, but without supporting text, so I can't tell if it's a notable mention. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It says: In the same episode a conflict between MI5 and MI6 emerges in which the latter is represented by the arrogant upper class Jools Siviter (Hugh Laurie). He is shown as a Wagner-loving power addict, always far more cynical, ruthless and devious than the MI5 agents in the way he controls and then sacrifices his agents. This helps to emphasize the relative ordinariness of the MI5 agents compared with the inner workings of elite sections of the state. ╟─Treasury Tag►Not-content─╢ 22:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks. Still thinking about it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Yes, this was the shortest lived and first MI-6 contact on the show... but hey, it was also Hugh Laurie, hence there's a bit more out there about him. No need for a separate article, can be covered adequately in a list article. Jclemens (talk) 23:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A bit more about him? What bit more about him, may I enquire? :) ╟─Treasury Tag►Not-content─╢ 23:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the "bit more about him" I was comparing him to other one-appearance characters, who generally do not merit inclusion in lists of characters. Had it been a less famous actor, I would not expect a single appearance to be a reason for inclusion on a character list. Jclemens (talk) 04:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge would support deletion due to a lack of references that can WP:verify notability. But supporting merge in hopes of building a consensus. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 20:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John W. Flores[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Multiple concerns. Borderline notability and unreferenced claims in a BLP. Article itself needs a lot of work...but to do so with all the citation tags gives me pause. If deemed notable, this should at least be stub-ified until more good refs are provided. The Eskimo (talk) 19:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The referenced awards indicate sufficient notability. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The referenced awards have no references. The Eskimo (talk) 01:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: I take your point that the major awards have no references. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I added the fact tags, I've attempted to source them without success. The article states that he was nominated for a Pulitzer prize, but he's not mentioned anywhere on their website, so that could merely mean a entry was submitted. Focusing on the verifiable information, the secondary coverage, mainly related to the biography he wrote of Freddy Gonzalez and the Meritorious Public Service Award received for it, is from local or military sources and does not provide the in-depth treatment required for WP:GNG. Of the verifiable awards, I don't think that a Meritorious Public Service Award would meet WP:ANYBIO, and I'm sure the others wouldn't (a Texas Senate resolution and various citations). I can't see any of the WP:CREATIVE criteria met either. January ^(talk) 20:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I spent a little time, a while back, re-writing parts of the article to make it slightly more intelligible. User:January then spent a lot more time going through the list of "References" that were mostly just links to self-published sources or similar, and turning what could be found there from WP:RS into proper inline citations. With all that work done, we have four appropriate citations, which support two statements in the article, which taken together, totally fail to establish notability.

John W Flores is surely a splendid fellow and it is clear from the sources that he has made some fine achievements and is well respected. But he is not notable from Wikipedia's standpoint. The vast majority of the claims made in the article that would support notability if they could all be sourced... well, they still haven't been sourced after all the excitement here and on the BLP noticeboard and on the article's talkpage. That sourcing is just not going to appear. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 15:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The principal notability claimed is writing a book: the book was self-published by Author House, and is, not unexpectedly, in essentially no libraries.-- see WorldCat DGG ( talk ) 19:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Framing (social sciences). Ged UK 13:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Political frame[edit]

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

This page was prodded at 16:18, 15 November 2010 by User:WikiDan61 with the comment "This phrase is used by different authors to mean different things. No signs that the usage coined by these particular authors is in any way more notable than any other usage.", but it seems to need proper discussion. It is sitting over an old article of the same name which was merged with another at 04:46, 10 April 2007. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 00:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect It was my mistake to prod the article as the edit summary read "creating new article". I neglected to check the page history to see that the page was not new, but hijacked. I don't think a deletion is in order; rather a restoration of the page to its state as a redirect prior to 15 November 2010. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 10:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I now see that the page I prodded was new, but was later moved to replace the existing redirect. I still believe the existing redirect should be restored, as the current content talks about only one concept of a "Political frame" and does not significantly expand on Framing (social sciences). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 10:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 04:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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