Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 February 3

< 2 February 4 February >

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 redirect. Any desirable content may be pulled from the history for merging. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

McCarthy Residence Hall

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

university dormitory with no real claim to notability. Mangoe (talk) 23:45, 3 February 2011 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Morningside Avenue (Toronto)

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

Redirect to List of roads in Toronto#Morningside Avenue. No claim to notability; a standard suburban arterial road, of which there are literally a thousand of in the Toronto area; no traceable history to its construction of name. Barely even qualifies as a major road, let alone a notable one; no reason to keep as a standalone article. ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 23:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Important Note - Less than a week ago, List of roads in Toronto was a simple list with multiple wikilinks to articles of streets included in the list. It was only less than 7 KB long.
Here is what it looked like on February 3, 2011.
On February 3, the nom then took various contents from all of those articles and placed them in this list article and removed most of the wikilinks, including to Morningside Avenue (Toronto).[1] That article is now over 109 kb, way too long per WP:SIZERULE. I suppose this was all part of an effort to delete most Toronto street articles and just have summaries in this new parent one and add content from his own userspace for streets that had no articles and this AfD is an extension of that effort.--Oakshade (talk) 00:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • So is the "its got enough written about it so it must deserve its own independent article" argument. Let's review the article and see what is topic-specific, as you say:
Morningside Avenue is a north-south street in Toronto, Ontario, Canada and it is located in the district of Scarborough.
  • Fair enough... But a list could point this out as well
The street starts at Guildwood Parkway, near Lake Ontario to the south, and travels along the former Lot 10 line northwards through the Highland Creek valley, to Finch Avenue.
  • This relates to Guildwood Parkway and Finch Avenue as well, also roads in Scarborough that share a major junction at opposite ends of Morningside. Regardless, these are the terminii, and would also easily fit in a list
North of the valley, where the street once ended, it was named "Littles Road" after an early family in the area.
  • Source? Or is this original research? The etimologies of all the roads is in the big list.
Following the development of the Malvern area, Littles Road was renamed into this community.
  • Renamed into this community? I guess we mean renamed in this community. When, by whom, and source? Unsourced and unverifiable information should be deleted, not left to sit on the chance that a citation may turn up one day. Source your additions to the encyclopedia; there is disclaimer to this effect at the bottom of the editing window.
There are plans to extend through the Brookside and Morningside Heights neighbourhoods to Steeles Avenue and beyond as the Box Grove Bypass. These plans have since been cancelled due to concerns that the extension cuts through sensitive area of Rouge Park.[1][2]
  • Some real information now!.. Except... are there plans, or have they been cancelled? In addition to the terminus and length, this piece of information is easily placed in the list article, without making that particular entry hefty. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 01:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The low 3.7 m (12.1 ft), narrow, one-lane railroad underpass at Finch Avenue, dating back to when it was a rural road, was replaced in 2009, allowing 4 lanes of traffic to pass below uninterrupted.[3]
  • When I added this, it was the first sourced piece of information in the 5 year old article. This also applies to Finch Avenue and to the Malvern article, so its not topic-specific.
A second Morningside Avenue exists in Toronto, in the formerly independent town of Swansea. It is a minor residential road which runs from a cul-de-sac west of the South Kingsway in the west to Ellis Park Road in the east, on the shore of Grenadier Pond.
Nor does it mean it should not. You not liking it is not a valid reason to delete something. Dream Focus 11:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No one ever said either of those.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of roads in Toronto#Queen Street. Sources not provided. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Street East

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

Redirect to List of roads in Toronto#Queen Street. Unlike Queen Street West, which is also a neighbourhood in Toronto, Queen Street east is the unnotable half of a possibly notable road. Article is unsourced and nothing more than a route description that can be copied verbatim to the target. No need for an independent article. ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 23:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Important Note - Less than a week ago, List of roads in Toronto was a simple list with multiple wikilinks to articles of streets included in the list. It was only less than 7 KB long.
Here is what it looked like on February 3, 2011.
On February 3, the nom then took various contents from all of those articles and placed them in this list article and removed most of the wikilinks, including to Queen Street East.[2] That article is now over 109 kb, way too long per WP:SIZERULE. I suppose this was all part of an effort to delete most Toronto street articles and just have summaries in this new parent one and add content from his own userspace for streets that had no articles and this AfD is an extension of that effort.--Oakshade (talk) 23:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Street West is about the neighbourhood more than the street. There is no Queen Street East neighbourhood; we call that The Beaches. Just because this is a continuation of Queen West doesn't make it all equally as important. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 23:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that a merge of the two spans into one article likely not appropriate, given that Queen Street West is/was everything from a neighbourhood to an arts scene. But let's be clear - Queen East is more than just the Beaches. It runs through Moss Park, Corktown, Riverside, Leslieville, etc. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The same roles that Queen West played to the development of the western suburbs. This either merits one article, or that this information be placed in the history sections of the neighbourhood articles. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just because another road played a similar role doesn't mean this one isn't notable. And by your logic, we should eliminate Yonge Street because everything can be inserted into the history sections of neighbourhood articles.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No because Yonge Street has books specifically written about it, it has hundreds of sources which link the construction of the road to the future prosperity of Ontario as a whole, and its the first road in Ontario. Queen Street East is none of these and no sources which make anymore than a passing mention to it, since the commercial strip of the Beaches is on Queen East.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete as per creator request. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 01:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Anti-illuminati songs

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

You can't keep control of something like this. And illluminati is not for sure for real. KzKrann (talk) 22:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm Someone created it. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 01:07, 4 February 2011 (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, G12 by Ronhjones. Non-admin closure. Blueboy96 13:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Weigel

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

Possible self-bio and irrelevant to wikipedia. KzKrann (talk) 22:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue, though is that the article itself is a cut-and-paste copyvio--which means it has to be blown up and rewritten from scratch. Blueboy96 23:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete YOUFIXIT doesn't apply to copyvio. There's nothing to salvage here. Delete and start over would be the thing to do, except... on the evidence already there, which is presumably a complete CV, he's not notable even all claims are true. EEng (talk) 00:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply On the sources I can find, I am relatively certain he meets the notability standards for composers. If the article is deleted speedily at this point, may I ask that the closing admin userfy it for me and I'll fix it? I'm happy to get started on it, but these things take time to get right, and as I understand there's no deadline. - ManicSpider (talk) 00:47, 4 February 2011 (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) 23:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Ricker

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

Non-notable US football player. Appears to primarily play at the semi-pro level. The only sources I could find on him are wikipedia mirrors and sites people can edit or upload articles. With most edits being made by two accounts with similar edit histories, might be an autobiography. Mateinsixtynine (talk) 22:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete profile

no references — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.1.204.225 (talk)

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Park Avenue

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

Redirect to List of roads in Toronto#Victoria Park Avenue. Current article contains nothing more than a bloated description of the route. One of over 100 "major roads" in Toronto that supposedly deserve their own standalone article. Vague and incorrect history can be added to target until such time as I can make it accurate. ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 22:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Important Note - Less than a week ago, List of roads in Toronto was a simple list with multiple wikilinks to articles of streets included in the list. It was only less than 7 KB long.
Here is what it looked like on February 3, 2011.
On February 3, the nom then took various contents from all of those articles and placed them in this list article and removed most of the wikilinks, including to Victoria Park Avenue.[3] That article is now over 109 kb, way too long per WP:SIZERULE. I suppose this was all part of an effort to delete most Toronto street articles and just have summaries in this new parent one and add content from his own userspace for streets that had no articles and this AfD is an extension of that effort.--Oakshade (talk) 23:50, 4 February 2011 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parliament Street (Toronto)

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

Redirect to List of roads in Toronto#Parliament Street. Current article contains nothing more than a more brief history than the target, and a description of a bus route. One of over 100 "major roads" in Toronto that supposedly deserve their own standalone article. Target contains a sourced history of the name and can easily accomodate a summarized route description. No need for this brochure. ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 22:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Important Note - Less than a week ago, List of roads in Toronto was a simple list with multiple wikilinks to articles of streets included in the list. It was only less than 7 KB long.
Here is what it looked like on February 3, 2011.
On February 3, the nom then took various contents from all of those articles and placed them in this list article and removed most of the wikilinks, including to Parliament Street (Toronto).[4] That article is now over 109 kb, way too long per WP:SIZERULE. I suppose this was all part of an effort to delete most Toronto street articles and just have summaries in this new parent one and add content from his own userspace for streets that had no articles and this AfD is an extension of that effort. --Oakshade (talk) 21:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly. Most of the content at List of roads in Toronto is new and written by me. Only a handful of info is copied from the old articles. The purpose, however, was indeed to get rid of this convoluted mess of crappy articles and make one or two good articles (and yes, we can always split it in half. Until recently it wasn't 109kB). I'm not hiding this fact, this is an attempt to compress disjointed information into less space, without compromising the content of the articles. No important content is being lost, its just being moved to a central article (or two). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 21:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Floydian, I'm sure your intentions were good, but that is a list article. Per WP:LIST, list articles are supposed to be just that, lists which might include wikilinks to articles of some topics on the list, not full encyclopedic content about each topic listed. That's what non-list articles are for. --Oakshade (talk) 22:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But it is a list. There is absolutely no guideline which even hints at that list having to be a simple list of items, with no details on those items. In addition, numerous featured lists prove otherwise. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 03:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The argument that this info can not be merged to the list due to WP:SIZERULE is flawed. The obvious solution to sizerule problems is to divide the list by category (something easy to do when it can be split by geography), not give individual elements their own article.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A street named after the first parliament buildings (which, I should mention, have their own article and are mentioned in several) is going to have trivial mention in plenty of sources. It doesn't necessitate a stand alone article to state that lone claim to notability. The target can contain all of that information, and when a non-stub article on Parliament Street is made, it can be split out into its own article. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 22:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of roads in Toronto#Islington Avenue. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Islington Avenue

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

Redirect to List of roads in Toronto#Islington Avenue. Current article contains nothing more than a bloated route description. One of over 100 "major roads" in Toronto that supposedly deserve their own standalone article. Target contains a sourced history of the name and can easily accomodate a summarized route description. No need for this brochure. ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 22:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to List of roads in Toronto#Keele Street. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keele Street

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

Redirect to List of roads in Toronto#Keele Street. Current article contains nothing more than a directory (WP:NOTDIR) of locations along the street. One of over 100 "major roads" in Toronto that supposedly deserve their own standalone article. Target contains a sourced history of the name and can easily accomodate a summarized route description. No need for this brochure. ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 22:27, 3 February 2011 (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) 23:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Avond Ploeg

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

Delete. Highly promotional article. Notability is not established through significant coverage by reliable, independent sources. Sources provided include one press release and three social networking sites. Cind.amuse 21:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Reeson

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

The subject doesn't measure up to notability in any category. As an author, she doesn't seem to meet the criteria of WP:AUTHOR, as a historian she doesn't meet WP:PROF, and as a church person, she doesn't seem to be the equivalent of a bishop (who are considered notable) because the moderatorship is just a short-term thing. StAnselm (talk) 20:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Oh, dear StAnselm. I fear that a Presbyterian has a little envy (or otherwise) for Uniting Church in Australia people. That is so 35-ish years ago, when some Presbyterians chose to remain outside the UCA! (Okay, they had a choice, unlike the Methodist Church of Australasia.) However, you do not, obviously, understand the polity of the UCA: otherwise, you would understand the important position and ongoing stature of the position of Moderator; Or, perhaps, you do, and choose to be obstreperous. Maybe you do not think an author of original work on the history of: women in war; the wives of Christian missionaries; the Pacific Ocean missionary movement and so forth; is notable. Or, maybe you just do not like women leaders in churches, a theological position for which the Presbyterian church in Australian is well known.- Peter Ellis - Talk 10:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith. StAnselm (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now for substance. The Uniting Church in Australia appears to be a large denomination, the third largest in Australia, according to the article, so a leader in such a group is likely to be notable. Keep. Bearian (talk) 19:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Two issues here - one is that she is moderator of a synod, while there is someone else who is President of the Uniting Church Assembly. Secondly, the role of Moderator goes in a rotational system with fixed terms - so its not clear that it is equivalent to a bishop. StAnselm (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you knew about the governance of the Uniting Church you would realise that it doesn't use the term Bishop. The President has national oversight of the National Assembly. The Moderator has jurisdictional oversight of the Synod. The NSW Synod covers roughly the jurisdictions of NSW and the ACT. Within bounds of the Synod there are a number of Presbyteries. A Presbytery has the role of the episcopal council where it is the body that ordains persons for ministry. The Moderator of NSW has a significant leadership and pastoral oversight role of a Synod with fourteen Presbyteries. However, it should also be noted that the UCA polity is NOT hierarchical. In the United Methodist Church (USA) they have Bishops who have temporary placements.Dean Tregenza (talk) 02:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: you says "likely to be notable" - but that doesn't mean she is. GNews gives zero hits. And so the question remains, are there indeed independent reliable sources giving her significant coverage? StAnselm (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear saintly soul, you are aware that I have replied elsewhere about your call for this deletion. I will, here, repeat one part of that reply, to back up Dean Tregenza's reply to you: "Margaret's husband, Ron, is almost as notable, yet I could not justify to myself an entry on him just because he was a missionary minister and parish minister then regional (Presbytery) minister (equivalent to a bishop in episcopal churches) for some 15 years before retirement. As someone has said to me, that makes Margaret equivalent to an Archbishop in an episcopal church, and therein lies her notability." Furry has commented below on the ongoing role/'heft' of past Moderators; they are called on as "elder state(people)", in a similar way that retired (Arch)bishops are called on. GNews might not deliver any hits, but here is a hit on the first page of a search result in ABC.org.au: So, please, do not believe all that you (can not) read.- Peter Ellis - Talk 07:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have actually referred to the Margaret Reeson Wikipedia article and used the information and sourced material from the list of published works following requests from Papua New Guinea. Margaret is still making valuable unpublished observations regarding the history of the PNG highlands area and deserves recognition for her knowledge and understanding of that part of the world. BruceM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.239.134 (talk) 22:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I think we have a problem about people who do not quite make it under category A, do not quite make it under category B and do not quite make it under category B, yet together have made a contribution that people will notice. I suggest that this article is one that will be sought by many readers and be helpful to many readers. There is no reason to delete it. Deleting it would not improve wikipedia, so ignore all rules if necessary and keep it. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As an author Margaret Reeson whose work has been referenced by a diverse range of people. A simple Google search will find a number of places. Her work is cited (not just reviewed) in academic papers and at conferences (historical and theological). The article could actually have a bit more content with regards to this. However, on the matter of the "notability" of the role of Moderator within the Uniting Church (and within the wider community) is significant - even though it is temporary. Just because a role is temporary doesn't make it notable - that is a dumb argument. The role of the Prime Minister of Tuvalu is temporary but significant. I agree with Bduke removal doesn't improve wikipedia. Dean Tregenza (talk) 01:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after reading debate. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. I have read the debate and fail to see a solid reason for deletion. As others have said, deletion will not improve Wikipedia. I have met Margaret Reeson but could not claim that I know her personally. What I do know, however, is that she has made and continues to make a significant contribution to the life of the Uniting Church through an extraordinary ability to conciliate between people with widely varying opinions — a case in point being her handling of the debate between those angered by the Uniting Church’s action (or lack of action, as they saw it) on the matter of homosexuality and those who supported (and even formulated) the church’s position. At this stage she was no longer serving as Moderator but displayed a wisdom and grace which, on their own, would have justified a Wikipedia entry. Such anecdotal evidence, of course, is impossible to cross-reference with academic footnotes; but that does not make it invalid. Furry (talk) 03:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- I can see no compelling reason for deletion of this article. Sufficient academic achievement to merit coverage in WP. Carrite (talk) 20:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, sources indicate notability. It would also be good if we could keep interdenominational bickering off of Wikipedia. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Snow/speedy keep. Per above keeps. No need for further waste of time on this.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:22, 8 February 2011 (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. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daryl Wine Bar and Restaurant

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

Rather Run of the mill Restaurant no indication of any notability except sparse coverage from local papers. Fails WP:CORP particularly WP:CORPDEPTH The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The nominator says it lacks notability and WP:N, a Wikipedia "guideline" is pretty much the criteria used for determining whether or not to keep an entry. The sub-guideline for businesses, WP:CORP absolutely does weight sources and says "local coverage" isn't enough for a business. There is no indication that this restaurant was ever notable, and the last AfD resulted in "no consensus". WP:NTEMP does not apply in other words, unless the restaurant was every notable in the first place. I would suggest, that NTEMP actually makes it more obvious why a restaurant that is reviewed locally is not notable, since in the real world that type of attention is indeed completely "temporary".Griswaldo (talk) 20:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete see no real significance of notability - one of a myriad of local restaurants, I think we need to see a better claim to notability than that. We ask for significant and in depth coverage. The coverage is reasonably global, but still locally focused. More critically there is little of depth on there; we do have deep content... but they consist of reviews of the food. We don't have any depth about the history or significance of the place. --Errant (chat!) 20:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I would only consider the 2nd hit of this gnews search in depth. otherwise not enough to pass WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 01:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Would be interested to know how jimbo distinguishes this one from mzolis.--Milowent • talkblp-r 04:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, its the fact that its "closed for refurbishment," which in restaurant-speak usually means "gone gone gone".--Milowent • talkblp-r 19:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep. Nothing has changed since the last AfD. Statewide coverage as well as coverage from another state (NYT) is sufficient to satisfy WP:CORP. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • New Brunswick is in New Jersey (about 20 miles from Newark airport), and we're talking about the New Jersey section of the New York Times. --JN466 20:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The restaurant was less than an hour travel from Manhattan. That the NYT happens to be in another state is not relevant. Also please note the first AfD did not result in a "keep" consensus... only "no consensus". Njsustain (talk) 09:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good point. With regrets to the author, I strike my comment. Looks like this one is a "no consensus" too. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hardly "no consensus". 14-4 Delete to Keep at the moment. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 22:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you, Amatulic, but I disagree that this is "no consensus" at this point. Other than a certain person's repetitive sarcastic comments insisting that it meets notability, I think consensus is building quite clearly, i.e, most editors feel that the topic is not appropriate for a stand-alone article as per WP:SIGCOV: Presumed ("Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not.) And WP is not a directory of old run of the mill failed restaurants. Njsustain (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertising for non-notable establishment. Carrite (talk) 20:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • double secret keep notability is not temporary, The restaurant closed (not sure how this would be advertising then...but oh well), but as of the last AFD there were enough sources to establish notability.Coffeepusher (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Same rationale of last AfD: Strong, multiple, continuous coverage by several undisputedly reliable sources means that it passes our general notability guideline with flying colours. No rational, objective reason exists to dismiss sources only because most of them are "regional", especially if the "region" includes millions of persons. The "delete" comments above seem to squirm into a personal interpretation of notability which isn't supported by any guideline apart perhaps for WP:CORP -in any case, alternative notability guidelines are supposed to extend GNG, not to replace it, so the requirement of CORP of sources not being local is completely moot. Reliable sources are reliable sources and significant coverage is significant coverage regardless of the audience. An academic journal on some exotic mathematics field would have probably much less audience than NYT, but nobody seriously argues to dismiss it as a RS. To pick up "local" as a proxy for "nobody cares about it" is deeply biased. Also, that it is now closed is entirely irrelevant for notability. On a sidenote, the nomination is done by proxy for Jimbo, and this somehow taints the process: why didn't he nominate himself? --Cyclopiatalk 01:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please see discussion on article talk page. I think Jimbo deciding not nominate the article himself only adds credibility to the deletion nomination process and to the questionability of this article.Njsustain (talk) 09:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is entirely irrelevant, and possibly a variant of WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. I think Wikipedia's job is to keep articles that have been written on subjects that pass WP:GNG and that have no other compelling reason to be removed. If restaurants are unusually well sourced among other objects in the universe, so be it. I don't have the slightest encyclopedic interest in restaurants, but I don't decide on articles based on what I like or I don't like. I see well sourced and obviously notable information here, and I see no compelling reason to remove it. If we will have 100.000 entries like this, so be it -this is a voluntary encyclopedia and our coverage depends on what our editors feel happy to write about. I'd prefer to see more good articles on biochemistry than good articles on restaurants, but it's not by slashing the latter that I improve the former. About MWB, well, first of all I don't see why do we have to refer to an external commercial service -in theory if one has to suggest an external target, I'd be for Wikibooks, which is WMF. Second, there is again no objective reason to remove an article with multiple independent reliable sources. If MWB wants to cover the place, they are welcome to do so, but this has nothing to do with us. --Cyclopiatalk 13:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Except there are many on this project who feel that an encyclopedia ought to focus its limited manpower on certain subjects. We simply can't cover all the minutia out there, and we definitely can't do it well. Some of us want to be part of a project that knows its limits, and aims to do its best to cover the most encyclopedic topics, while steering away from blatant attempts at marketing and PR even if they do fit the letter of some guideline. You claim this is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but every decision we make here, as a community is WEDONTLIKEIT, or WEDOLIKEIT. You're just making a claim to a certain kind of authority when you say that WP:GNG is completely on your side. I don't agree with your reading of of notability guidelines in the first place but if you want to get into policy wonkery, WP:IAR is a policy, while WP:GNG is a only guideline. The very pragmatic and context specific issues that have been raised by Jayen and others about restaurants and restaurant "coverage" should make anyone with common sense, resist the temptation to wikilawyer the untenable position that the literally millions of restaurants in the world with this kind of coverage ought to have wikipedia entries. What your particular literalist reading of the applicable guidelines tells me, after applying some common sense, is that specific guidelines for restaurants ought to be hatched so we don't find ourselves here repeatedly arguing over more useless PR on Wikipedia, and not that we ought to preserve every piece of restaurant PR that is supposedly "well sourced".Griswaldo (talk) 14:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nice but flawed piece of rhetoric. We cannot decide arbitrarily on which to focus our limited manpower because we're not a company paying editors to execute orders. We're volunteers, and if our volunteers prefer to write about restaurants than biology or history, I am saddened just like you, but so be it: I am not so arrogant to judge what people should write on or not. If you don't want to deal with articles you don't like, just keep them off your watchlist and your manpower won't be wasted -nobody has an obligation to maintain all of wikipedia. I am not also policy wonking for the sake of it, nor I am a guideline-thumper -quite the opposite, my position (which is "untenable" only in your own POV) and my arguments come out of two essential philosophical tenets: 1)WP:NOTPAPER, that is, we are not technically bound by limits of previous encyclopedias and therefore we shouldn't fear to go beyond the tradition of previous encyclopedias 2)There is no piece of knowledge intrinsically more "encyclopedic" than another, that is, WP:UNENCYC is a known fallacy. The essence of GNG is that of giving an as much as possible objective and measurable criteria for notability: if something has been covered by multiple reliable sources, this means that sources have taken notice of the subject and therefore it is not only verifiable but notable. Oh, and finally, I am sure you will be equally enthusiast in invoking IAR if someone wants to keep an article which is not notable per GNG but that is liked by part of the community...won't you? IAR is empty without either 1)overwhelming consensus (and let's remember that local consensus doesn't trump global consensus) or 2)a very serious, objective and rational reason. IAR is not a free out-of-jail card: especially now, where there is a 10 year-long consensus on most practices and processes on WP, IAR is best seen as a lifesaver for emergency, extreme cases which aren't covered by other community-consensual policies and guidelines. So, if you have a problem with restaurants, your best course of action is what you also already devised: to amend GNG to cover this case, seeking consensus by process. --Cyclopiatalk 15:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More wiki-lawyering to no practical benefit to the project. There is no indication that your reading of policy is commonly held by the community. You can act like its the literal truth of the Wikigods, written in stone tablets all you want, but in the end, unless people agree with you, that's just you shouting in a vacuum. I'm not going to get suckered into another one of these endless pissing contests with you Cyclopia. Unlike you I recognize that you, the other party, have a legitimate POV, I simply disagree with it and feel that others do as well. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since first you said my position was "untenable", I am happy to know that now we recognize each others' POV as legitimate (please strike the "unlike you": I have always recognized yours is a legitimate point of view). As for the community reading, well, the fact that this article already survived an AfD, even if as "no consensus", is an indication that it is at least a viewpoint as common as the opposite one. About the "pissing contests", I don't really know what you're talking about, but well, no, I don't like pissing in public . --Cyclopiatalk 16:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I meant untenable for the encyclopedia in practical terms, not illegitimate. Your own argument, is quite literally, that my points, and all of those from people who oppose yours, are illegitimate vis-a-vis Wikipedia's sacred canonical guidelines. I will not retract. Sorry. Final transmission over. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 22:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I guess you're free to comically misunderstand my comments. --Cyclopiatalk 22:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please refer to Pissing contest, which is badly in need of an image. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Should we delete biographies when people die and books when they go out of print? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't relevant. You are going under the assumption that this restaurant was notable before it closed... it was not. The closure is simply another indication that this restaurant was not notable in the first place. Njsustain (talk) 21:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either way, being closed doesn't have a bearing. If it is notable, it is even if it is closed. If it is not notable, it isn't even if it was open. It is simply an irrelevant information. Jimbo could have said "per nom, coupled with the fact that its name begins with a D" and it would have been the same. --Cyclopiatalk 18:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. It's entirely relevant that a restaurant of alleged notability closed in just three years. If the statements that had made the establishment allegedly notable were true, the establishment would not have closed so soon. Nothing significant has changed about the restaurant since those reviews nor the last AfD, so why did the place close its doors? Is it possible the reviews were not really adequate to establish the alleged notability in the first place? Yes. Is it possible that the first AfD discussion did not come to a proper conclusion? Yes... in fact it didn't come to any conclusion... it was "no consensus". Perhaps looking at this article in the clear light of day, so to speak, with six more months of evolution of the perception of the purpose of WP articles, and with seeing the that this restaurant clearly wasn't the cat's pajamas that it was painted to be by not entirely neutral sources in the first place, it is time for the debate to continue, and it is clearer now whether or not this article should exist. Njsustain (talk) 09:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, no. It's not the quality of statements that makes a subject notable; it's the existence of statements themselves. WP:GNG does not require coverage to be positive. To say that a closed restaurant is less notable than an open one is as ridicolous as to say that a dead person is less notable than an alive one. All that it counts is sources coverage, and here there is plenty. --Cyclopiatalk 10:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The only significant coverage are *reviews*; I feel very uncomfortable basing notability off of reviews in such a way. Nothing else establishes a significance apart from "it exists". I'd say we want some reasonable level of significance beyond "it exists and was reviewed". Otherwise we're going to end up recording millions of these places :) --Errant (chat!) 10:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We consider reviews from RS as good indicators of notability for artists; why it should be different for restaurants? And so what if we're going up to record millions of these places? --Cyclopiatalk 12:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Such reviews are usually academic, and often draw attention to the importance or significance of the work (which is part of notability). A restaurant having good food/service is not necessairily notable or significant and in this case the sources do not appear to identify it is particularly notable or significant in it's "genre". I doubt that you would manage to keep an article sourced entirely to reviews of the artists work :) The point is; accepting a few reviews as satisfying notability criteria is troublesome because we then end up recording all the millions of restaurants over the world that have been reviewed a couple of times - and that is silly. I appreciate we are big and essentially limitless in capacity, but lets try and have at least some focus :) --Errant (chat!) 12:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure that not all artists which are reviewed on NME and Wire are "particularly notable or significant in its genre" but nevertheless they would be strong indications of notability. Again, it seems that the only reason here is that people think it's "silly" to cover objects which are covered by RS only because they are "millions". This is absolutely irrational. A restaurant is no more and no less of an object than an asteroid or a mountain, and there are millions of both, yet while we feel perfectly natural to cover the first, it seems editors here are uncomfortable with the second. The only thing that counts is that there are sources. About the focus: Again, we're not here to decide on what our editors contributors should focus. This is entirely left to the will of our volunteers. Again, I'd love that WP had more focus on ancient philosophy or molecular biology than restaurants, but 1)we cannot and should not force that: WP entirely depends on what our community writes about 2)removing restaurants doesn't help our coverage elsewhere -the two things are independent. --Cyclopiatalk 13:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is going to go in circles, I know, but one final word from me and I will let it lie - we do not have articles on all mountains and asteroids, what would be silly for the same reason. We are here to document human society and the natural world in a useful and encyclopaedic way. This restaurant is not relevant to that aim, and neither are most restaurants across the globe. Common sense is a good guide here :) --Errant (chat!) 13:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you haven't seen my userboxes if you talk of common sense. Let's say that when I hear these two words, I reach for my revolver :)--Cyclopiatalk 14:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A review's relevance of being able to establish notability is in question if it is only showing whether it provides good food... hardly a notable feat. If the restaurant goes under shortly, I think that goes to show that the review didn't really predict whether the place was to become or remain an establishment of note... only that it provided a certain service at a certain point in time... again, hardly an encyclopedic act. And what evidence of notability was there besides reviews? The analogy with musical artists is not apt as the artist produces a work that it kept. There is no museum or archive of previously prepared meals. Also, I think the "common sense" factor is not meant to insinuate whether one contributor has it or not. It is meant to ask... if we apply the "rules", which we know are NOT engraved in stone, to this situation, do they make sense? Should we blindly follow the letter of the "law" (actually "guide") if it does not make sense to do so in this case? We need to use our common sense to do that, or to quote one person: "I wish people could see past this rigid reliance on RS and make better judgment calls." Njsustain (talk) 15:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What does it mean to "make sense"? That's where "common sense" fails utterly. It's nothing else than a nice name for our prejudices, habits and expectations. Now, our prejudices and expectations may play against this subject. But we ought to be rational, objective, and remember that notable does not mean "important" or "outstanding". It means "something worthy of notice" -a crucial difference, not as slight as it seems. How do you discriminate if a subject is worthy of notice? By the simplest and strongest objective test -if other sources have effectively already noticed it indeed. That's not the mere letter of the GNG guideline: that is the philosophical essence of the guideline. Now I ask to you: why doesn't this test make sense in this case? People so far only maked the case that it is not an important or oustanding place (thus confounding notability with importance or fame) or that if we cover this, then we are free to cover a lot of other similar subjects (but nobody made a case to understand rationally why this is a problem instead of a neutral open possibility). --Cyclopiatalk 15:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh*; rationally that includes the a huge number of restaurants in recent history. Rationally they are of low importance to an encyclopaedia. I really don't think your argument is a good one because it's implication is "we do not judge notability, just count the sources" - which is most definitely not the spirit of GNG. Our policy and approach is clear; we have a set of rough guidlines which essentially asks for significant coverage. It is then up to us to discuss and agree on what significant coverage is needed. Simple existence of sources is most definitely never enough. off topic; but the idea of "common sense" is pretty much the most crucial counter point to rationality. It is important to understand both; and to note that they are as complementary as they are conflicting - it is perfectly possible to be rational/objective and apply common sense, as in this case. Quips about revolvers is not helpful/useful --Errant (chat!) 15:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You also, for some reason, are confusing Rationality with objectivity. They are different; rationality is about reasoning, you don't have to use objective criteria but it is often the most logical approach. Rationality is about logical reasoning and optimal solution; so rational decision making applied to the Wiki is about what is in scope and what is not. We are reasoning that out here --Errant (chat!) 15:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Rationally they are of low importance to an encyclopaedia.: "Rationally"? On the basis of what rational argument? Again, WP:UNENCYC is a known fallacy, and it is a fallacy because it is circular: "Subject X is unencyclopedic" "Why?" "Because encyclopedias do not cover it." "Why?" "Because it is unencyclopedic." Do you really have a compelling rational argument? If so, please share it with us, I'm open to change my mind. And no, I'm not confounding them: we ought to be both rational and objective. About common sense: No, it's just a fancy name for rubbish prejudice. In history "common sense" told us that the Sun rotates around the Earth, that time and space are absolute and that reality does not depend on the observer. All of these very reasonable and common sense prejudices turned out to be wrong. --Cyclopiatalk 15:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is no more rational by that standard. "This restaurant should be included in the encyclopedia. Why? Because WP:GNG says it should." Rationally speaking, falling back on GNG, is no different from falling back on some unstated standard of encyclopedic scope. The only difference is that encyclopedic scope claims its authority from "common sense" while "GNG fundamentalism" claims authority from the revealed truth of the wikigods, as transcribed by their mortal servants at WP:GNG, and as interpreted by the faithful (e.g. "rabid inclusionists"). Your claim to some higher rational ground fails utterly. The idea you presented above, that you are acting rationally, "without prejudice", while others are bringing their prejudices to the discussion, is absurd from a social science perspective. When you self-identify on your talk page as a "rabid inclusionist", you must realize that you are identifying with a variety of assumptions that are neither objective, nor shared by everyone else. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit it, Griswaldo. You are right. No need to fake anymore: I am actually not a human, but I am the mighty NyarlathoWales, the slimy servant of Wikiztoth, the "amorphous blight of nethermost inclusionism which blasphemes encyclopedia articles at the center of all Internet". "Ph'nglui mgBLPw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'NPOV fhtaGNG!" --Cyclopiatalk 17:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)But the same argument applies to your view; which is that appearance in sources is enough to negotiate inclusion. Just because that is a long held opinion does not make it logical or even rational. Basic reasoning should show that, logically, such an approach means there is a massive amount of "things" that meet that criteria, and so it is a useless objective criteria for inclusion (unless the point is "lets cover everything", which doesn't seem rational in itself). Hence, we have the option to discuss each article on its merits and decide if it (and the general area) is of significance to our encyclopaedia. "Subject X is unencyclopedic" "Why?" "Because encyclopedias do not cover it." "Why?" "Because it is unencyclopedic."; umm, this is terrible rhetoric because it is not my argument at all :) I think it is not significant for inclusion under our criteria because it is a trivial piece of knowledge without any enduring notability within the spectrum of human knowledge. Why? Because the sources are geographically very close, their contents are reviews and contain only trivial mention of the restaurant and it's background (and does not give any significance to them). There is nothing that identifies any point of interest or distinction this venue has other than "it exists". The latter part of my argument is that allowing a low bar for such articles is problematic; and logically, hundreds of articles about a restaurants is not of any interest for us to record. I could also cite NOTDIRECTORY, on the reasoning of "We are not a review site". And that, I think, puts it as plainly as I am able :) You are arguing rationality and objectivity, but to objective criteria you ascribe to a) is illogical when applied blindly and b) is intended as a guide to help specific decisions. No one here can claim to be more rational than the others, we are all being subjective at the moment (which is why you need to step off that high horse :) rationality's major flaw is blind faith and a deep misunderstanding...) We are talking about prime optimisation of Wikipedia as a useful and broad encyclopaedia. Do not imagine that just because I want to delete the article that means I am not "objective" :) --Errant (chat!) 16:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just because that is a long held opinion does not make it logical or even rational.: True. It is however a criteria which is more objective than others. It unfortunately leaves space to some fuzziness (what does "significant coverage" mean?) but at least it relies on data (the sources) and not pure opinions (like "importance"). And it directly and strongly addresses the question of "notability": that is, it directly measures if something has been already noted. That's why it is at least substantially objective (it does not depend strongly on editorial opinion) and rational (it is a rational measurement of notability). I know that in principle every criteria is arbitrary; however each criterion can be judged on its merits, and the alternative criteria herein suggested do not seem to have the positive properties of objectivity and rationality of this one. Second -on an entirely different note- it is not only a long held opinion: it is the consensual opinion of the WP community on how we judge notability. The two things are entirely independent but reinforce each other.
Also: you say it is a "trivial" piece of knowledge: why is it trivial? Why is this piece of knowledge trivial and the size of the Itokawa asteroid is not? Do we have an objective criteria to say what is trivial and what is not? Or it is just because we have a prejudice against some pieces of knowledge and not against others? --Cyclopiatalk 17:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


If we are to blindly follow guidelines... guidelines made by other users who have no better or worse judgement than the ones discussing this article... what is the point of the pillar of WP that it does not have firm rules? Whether you call it common sense, judgement, rationality, etc., the bottom line is we know that regardless of what a few run of the mill, to be expected reviews from a few years ago say, this restaurant's fleeting existence isn't worthy of an article, regardless of whether if fulfills the checklist of RS... but that is not to admit that I think it does fulfill notability requirements, because it does not. We are not expected to be slaves of the guidelines, so repeating them incessently with no reasonable/rational/sensible/logical/based on human judgement reason for why it should be kept is pointless. Njsustain (talk) 17:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notice that I am not talking of "blindly follow guidelines" (the only one who thinks that is Griswaldo in his Lovecraftian delusion). I am talking of the deep question of what notability means and why the one put by the GNG happens to be not only a guideline that we should generally follow, but also a good general criteria. In any case the difference is that local consensus should not trump global consensus: see WP:CONLIMITED, which is policy. Finally, there is a reasonable/rational/logical reason to keep this article: It is about a subject which has been noted by multiple sources. This means that it is not an indiscriminate, irrelevant piece of information: it has been discussed by other sources, and thus it passes an objective criteria of notability. Therefore we have no compelling reason to remove this article, and there is no benefit to the encyclopedia in removing it. The burden is on you to justify why it should be removed, not on me to find reasons to keep it, once it is agreed that it passes all our policies and guidelines -this is articles for deletion ,not articles for inclusion. --Cyclopiatalk 17:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This restaurant is within the "local" scope of the NY Times' regional section and other reviews.Njsustain (talk) 08:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - ephemeral eating place, not culturally significant. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not fulfill corporate notability. Also: WP:SPIP... Newspaper reviews are not entirely neutral... they have an interest in driving the high end restaurant business as a whole. Ephemeral piece. Continues to read as an ad, directory entry and/or puff piece. WP is not a directory. Restaurant is now closed. Assuming it remains so ("refurbishing" is ludicrous... it's only a few years old in a brand new building... and user reviews clearly show decline in service... it has not and will not make it in this city), will anyone think this is still of significance 10 or 20 years from now... NTEMP is entirely relevant here... it is not notable simply because it enjoyed fleeting recognition as a high end restaurant which happened to open a half an hour away from Manhattan. The motivations for keeping this article are entirely contrary to the very concept of WP. Njsustain (talk)
  • Delete - reviews are (still) not independent coverage; they merely confirm the establishment exists. Whether it is currently closed or not (for refurbishment or otherwise) is beside the point - what really matters is that notability has not been established for this restaurant.  Frank  |  talk  12:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are reviews good enough for artists or software, and not for restaurants? --Cyclopiatalk 13:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    They aren't, at least as far as establishing notability, which is the point here. It is quite possible to have a number of properly sourced references from reliable sources; that doesn't make their subject notable. This applies to restaurants, academics, musical artists, software, financial planners, electronics products, and many, many other things. "Appearing in print" most definitely does not show notability.  Frank  |  talk  01:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but if significant coverage of the necessary information to support an article from multiple reliable sources is not the way to determine notability, what is our neutral, objective, not related to fame or importance method for doing so? Jim Miller See me | Touch me 01:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's the definitions of significant coverage and independent of the subject that are important here. There are any number of ways to achieve GNews hits, reviews, press releases, and the appearance of notability. But they don't confer, imply, or establish notability. Restaurant reviewers live to review restaurants; if they don't do so, they don't have a job. That doesn't mean that every (or even any) restaurant they review is notable. If it wins awards, if its proprietors are profiled multiple times, if it makes actual news outside its own region for some reason...these things indicate notability. 61 Member Reviews, The food is delicious, there are 60-plus wines by the glass, and the experience is joyful and communal, and The restaurant was designed by Riscala Agnese Design Group, which has also been involved with Daryl’s Wine Bar, New Brunswick (to sample just three of the actual references from the article) don't fall into any of those categories. I know this is a sort of reverse-OSE, as in "other-stuff-doesn't-exist", but here is an example of what would probably qualify as a notable restaurant that doesn't have a Wikipedia article: Generous George's Positive Pizza Place, a Northern Virginia institution for at least the last two decades. Call this last bit a minor point, because I could always go create that article if I feel strongly about it, but I'm saying that even that well-known, easily-sourceable restaurant doesn't have an article...and if it were created, it would probably meet some resistance. Daryl's doesn't approach it in terms of longevity, breadth of coverage, or...in a word, notability.  Frank  |  talk  02:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the issue of reviews not being enough in general, you are wrong. WP:ARTIST explicitly cites reviews as an indicator of notability. In software it is long standing common practice. I can't understand why for restaurants this becomes magically wrong. --Cyclopiatalk 11:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reviews of artwork are vastly different from restaurant reviews, and are usually academic in some way. Independent critical review of an artwork is about as different from restaurant review as you can get :) Software; I doubt you could establish notability purely through reviews. It is worth pointing out the issue here is not so much use of reviews as a source for notability, but the use only of reviews as the significant coverage. It is simply not compelling :) --Errant (chat!) 12:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyclopia: The word review does appear in WP:ARTIST. However, context is important: 3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.. That is very far from "WP:ARTIST explicitly cites reviews as an indicator of notability." Two immediate reasons why: 1) Multiple and independent; since restaurant reviewers live to review, that doesn't qualify as independent; and 2) the reviews are listed as being reviews of a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work. So, to interpret that as saying that WP:ARTISIT explicitly cites reviews as an indicator of notability does not really tell the full story.  Frank  |  talk  12:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Yes, once notable always notable. It was never notable. As I pointed out the last time we went around this track, very few restaurants (in the U.S. at least) are not "reviewed". Keeping this article now implies that it's appropriate for Wikipedia to cover not only just about every existing restaurant, but any restaurant which once existed too. And if that's what the policy says, the policy needs to be changed.KD Tries Again (talk) 14:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]
  • Delete Not persuaded by the Keep arguments. This article sets a bad precedent. Next thing every ephemeral eatery in the world will be clamoring for their own article. Rumiton (talk) 15:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I personally don't think articles like this hurt the project, but I agree that it doesn't meet notability standards.--Milowent • talkblp-r 17:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of WP:SIGCOV that establishes notability beyond an isolated regional scope. Any restaurant can get the same amount of trivial coverage in regional news sections and sources. It is a farce to the global readership of Wikipedia to say that such "local-centric" coverage makes the business notable enough for a global encyclopedia. AgneCheese/Wine 22:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Out of the tens of thousands of restaurants in the New York Times area, it reviews one or two exceptional ones a week. We accept the New York Times review of books and off Broadway to establish notability, why not with restaurants? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean this kind of mention - its clearly promotional without assertion of any specific notability. Off2riorob (talk) 05:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Note those are all within the "local" purview of the NYT. These aren't in Peoria, Oklahoma City, Walla Walla, or Rangoon. Clearly all of those restaurants in that promotional piece are not of "regional" importance just because a NYT reviewer went on a LOCAL excursion to a bunch of restaurants of varying quality across the river in New Jersey. Njsustain (talk) 10:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of depth in referred source coverage, insufficient level of notability for encyclopecic usefulness and WP not being an indiscriminate listing directory. deMURGH talk 23:07, 7 February 2011 (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 g7, requested by author - next time, just blank the article. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cliff Buchholz

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

erroneous redirect (done my me - apologies) Mayumashu (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2011 (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) 23:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. P.B Kader

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

I've declined the A7 speedy on this as there's enough there for A7 (significant contributions to this and that, publications), but probably not enough for GNG. Doesn't appear to be notable, a quick search didn't turn up anything, though I may not be looking in the right language GedUK  19:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can find only two mentions of P.B.Kader on Google, one is the Wikipedia article the other is his linked in page, it's not looking promising.TeapotgeorgeTalk 19:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete might be notable in local country but without citations it's impossible to say. Google doesn't throw up anything much for the book titles either, for all we know they are vanity press. No evidence of notabillity so delete--ThePaintedOne (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have my doubts about this one, but since the book titles are purported to be in Mayalayam, it is likely they won't show up on an English language search (or even a Latin script seach). I don't have the wherewithal to search in Mayalalam. Hopefully, someone from India will be able to do the necessary research. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NOENG an english translation of citations needs to be provided, but I'm not holding my breath anything will emerge within the span of the AfD.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 20:42, 3 February 2011 (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 g7, author agreed to deletion, see below. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Cort and Fatboy Show

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

Recreation of a speedy deleted article about a show on a local radio station. Fails to credibly demonstrate notability through reliable sources - all the external links are blogs. PROD was removed by creator without improvement. Kudpung (talk) 18:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The template said to remove it from the page if I disagreed with it, so I did, along with a note on the talk page regarding why. I apologize. I am further attempting to demonstrate notability, but it's taking some time for find more articles of credibility on my own. Please also do note that the links from oregonlive.com are from The Oregonian themselves, the preeminent newspaper of Oregon. Centrifuze (talk) 19:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do the links to Oregon Live not give it enough credibility to stand as it is yet? Centrifuze (talk) 19:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, go ahead and delete it. I've backed up the page, and will resubmit it at a later date once its been better polished. Centrifuze (talk) 19:31, 3 February 2011 (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

Bottle toss

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

Fails WP:Hoax and WP:Made up. No sources. Safiel (talk) 17:25, 3 February 2011 (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. Any content worth merging can be pulled from the page history. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ernie the Giant Chicken

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

Decision of previous discussion was to delete Soxwon (talk) 16:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The subject of the article does not meet the criteria of the general notability guideline since it has no significant coverage in reliable third-party sources, only trivial mentions in reference to the episodes where it has appeared. None of the references in the reception section of the article treats in detail "Ernie the Giant Chicken" as a subject, but rather the references are reviews of Family Guy episodes or a single mention in a trivia-like article, so no reference in the article shows notability for "Ernie the Giant Chicken". Jfgslo (talk) 16:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either keep or merge, if the current sources aren't enough to justify Ernie's own article, then they could still be useful in the list. Harry Blue5 (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article and this article from IGN provide nontrivial coverage about Ernie the Giant Chicken. These third-party reliable sources do, in my opinion, address the concerns raised by Jfgslo (talk · contribs) — "None of the references in the reception section of the article treats in detail "Ernie the Giant Chicken" as a subject, but rather the references are reviews of Family Guy episodes or a single mention in a trivia-like article, so no reference in the article shows notability for "Ernie the Giant Chicken".

    The articles each provide three paragraphs of coverage about Ernie the Giant Chicken's role and history on the show. A short quote from the latter article:

    Ernie is as consistent as he is unrelenting. His MO is as follows: Interrupt episode mid-scene, furrow his brow, narrow his beak, and proceed to beat the living hell out of Peter.
    ...
    For a rivalry that started over a coupon, Ernie has become a welcomed addition to the Family Guy brand of funny. Sure, he's one-note, but, again, you = wrongness if that one joke doesn't make you laugh every time.       

    I believe there is enough material here to justify a stand-alone article. Cunard (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm less than impressed by 2 blurbs (from the same site) in a Top 10/25 countdown of favorite characters. Tarc (talk) 14:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. The Reception is largely criticism to due with the structure of the scenes - this is an article about the character in the scenes. "Ernie" does not influence the criticism, nor does he influence the praise. Basically, aside from a couple references, it is all to do with the pacing and length of the scenes rather than the character himself. While it is an admirable effort to try to make an article of this character considering how articles such as Meg Griffin and Chris Griffin are in a terrible state of affairs (and probably worse off than this one), I do not see any way that this will develop into a notable subject. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 12:06, 12 February 2011 (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) 23:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Progri

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

Lack of citations and content.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 15:58, 3 February 2011 (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) 23:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Butler

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

Best known for being married to someone famous - notability is not inherited. Other sources are limited to her IMDB page. Comments on the divorce are in Bill Murray's page. Some of the pages linked to this page are intended for a different Jennifer Butler. Muboshgu (talk) 15:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. I'm sorry Ashershow but the delete !voters have the stronger argument here. However, that ABC news source you provided is a reliable source and if 1 or preferably 2 more can be found then that might make it. I'll be glad to incubate or userfy this article on request. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Insanity (Home exercise program)

Insanity (Home exercise program) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article about a home fitness program has been reviewed dozens of times online, and is currently a very popular workout system. Just as notable as P90X or any other fitness program.--Ashershow1talk•contribs 14:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. When one comes across something like this, one's spidey-sense starts to tingle: is this article perhaps intended as publicity for an unnotable entity? In this case, I would say: yes, it is. There are no good references - three references, two to sites connected to the entity and one to an obscure website dedicated to reviewing systems like this. We need some actual indications of notability, and they are absent. The previous poster alluded to P90X, but that article has a couple of good references - Washington Post, CNN, Bloomberg. This article has nothing like that. Delete. Herostratus (talk) 15:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, spidey sense is a good description of it. Just doing a google search suggests lots of notabillity, but when you start to read it its feels like Astroturfing.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 16:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. Stacks of G-hits, but many of them are of dubious quality, e.g. obviously sales and promotional based sites. I read quite a few reviews and they were all very promotional in style rather than being objective third party assessments. I have a feeling that the people behind this system are very good at web promotion and generating buzz (as evidenced by their P90X scheme being the most shown infomercial in the US). Coupled with the promotional style of the original version of the article (which was speedy deleted under G11) I'm not convinced the subject is notable enough. The sheer volume suggests it may be, but I'd like to see some better quality sources that are more obviously indepedent. e.g. articles in mainstream press discussing its popularity (as was provided on the Beachbody article). If such citations were added my vote would probably change to keep.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're looking for sources in big news agencies, then Insanity was featured on an ABC News segment here. It was also reviewed by an expert on WebMD here.--Ashershow1talk•contribs 16:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, might do the trick but both still have that same promotional feel. I'll be interested to see how other users rate this.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When all the reviewers who liked it use similar phrases that ape the promotional material of the company then it looks dubious. Note that bloggers and the company's own website are not good enough sources--ThePaintedOne (talk) 17:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will make one final point before this page is discarded. Insanity unfortunately got off to the wrong foot with sources that were too primary for WP, but now has perfectly reasonable sources that would not be questioned for their "promotional tone" if they had not been apart of a deletion discussion. The majority of the sources at the P90X page are written in supprt of P90X. I don't believe a good review, despite what some may consider a "biased attitude," invalidates a source for inclusion. I hope administrators will see sources such ABC news and WebMD and reconsider the deletion of this article.--Ashershow1talk•contribs 21:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Vote and reply below copied from article talk page in case they are unfamiliar with the deletion process)--ThePaintedOne (talk) 13:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I recently wrote this same article and "the paintedone" had it deleted. It really is unfortunate that the moderators are so ignorant. Mine was deleted on the grounds that it lacked significance however this is a multi-million dollar fitness program with an aggressive ad campaign. It is significant to people who exercise regularly or are trying to get into shape. It would seem though that a few of the moderators do not fall into that category and are committing grievous fallacy of composition errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amplus imperium (talk • contribs) 00:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The previous version of the article wasn't deleted for being unimportant (A7), but on criteria G11 for being promotional. I've copied the relevent guideline below for ref.

G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic.

The current deletion proposal is because there does not appear to be sufficient quality, third party references to show that this is a notable scheme. Note that just being on sale does not make it notable, nor the size of the budget the company has put into it or the size and notabillity of the company. The kind of coverage required is stuff that demonstrates, independently of promotional work from the company, that this is a popular and well subscribed system. So a major news organisation doing an unprompted piece on how popular it is (and not just what appears to be a paid advertising segment). I've voted weak delete, because there is a fair bit of buzz around the system, but a lot of it looks to be the direct result of promotional work by the company, so not really independent notabillity..--ThePaintedOne (talk) 12:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Without wishing to assume bad faith, I think it worth noting that Amplus imperium's only edits to date, other than the comment copied above, were the original version of this article which was speedy deleted under criteria G11 as blatant promotion. That version of the article included details of where to buy and the price of the system, hence it was viewed as an advert and speedied. As such I think it reasonable to consider that this may be a single purpose account with possible COI. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 13:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a useful page and in my view notable. Dougransom (talk • contribs) 13:43, 10 February 2011
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nomination withdrawn. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Man in Black: His Own Story in His Own Words

Man in Black: His Own Story in His Own Words (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While the book has served in making a film on Cash's life, it does not seem to have any notability worth mentioning beyond this that is not already neatly summarized in Cash's page or on the movie's page. It has remained as a single sentence saying only that the book was used in the movie. Yaksar (let's chat) 14:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep - [10] - one of the top ten most sought after out of print books, Book was published in 1975. That is about 15-20 years before the internet. Reviews would be in hardcopy at a library in the media of the time. Taking a look at Wikipedia:Notability_(books), "A book is generally notable if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria:", and then "The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture" (of which there are several references indicating this). I would even go so far as to say it meets "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. ". Can the article be improved? Yes. Is this reason for deletion? No. Turlo Lomon (talk) 15:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Turlo Lomon's reasoning. The book was made into a notable film, so its notable. Dream Focus 15:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I disagree with Dream Focus' statement that being made in to a notable film automatically makes a work notable, but Turlo Lomon's reasoning seems sound, and I have changed my opinion on the article to keep.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He quoted the part from WP:BOOKS which says "The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement." It was made into a notable motion picture, and thus significantly contributed to it. Dream Focus 17:11, 3 February 2011 (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) 23:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Special state-to-state relations

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

The article does not establish notability; it seems to simply be a certain prominant figure's description of PRC-ROC relations. Although it is used on numerous pages (59, including project, talk and user pages), most cases in encyclopedia articles are because of its inclusion in the transcluded "Cross-strait relations" template. The remainder merely establish that a Taiwanese figure used the term and the Chinese didn't like it. Certainly the topic behind it does not seem separate from cross-strait relations and I don't believe notability could be established for this particular term alone. I don't think a redir is appropriate because it doesn't seem to be a "term of art". —Felix the Cassowary 13:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I forgot that I probably should point out that the article has existed in largely is current form for five-plus years and has had a "notability" template on it for over a year. Despite being in the template, no-one has seen fit even to edit it the slightest in that period. (Aside from deletion-related edits.) —Felix the Cassowary 14:06, 3 February 2011 (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) 23:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hancock-Child

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

My searching doesn't turn up enough to meet our criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (music). Dougweller (talk) 13:43, 3 February 2011 (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. Ironholds (talk) 12:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge architect

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

Page is primarily a list of firms, with many firms who might meet the description missing. It seems a matter of pure subjective judgement as to who would be included, and if it is useful, better dealt with via the existing Bridge architects category. The definition at the top is essentially spurious - I doubt there are many practicing bridge designers who would agree with it, it is not in common use and indeed I have never seen it anywhere other than on this page. Kvetner (talk) 13:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I'd say to keep it until someone has made an article for the history of bridge design that can stand by itself. At that point you could basically split this page into 2: Bridge design and Category:Bridge architects. In that case, there should also be an article on each and everyone of the people listed here ... it might take some time! 12:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't see the harm in keeping it. It is informative and since I know nothing about the subject it became actually interesting. I don't see the problem with the title, googleing it does not show much (yet still knows something), but should Google be the one and only meter to decide whether something exists in this world? :D On another note, Mandsford, how can you compare someone who installs an elevator to someone who actually design some of the most amazing and admired structures in the world, someone that with his design shapes the world and the way we move on it? 22:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.180.24.6 (talk)
    • The harm is that poorly referenced, non-notable entries detract from Wikipedia's reputation and value. What was informative about it? It's clear that bridge architects exist, but that doesn't merit their inclusion in an encyclopaedia. -- Kvetner (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maintain it is a notable topic. There is no reason for deletion. It is very useful in fact. It would be nice if there was some more history abour bridge design, but I can't see any problem in knowing who's who in the bridge design today. 20:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.157.177.228 (talk)
    • Wikipedia is not a directory of firms or individuals, it's an encyclopaedia. "Usefulness" is not relevant, notability is. What is your argument for its notability, other than that it's handy to have a list of firms, a function already served by the bridge architect category? There also seems to be some confusion here - if you want to know who's who in bridge design, surely you want an article on bridge designers, not on bridge architects. -- Kvetner (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stubify a quick Google search shows this to be a notable topic. The current page is sub-par but that is no reason for deletion. Remove the extensive list of firms and start over. -Atmoz (talk) 14:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This should be an article on the designers of bridges, across all times and cultures. Instead it is about some professional jargon that nobody outside the field cares about. Obviously all bridges are designed so redirect to Bridge or History of bridges. Borock (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What to make of this one? It's actually a "List of bridge architects" (or list of architectural firms) without the "kick me" sign on its back, and an unsourced and not very useful list at that. I can't say that it's an advertisement either ("We selected you for our multi-million dollar project because you were mentioned on Wikipedia"). Certainly, persons who do the designing, engineering and construction of bridges are important, though I could say the same thing about the persons who install elevators. An article that crosses all times and cultures is a tall order, but there certainly is room in our fun encyclopedia for a good article about a topic in the less exciting topic of infrastructure. At the moment, this isn't it. Mandsford 16:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Despite a very few google hits, the term "bridge architect" is not in wide use by any means, and the obscurely referenced bizarre definition cannot be taken as a basis for an article. The content of the list is random, unreferenced and useless. Bridge engineering [13] would be a far more useful and notable article. --Elekhh (talk) 02:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The majority of google hits on the combined term "bridge architect" are either to "bridge, architect" or simply to refer to someone who is the architect of a bridge. Neither shows the term to have any currency beyond the article here on Wikipedia. Google hits for "bridge designer" would not demonstrate that to be a term worth an article. "Landscape architect" is a useful term with widespread currency - "bridge architect" is not notable in itself any more than would be "railroad station architect" or "skyscraper architect". Regarding Borock's comment, I am a bridge design professional with many friends who are architects who design bridges, but they just use the term "architect", not "bridge architect", even when they are specialists. I think an article on bridge design or architecture of bridges could find room to cover this topic, but it just doesn't stand alone on its own merits. If the list of firms were removed, there is nothing left to say - the Arup definition cited does not, so far as I can tell, appear in any secondary source and is certainly not used in the field of bridge design. I should note that I see no problem with Category:Bridge architects as it can simply serve the function of listing architects for whom the design of bridges is a significant part of their practice, something that may be genuinely useful where the architects are notable enough to have an article anyway. Kvetner (talk) 12:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Bridge and pare down to eliminate the list of individual designers. They can have their own articles if they pass notability guidelines. This is a case where blindly counting Google hits is silly. For one, the customary term is "Bridge designer," not "Bridge architect." Second, it doesn't give a good indication of the notability of the topic. --Crunch (talk) 14:45, 6 February 2011 (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. While the company has plenty of indicators of its importance, proper sourcing has not been provided to establish its notability. lifebaka++ 15:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dovico (company)

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

This software company appears to be non-notable.

A number of external references are currently provided in the article, but none of them attest to notability:

  1. A review of their software product on toptenreviews.com, which includes a "buy now" button with an affiliate marketing target URL. There is a financial relationship between toptenreviews.com and Dovico, so this cannot be considered a neutral source.
  2. A case study about an unrelated software product which was integrated with Dovico. This article does not talk about Dovico in any signifiant way - the word "Dovico" is only mentioned twice.
  3. A student masters thesis which used data extracted from a Dovico installation. It does not discuss Dovico itself in any depth.
  4. A bachelor student project about construction project management. Its entire coverage of Dovico is this sentence: "Dovico is an industry standard time sheet software."
  5. A reference to a 2006 panel discussion which had a Dovico representative present. It does not discuss Dovico at all.

I initially came to this article when I saw it in the speedy deletion list; I recognized the name since I am a very happy Dovico user at work. However when I tried to find significant, independent coverage in reliable sources to add to the article, all I could come up with was press releases and a few forum posts.

I therefore believe that Dovico (company) does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:ORG, and that the article should be deleted. Thparkth (talk) 13:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thparkth,
DOVICO meets GNG in terms of coverage. There are now various case studies, all of which either focus on or discuss Dovico at some length or another, all referenced correctly. There is also an About.com (which, again, is a reliable and independent source) review by an independent author, detailing Dovico. There is a blog article detailing Dovico called '7 Time Tracking Tools To Help You Manage Your Time.' Under WP:ORG, it states that "Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice."." To appear in lists noting it as a top contender in its' software class, various case studies detailing how it has been used in various situations, press releases and information replicated across thousands of websites, in my opinion, shows notability.
For that reason, this article does not warrant deletion. It stands in line with not only all other pieces of software in the same league, but in line with all other company pages on Wikipedia.
Addition - Another Editor made a revision at 20:48, 2 February 2011 removing the A7 as he believed notability had been asserted.
Iammatty (talk) 14:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further to my points made above, please explain as to why an article that a genuine effort has been made to prove notability and to remove bias and to stay in line with Wikipedias requirements has been repeatedly hounded from every angle possible, and the following articles have not?
* SwipeClock
* SyncTime Express
* ITimeSheet
* True Time Tracker
Iammatty (talk) 15:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another notable article added detailing Dovico as a winner of the 2002 KIRA Export-Product of the year.
Iammatty (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further notability. Proof that Dovico is a Microsoft Certified Partner has been added. Link comes from Microsoft's website.
Iammatty (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe this may overstate the coverage in the Sidenko paper[14]. The entirety of its coverage of Dovico is the following text:
"The data are derived from Dovico Timesheet database. Dovico Timesheet is a project management application. Managers can control tasks assigned for projects, time of each task and expense of projects with Dovico Timesheet application. Dovico Timesheet is based on MSSQL database".
This is pretty much the definition of an incidental mention. The about.com reference[15] is a single paragraph in a larger article. It carries some weight but in my opinion it is not sufficient to establish notability.
Thparkth (talk) 19:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd add that the Sidenko paper appears to be a university master's thesis, which may not be the sort of publication that confers notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, the masters' thesis may be omitted.
The subject is one of the five software the About.com's six-paragraph article discusses, and the discussion is more than a passing mention. The information can be extracted without original research, so it is significant per WP:GNG (bullet point No.1).
Wikipedia's notability guideline on companies says that "notability can be established using the primary criterion" using "sources ... such as Hoover's". The subject has a Hoover's profile, and I believe that this, along with the About.com reference, is sufficient to establish notability. --Joshua Issac (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Joshua - the passage you quote from WP:CORP relates to public corporations - not privately held companies like Dovico. Thparkth (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
However, Hoover's, along with About.com, can be used to establish notability by the primary criteria for notability and/or the general notability guideline. --Joshua Issac (talk) 16:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The About.com issue is arguable, but the Hoover's entry is merely a directory entry and does not constitute "significant coverage". I do not understand your argument that it attests to notability. Thparkth (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then you admit that the About.com article is at the very least arguable in terms of notability? It is not just a passing mention of the company as it appears at the number one spot for "Top Time Tracking Software Programs," showing that the company in itself is well established in its' field. The primary criteria sets out that About.com and Hoovers are deemed reliable sources, and thus the Dovico article is notable. Any other argument is down to a personal opinion as to whether the Dovico page should, in fact, have a place on Wikipedia, as notability has without a doubt been established. Iammatty (talk) 11:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The company has been made notable with various case studies and links detailing where Dovico has been used and how it integrates with other products. They are official Microsoft Certified Partners which, again, has been referenced. There is now a reference to a pending Patent application. The history of the company, which dates back to the late 80s, will soon be updated significantly. A page about Dovico on Microsoft, mentions/company profiles on various reliable sources such as About.com and Hoovers, a Pending Patent application with CIPO (Canadian Intellectual Property Office) are all more than enough to show that this company is more than your run-of-the-mill local software provider. References, links to and profiles about Dovico across this wide a base of relevant and trustworthy sources is enough to even establish notability. Iammatty (talk) 09:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The only one of those sources which carries any weight at all for notability is the About.com article. None of the case studies are even about Dovico. Being a Microsoft Certified Partner in no way demonstrates notability by Wikipedia standards - the huge majority of such companies are non-notable. Having filed a patent doesn't demonstrate notability. For a private company, having a profile on Hoovers doesn't demonstrate notability. None of these things amount to "significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources". Every word of that phrase is important!
The about.com article isn't about Dovico either, and devotes only one paragraph to the subject. In my opinion it is not "significant" enough to demonstrate real notability. A truly notable company has been profiled in-depth in newspaper and magazine articles, written about in books, or has made a cultural impact; relying on a single paragraph mention on about.com is almost evidence of non-notability.
Thparkth (talk) 11:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph in the About.com article does constitute significant coverage. The subject "need not be the main topic of the source material" (WP:N). Almost 20% of the About.com article is to do with the subject in question, and it addresses the subject directly. This is more than a trivial mention (WP:GNG, bullet point 1). --Joshua Issac (talk) 16:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would encourage those reading, and especially the the AfD closer, to examine the Hoover's profile[16] and consider whether it is anything more than just a directory entry, and the About.com article[17] to consider whether its 74 words is significant enough to hang the notability of an entire article on. Obviously I believe the answer is "no" in both cases. Thparkth (talk) 17:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also would encourage the AfD closer to examine not just the two articles being discussed here (Hoovers/About.com) but the article as a whole, and the other references listed. To examine the length of work that has gone into creating the article, the rest of the articles referenced throughout the page and to also see that even just the about.com and the Hoovers page attest to notability, being reliable sources. Iammatty (talk) 09:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Just to reinforce the point above, the article provides notability to an extent that a lot of other pages on Wikipedia haven’t. Again, being linked with Microsoft/About.com/CIPO/KIRA shows that Dovico has a long-standing and illustrious history, and as a result, any question as to whether notability has been asserted has been answered. Bellg458 (talk) 10:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC) — Bellg458 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete per WP:N. Applying for a patent does not make a company notable. About.com is not a reliable source of product reviews. KIRA is specific to New Brunswick. Mention in Daptiv case study is unsubstantial (and doesn't describe the company or identify which product it's about). Sidenko mention is unsubstantial. Guha paper is an undergraduate thesis and therefore self-published. I searched for other sources but didn't find any. It belongs in Wikipedia after there's substantial coverage in reliable sources. --Pnm (talk) 05:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note Smashinghub (the site for the "top 10" mentioned) publishes promotional posts on behalf of advertisers[18], and so is not an independent source. Thparkth (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2011 (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 per WP:SNOW Mandsford 23:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yougothassled

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

A neologism with no evidence of use anywhere. Created by User:Yougothassled indicating that they made it up themselves. (PROD was removed) SmartSE (talk) 13:00, 3 February 2011 (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.   -- Lear's Fool 12:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kippax Uniting Church

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

This fails WP:GNG. Obviously an active church, but when it comes down to it, just an ordinary church and non-notable. StAnselm (talk) 11:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess an Australian megachurch would indeed be notable. The List of the largest churches in Australia only lists 17 above 2000. The key thing is what "1400 people who use services at the church each week" actually means - it may mean 1400 use the church premises. In any case, see WP:BIGNUMBER for the concept of "non-notable size". StAnselm (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
agree with above, the number of attendees is irrelevant, significant coverage is what is required which this sorely lacks. LibStar (talk) 21:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
StAnselm, I agree with everything you said in your last post, the only problem is that by pointing me to WP:BIGNUMBER instead of relevant previous AfD discussions, I don't have any feedback on the current consensus for what amounts to a preliminary presumption of a non-notabably-small church.  My thinking on this is that any large church, 301-2000 weekend attendance, has a preliminary presumption of being notable.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"My thinking on this is that any large church, 301-2000 weekend attendance, has a preliminary presumption of being notable" is not an established criterion in WP. LibStar (talk) 06:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added two more references, one from the media office of the head chief minister of the ACT government, and another from the Australian federal government, each under policy I think constitute strong indications of notability, the ACT would be regional media, and the federal government would be national media.  Total references for article is currently twenty.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to disagree with you. These are bare mentions, not significant coverage. StAnselm (talk) 03:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The [Chief Minister of the Australian Capital Territory] and/or his media office gave Kippax six mentions and awarded them a new program and AU$200,000.  As for what the federal government reported, that is a matter of opinion as to whether AU$50,000 is trivial or substantial notice.  The article already mentions that the ACT Chief Minister appointed one of the church ministers to be a member of the ACT Community Inclusion Board.  Two different Australian governments have given and continue to give their attention to Kippax.  I think that "bare" mentions would be more like finding the name "Kippax" in a phone book, or in a list of businesses in the Kippax district. Unscintillating (talk) 07:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But it's not up to us to notice the $50,000 - it's whether this has been noticed by secondary sources - of course the government makes public who is receiving the funding, but merely receiving government funding alone is not an indication of notability. Are there newspapers who see that Kippax is receiving money and decide to send a reporter down to interview the minister? It doesn't look like it. StAnselm (talk) 08:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to be annoying but to put your trust in the newspapers to report such stuff is really questionable. The media for the most part doesn't get religion. And, in recent times, are more interested in sensationalist reporting of religion only when members are accused of hypocricy or are somehow offending social sensibilities. Yes, it is not up to us to report on stuff, but to find the secondary sources. But I believe that you need to broaden your definition of sources to that beyond the main stream media. For example if a church denominational publication made reference to the local congregation. Stuff that Google News isn't going to pick up either. Dean Tregenza (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The notion of notability is problematic as it all is a matter of perspective. The notion of number of worshippers being an important factor is merely an indicator of ones belief of what is important from a particular perspective. I personally couldn't give a toss if a lot of people attended a local church. What is important to me is if peoples lives are transformed by the existence of that faith community in the midst of society. If a person who receives the services of the community services agency of the church were no longer available, they (at least 1400 people and their families) would notice. Other agencies would notice (especially if they didn't have the resources that UnitingCare Kippax has). Other factors that need to be taken into account is the participation of the leadership and members within the wider community. What is their influence in society? How does their belonging to this particular faith community influence what they do? The fact that one of the ministry team was specifically invited by the Chief Minister of the ACT to participate in the Canberra 2030 strategic planning process is something to note - although this wasn't reported in the media. Another examples are obviously Lin Hatfield-Dodds, Karen Middleton and John Williamson. But there are a significant number of members of the congregation that are in senior positions of leadership in the community groups and the work context (eg within the Australian Public Service). I could provide some names but generally people who want to make the world a better place like to do it without any fanfare or public notoriety ;-). Dean Tregenza (talk) 06:30, 9 February 2011 (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) 23:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ilče Pereski

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

Unreferenced BLP. Others are welcome to try but I found no evidence that this player has ever played for Persepolis. In fact most of the info in the article can only verified on these youtube videos, which can hardly be considered reliable. J Mo 101 (talk) 11:09, 3 February 2011 (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) 18:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Magibon

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

This has gone through four deletion discussions, I admit; first two were "no consensus" and the next two were "keep". However, the 4th discussion was in 2009; since then, I see absolutely no sign that the person is notable. WP:15M applies. (The person might have appeared notable back in 2008 and 2009; I don't think the person was notable, but at least justifiably could be viewed as notable back then.) Delete. --Nlu (talk) 15:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ....... Leave a message 11:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Still it is a strong indication that most people dont share you disgust for this article. Quite the opposit.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is not this last comment an indicator of what watching Magibon does to your brain? --Nlu (talk) 02:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable enough to be a featured as a Know Your Meme 2008 Video along with other notable internet meme trackers (ie in the same notoriety level as of Numa Numa, Epic Beard Man, Boxxy etc.) Guerberj (talk) 05:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The reliable source material isn't fleeting. In fact, the same reliable source material is still going strong. Until the publishers retract the reliable source material, the topic will continue to meet WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:14, 6 February 2011 (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. Copyvios all over the place, almost every para exists somewhere else on the web already GedUK  19:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Dijkstra

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

I cannot establish notability in the Wikipedia sense. He is only mentioned sideways in a few news articles. Crowsnest (talk) 11:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete While the subject may be notable, the article is almost completely copyvio. I've added a CSD tag, but either way it would need a complete rewrite to be viable. The various images have also been tagged for deletion by others. - Bilby (talk) 13:07, 3 February 2011 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Varsity Trip

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

Nothing to indicate general notability outside Oxford/Cambridge universities; it's ostensibly a non-notable event, as written, and previous noms haven't addressed this. Rodhullandemu 01:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There was an even earlier discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Varsity trip, which was closed as keep. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article contains "The Blues race bears the distinction of being the world's oldest team ski event with a tradition which dates back to 1896". I am surprised that this is not sourced as it is almost certainly both true and notable. It is the Blues Race that is notable, not this trip. Pretty well all the Blues events are notable because they attract a lot of attention. I suggest that this article be moved to Oxford and Cambridge Universities Ski Race and a small part of the article on the trip retained, with expansion of material about the race. However, it needs someone with more knowledge of the sport than I have (zero). --Bduke (Discussion) 01:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Comment The debate here was very finely balanced, and defaulted to "Keep". The second discussion here also defaulted to "Keep" on the basis of on additional and weak, source. However, the article remains as a prime example of local interest because its general notability has not been demonstrated such as to warrant its inclusion in an encyclopedia of general interest. In short, this article started off being poor as regards notability and hasn't advanced beyond that point; I'll just say that if this event possessed general notability, it should have surfaced in the last five years, but it just hasn't. Rodhullandemu 02:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems more likely that the race started in 1922. There is a book reference, to which I have no access, to this date on the Wengen article and the Cambridge Club's account of the 2009 race describes it as the 87th year of racing. However the latter reference here is not independent. The recent 2011 trip appears to have got masses of (bad) publicity. I think this should be a keep to allow time to take up my suggestion above of renaming and moving the emphasis to the race. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:50, 3 February 2011 (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. Nomination withdrawn. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jinny Jacinto

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

Actor whose only properly sourced indication of notability is having been in one television commercial; all other sources are WP:PRIMARY and/or YouTubey. I'd normally be inclined to speedy this, but there's a declined prod lurking in its edit history — that said, however, I still don't see how it's anything but a delete in the absence of major sourcing improvements. Bearcat (talk) 23:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. This source with in-depth coverage certainly isn't WP:PRIMARY and/or YouTubey, and dates from a long time before the television commercial. When I contested WP:PROD deletion I pointed out that there was plenty of coverage found by a Google News archive search that was unrelated to Marriott, so I would have hoped that any AfD nominator would address that coverage in the nomination. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It ain't good enough to say that there are sources out there, if those sources aren't in the article by the time of close. Bearcat (talk) 03:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:26, 3 February 2011 (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 17:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

J. J. Outlaw

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

Never played a game in the NFL, fails WP:ATHLETE Delete Ibluffsocall (talk) 22:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete all. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Erjon Xhafa

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

Article about a footballer who fails both WP:GNG, and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kadri Birja (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Akil Jakupi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Keep, player plays in Albanian Superliga --Vinie007 19:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)--Vinie007 19:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide a source that states that the Albanian Superliga is fully pro? Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:25, 3 February 2011 (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 both. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Basic Roman spelling of English

Basic Roman spelling of English (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I am also nominating:

Roman Phonetic Alphabet for English (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The articles are nominated for deletion because of a lack of notability. The only sources referring to these spelling systems were written by their inventor, who is also the creator of these articles. Thus, they fail the general notability guideline criterion of significant coverage in sources that are independent of the subject. {{Prod}} tags were removed. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Re-Romanization of English on an article by the same author on the same or similar subject matter.  --Lambiam 16:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two papers, one of which isn't by the system's inventor, is way, way below the necessary threshold. Please read the notability guidelines before participating. EEng (talk) 19:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note. Apcbg is the creator of the articles.  --Lambiam 20:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's completely false, as you will see when the closing admin evaluates the outcome of this discussion based on the strength of arguments. The source which according to the two articles was authored by "Valerie Yule" is just a web page on the site of a non-notable Australian society which happens to contain a broken reference "(Yule 1991)". It's not at all clear who the author of that document is. (It also looks like a copyright violation, in which case we would not be allowed to link to it. Moreover, I note that the article Interspel has the same problem and may need some attention as well.) Since it's apparently not formally published it's not a reliable source and so can't contribute to notability. And I can't even see how it refers to the specific topic of either article! (Possibly the other way round.)
You have not given us any reason to believe that this topic has ever received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (WP:GNG). Given that English spelling reform is a typical playground for cranks, the a priori assumption is obviously that it is not notable enough for its own article and probably not even notable enough to be mentioned in an article on unadopted English spelling reform proposals, of which there have been hundreds over the centuries. Hans Adler 16:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the strength of arguments excluding fallacious arguments, and you are commenting on the wrong source. Apcbg (talk) 17:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I missed that Yule is actually a co-author of Ivanov. Therefore Yule is not independent. My point stands: No significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. If there is such coverage, I am sure you know about it. Just give us the links and you win automatically. Hans Adler 19:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I do, and pointed that out at the very beginning of this discussion: Peer reviewed editions such as the Contrastive Linguistics journal are independent sources. Apcbg (talk) 07:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is my understanding that you are referring to two papers authored or co-authored by Ivanov. It is also my understanding that Ivanov is the inventor or main promoter of this proposed spelling reform. Therefore these sources are not independent. Please note that to pass WP:GNG we need coverage that satisfies all criteria simultaneously: significant, in reliable sources, and independent. Publications in academic journals generally count as reliable, but they are not independent from their authors merely because the journal is. Hans Adler 10:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Replying to Hans Adler’s comment above posted after the article’s relisting.) You are messing ‘independent source’ (the author does not influence the decision whether his/her work is published or not) with ‘secondary source’ (publication on someone else’s work). Apcbg (talk) 20:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, Adler's correct. An article on the system by the system's inventor doesn't count for notability no matter where it appears, including refereed journals. Citations by others to that paper do count, but obviously there's no abundance of those. EEng (talk) 23:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is not the place for one’s say-so but for invoking relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Apcbg (talk) 07:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is not "one's say-so". It is the way that GNG has been uniformly applied throughout the entire project for years. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, policies and guidelines are descriptive of general consensus, not prescriptive, and they are interpreted sensibly, not literally. In this case the general consensus how to interpret GNG is long-standing and firm, and I have never met anyone before who claimed otherwise. Hans Adler 08:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no general consensus to replace ‘independent’ by ‘secondary’. Apcbg (talk) 08:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to believe that's what we've done here, then believe it. See WP:STICK and WP:HEAR. I'm removing this page from my watchlist as others have you well in hand. EEng (talk) 09:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Secondary sources and ‘impact in any corner of the world’ is not what WP:DP and WP:GNG stipulate in terms of requirements. Apcbg (talk) 05:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's true. We're using sarcasm to ridicule your continued wasting of editors' time in defense of your stupid vanity article. EEng (talk) 05:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Felix, you appear to be correct; I haven’t noticed that WP:GNG definition of ‘source’. And although the articles are written in good faith, contain no original analysis or interpretation of the primary-source material, no analytic or evaluative claims, and are based on reliable, published and independent sources, the latter are still primary sources as WP:OR explicitly says that “a scientific paper is a primary source about the experiments performed by the authors.” Therefore, I am withrawing my objections to the proposed deletion. You see, no need for ‘impact on a corner of the world’ :-) Apcbg (talk) 11:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! I see now that you are probably a fellow mathematician, and you certainly behave like one. I apologise for any hard words I used. Getting an article deleted is annoying. I just hope that we can keep you here anyway. Hans Adler 12:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He is, indeed, a professional mathematical logician, and in general a prolific and much appreciated contributor.  --Lambiam 17:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Apcbg. I didn't mean the articles weren't written in good faith, and I didn't mean they contained any particular claims that would be invalid on Wikipedia (if that was the case, I'd've voted "keep but rewrite"—or done it myself). It's the fact that there's no secondary sources and (because of lack of impact) there aren't any. So in my line of reasoning, yes, impact in a corner of the world is necessary. If it's not for you—that's fine too. BTW, you might want to strike-through your "Keep" above for convenience of the closing admin. (Incidentally, I don't think I've ever seen consensus achieved like this before. I'm impressed. You get free points.) —Felix the Cassowary 13:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tõnis Vanna

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

Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG, and who has not played in a fully pro league. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Btw Google gives 163,000 results. Pelmeen10 (talk) 16:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The burden of proof is on your side. Notability requires verifiable evidence, and in the absence of verifiable evidence that the Superetten is fully-pro, we cannot assume that he is notable on the grounds of having played there. The fact that the early rounds of UEFA club competitions do not confer notability inherently is a well established consensus. If you, or anyone else, can provide significant coverage in reliable sources, I'd be happy to withdraw the nomination, but in the absence thereof he fails every relevant notability guideline. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There may be a fair number of citations, but none of them confer notability. The three external links are all database entries which are explicitly excluded under WP:NSPORT, one of the inline citations is a dead-link and therefore irrelevant, and the other two are routine sports journalism. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Õhtuleht is a major newspaper in Estonia, so it confers notability. I also corrected second ref. Pelmeen10 (talk) 15:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, thank you for the correction. Second, one source alone is never grounds for notability. If you can provide a few more instances of similar coverage, from other reliable sources, I'd be inclined to say he does meet GNG, but for now the one source is insufficient. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not, but it doesn't matter. As I stated above, notability requires verifiable evidence. There is no verifiable evidence that he has played in a fully-pro league, and therefore not notable on those grounds. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Biomechanics of Diabetic foot

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

Essay / original research. Possibly a small amount could be merged into diabetic foot. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. P. E. Abraham

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

Fails WP:GNG - vanity page with no reliable third party coverage. Cntras (talk) 06:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following URL has the scanned newspaper copies that appeared in various publications. http://www.drabraham.in/category/news/ Will this be enough ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anandkanatt (talk • contribs) 12:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC) — Anandkanatt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:23, 3 February 2011 (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 Laptop. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Multibay

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

A non-notable proprietary technology. The article itself has no sources to stand on, either. Raymie (t • c) 01:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It is clear that this does not deserve an article of its own. However, a few other Wikipedia articles mention it, and it would be interesting if this were described somewhere since it is common for laptop technical specifications. Maybe describe in Laptop with a redirect thereto? Nageh (talk) 22:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:22, 3 February 2011 (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. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Brunswick Scottish Cultural Association

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

fails WP:ORG. gnews also indicates it holds events but nothing indepth [24]. LibStar (talk) 02:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question There is some coverage of the issues it deals with. [[25]], but my question is this: my reading of WP:CLUB seems to cut out every organization that doesn't have a national presence. How do groups like Virginia_Historical_Society survive that? I'm just wondering, I don't see the distinction. Wickedjacob (talk) 03:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the article you provide is not really indepth. it cites a member of the org making a public comment. LibStar (talk) 03:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. Still wondering about whether a group has to be national to be notable. Wickedjacob (talk) 04:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A group does not have to be national to be notable, there just needs to be some evidence of coverage by independent 3rd-party sources. 20:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:21, 3 February 2011 (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Investor Network on Climate Risk

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

Completing unfinished nom for IP. Rationale was that article looked like an advertisement. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:21, 3 February 2011 (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 Autobots. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sparkabots

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

Non notbale Transformers characters with dubious "sources" to assert notability Dwanyewest (talk) 07:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:21, 3 February 2011 (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. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Optimus mini three

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

Unreferenced semi-orphaned article tagged with not meeting GNG for 3 years. Sottolacqua (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment There are actually a ton of reviews and RSs about this item. I don't know that that means it should get its own article though. What standards would this be judged by (sorry, I'm new to the AfD thing)?LedRush (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:20, 3 February 2011 (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) 23:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Major titles (snooker)

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

Article fails on "Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions". The article is not adequately sourced and attempts to define a "major tournament" in Snooker, terminogy that carries no specific meaning in the game. The definition given here implies that the majors are the four BBC events (World Open/UK/Masters/World Championship). While the UK, Masters and World Championship are universally defined as the Triple Crown (snooker) within snooker, the term "major tournament" carries no such precise meaning. While it is used in some contexts to denote the BBC events this isn't the universal case; World Snooker considers the Shanghai Masters and the Welsh Open to be "major events" as described here: [26]. The BBC on the otherhand defines all ranking tournaments to be "major tournaments", giving particular importance to the World Championship and the UK Championship as described here: [27]. For this reason, "majors" or "major tournaments" denote different events in snooker determined by who is applying the terminology, and so therefore it is misleading to pick out a specific set of tournaments as "majors". The article is not adequately sourced and draws to POV conclusions so for this reason I believe it would be better to scrap the article. Betty Logan (talk) 09:14, 3 February 2011 (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. Discussion of renaming or better defining the scope can continue on the article's talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of suicides in fiction

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

Possibly fails WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIR. While the previous AfD established the notability of "Suicide in Fiction," it really did not justify a list of all suicides, and this article remains unclear and unclean. There needs to be some sort of qualification for notability; Wikipedia has thousands of articles about movies, games, and other fiction, all of which are considered notable themselves but include a suicide that is unmemorable or trivial but, as of now, could be included on this list.Yaksar (let's chat) 08:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's an impossibly long list that only serves as a directory. This isn't a case of just a list that will never be fully finished; it's something that really won't be of any use to a reader without either more criteria or qualifications needed for notability. I also agree that, say Small Businesses are notable, but that doesn't mean that I feel an indiscriminate list would be fitting.--Yaksar (let's chat) 13:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most articles on Wikipedia are never finished, that's why people keep editing them. Why would it need to be fully finished? And this is not indiscriminate. Dream Focus 15:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Out of curiosity, to whom do you feel this would be potentially useful? Beyond someone trying to make, well, their own list of suicides in fiction with no qualifications, I can't see any other uses.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article doesn't need to prove itself useful, that not an inclusion criteria. And obviously some people do in fact look up the information. Even before it had anything linking to it, it still got over a thousand hits a month. [28] Click any date at random and see how many views it had. Dream Focus 12:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "I don't like it," but it is an important topic. The list should be useful to interested people. BTW how about some people from Shakespeare? My bad. Some are there, but not all. Borock (talk) 15:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. It's not indiscriminate, and I can't figure out what which of the 7 examples in WP:NOTDIR it would conceivably fall under. To an extent, any list, category, table or template is a "directory". "Unclear and unclean" is an argument I hadn't read before on AfD, and a welcome break from the cliches that abound here. However, the obvious solution to that problem is "clear it up" and "clean it up". Mandsford 17:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that there is no way to clear or clean it up without changing the criteria, and there is no way to change the criteria on an article like this; the title describes what it is. Think about it, in an ideal state, this article would contain every single suicide in fiction ever, from comics to movies to videogames to myths. Even the qualification of "notable" suicides would be an improvement, rather than an all encompassing list of every fictional suicide.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously you don't need to use the word "notable". Everything on the list is from a fictional source which has been proven notable enough to have its own article. So it isn't a real concern. Dream Focus 18:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – This is a proper topic for a stand-alone list. The nominator ought to remember that AfD is not a forum for cleanup. --Danger (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nominator has failed to articulate any reason for deletion: IINFO does not apply to a coherent list of topics like "suicide in fiction" because "suicides in fiction" is not a trivial cross-characterization, NOTDIR does not apply because this does not attempt to be a comprehensive directory of all possible fictional suicides. Jclemens (talk) 18:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • To comment on the below renaming issues, I find both of the major proposals unconvincing: "suicide in fiction" is a separate issue, suitable for its own article; this article is a list of major suicides in fiction. As far as "Notable suicides in fiction" or the like, 1) "notability" is a Wikipedia concept that doesn't need to be reflected in titles, and 2) Notability does not limit article contents, per WP:NNC. Jclemens (talk) 03:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete listing everytime someone (sourced or not) has committed suicide in fiction is indiscriminate and unencyclopedic. Our list articles should have precise standards, but the criteria for inclusion for this list is overly broad and as such a discriminate article is impossible to achieve from the topic. Any such list that encourages editors to pile-in everything they can think of that fits the topic is unencyclopedic and shouldn't be here. ThemFromSpace 18:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "unclear and unclean." is a reason to work on a list , or ask others to help work on it, but not a reason for deletion. Nothing notable is intrinsically unclear or unclean, it just takes careful editing. All lists of this sort have the implicit restriction of being limited to significant whatevers in notable subjects. In the case of fiction, we consistently consider fiction to encompass games, comics, films, and all other forms. If the list gets to long, we sometimes do divide by forms, but that is rarely necessary. As here, Wikipedia content is a balance between the considerations of NOT DIR and NOT PAPER. Both rules are necessary for a comprehensive modern encyclopedia. We do have standards, although very little in Wikipedia can have precise standards. If we eliminated everything where the standards were not precise, we'd be limiting our coverage to mere directory information, for everything beyond that takes judgement. The red herring that such lists include everything possible is absurd--the fictional works we consider notable are a very small proportion of the total. DGG ( talk ) 18:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I changed my reasons for the nomination to make them a bit more clear, I was somewhat rushed at the time. Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your change in the middle of the discussion [29] is actually a call for improvement, not deletion. Unless I'm reading this wrong, you added "There needs to be some sort of qualification for notability; Wikipedia has thousands of articles about movies, games, and other fiction, all of which are considered notable themselves but include a suicide that is unmemorable or trivial but, as of now, could be included on this list." That's pretty much a variation of the old "this could be endless" argument (although my experience is that most books, movies, games, etc. do not include a suicide, since people don't enjoy that). Could-be-endless is of limited use as an argument. In an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, dubious additions can be, and usually are, taken out by another editor exercising common sense without need of a specially worded qualification. Mandsford 19:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Suicide in fiction (or so) and refocus as an article on the topic, rather than a list. This page is much cleaner and more concise than it was the last time I commented on its deletion in 2009, but I maintain my stance from then that an article focusing on the topic is better than a list of occurrences, no matter how well-pruned or -sourced said list may be. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 18:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When one looks, one immediately finds lots of relevant sources such as Fictional depiction of suicide in television films and imitation effects, Dostoevsky and suicide, Revolutionary Suicide in Toni Morrison's Fiction, Suicide and the media, Suicide in Henry James's fiction, Suicide and fiction, &c. The topic therefore has plenty of scope for improvement and the nomination just seems to be hand-wringing that the article is not better yet. Deletion would be disruptive and contrary to our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Many comments (in particular those by Cirt and Colonel Warden) are very convincing arguments for the creation of an article on Suicide in Fiction. Please note, however, that this is very different from a list of suicides, and the rationale behind one cannot be used to defend the other.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm the editor who originally split this material from List of suicides, and I've also supported deletion in the past two discussions. I'm not going to repeat myself, because the evidence of two and a half deletion discussions shows that the consensus will always be "keep and clean up". I am going to take the opportunity to point out that such a close (which will surely happen again) is fatuous nonsense. Lots of editors always show up to say "we can clean this up", and having staved of deletion with this promise they do not see any need to perform any actual cleanup, since after all the deletion discussion closed as "keep". If anyone other than me had worked on cleaning up the list, it might end up in a state worth keeping. I'm sure that, having read this, some commenters below me will promise to work extra hard on fixing up the list because they see what I mean and it's a big concern and everyone who supports keeping articles based on the possibility of cleanup naturally ought to put their money where their mouth is. I also know that that cleanup won't happen. It is silly to pretend that it will. It is equally silly to close this discussion with a rationale that assumes, as a pretext, that the cleanup will happen. As I've already noted, I'm as confident of that closure as I am that everyone involved will honestly mean what they say about cleanup, just as I am confident about the lack of results. I can't command the tide to turn back for me, and so I can't honestly make this a "delete" comment, but I do still feel obliged to condemn the eventual result of this discussion. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One of the most famous being Romeo and Juliet I feel a list of notable suicides would be better. Rename to List of suicides in notable fiction and cleanup/reference the list, my position from the last AfD remains un=changed here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I see no apparent reason for deletion. Not either a renaming of the article. Per all lists on wikipedia.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, though I know it's too late. The list serves nothing - why do you suppose it's an orphan? At best, this should be a category for fiction works that have suicide as the main component. Let me ask you this - when I create List of homicides in fiction and put thirty items in it, will all you "keep"-ers vote keep when it gets (rightfully) hauled into AFD? How about List of cats in fiction? Okay, okay, we'll start off with List of blue-eyed people in fiction and just go from there, okay? The list we're talking about now is no less ridiculous, no less subjective, and no less infuriating. It's true that articles (and lists) don't ever have to be "complete" (that's usually not possible), but they should have a chance of at least being comprehensive. What would this list have to look like in order to become a featured list? Would it have twice as many entries? Ten times as many? A thousand? Would all the works have to be notable? Or would the characters have to be notable? Or perhaps they should only be included if the actual suicide itself was notable? This list is a mess and should be deleted; it has no hope of ever being more than a mess. Matt Deres (talk) 03:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just something important people should take note of: any list on wikipedia, or indeed any article, should be something that could potentially reach featured article status. I can see no possible way this could do so. In its ideal state, this article would contain every suicide in all works of fiction on wikipedia at the time, a ridiculously long page. And no, length alone is not a reason to delete a page, but imagine what this would look like. Names upon names upon names of suicides, some memorable, most insignificant, that could not be viewed as helpful to anyone except, well, someone making a list of the exact same thing.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIR. My opinion on this still hasn't changed. It might be possible to write a good article about suicide in fiction, but it's impossible to create a comprehensive and discriminate list. In the alternative, I'd support a rename to "suicide in fiction"... but you'd basically have to start over with less emphasis on trivia and more emphasis on the concept as a whole. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is indeed a "trivial cross-characterization", despite the fervent hand-waving to the contrary. Tarc (talk) 17:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's true that the criteria are vague for defining whether a suicide is notable enough for this list. However, this, more or less, holds for all wikipedia entries. --Cyfal (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Suicide in fiction. Suicide in fiction is a clearly notable topic, and a proper encyclopedic documentation of this topic should include a list of significant suicides depicted in fiction. This article is just an unconnected list for now, with no global commentary on the subject, but this can be remedied. Cenarium (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Suicides in literature to include stage plays (e.g. 8 suicides in Eugene O'Neill's works). As is the article is woefully incomplete and probably never will be finished, but that's OK. The topic is valid, at least for now until greater changes come in reading practice and technology (to wit definitions of literature) A more complete list on the topic could be valuable source for research perspectives, etc. --Dan.sampey (talk) 00:47, 8 February 2011 (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) 23:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Chevreau

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

Chevreau has not been the subject of coverage sufficent to satisfy the general notability guideline, and I can find nothing to indicate notability under the guideline for authors. Google returns very few mentions of his books, and I cannot find any substantial reviews thereof. A Google News search returns some brief mentions of speeches, but apart from a single story about his church in the Toronto Star ([30]), there is nothing approaching significant coverage.   -- Lear's Fool 07:09, 3 February 2011 (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) 23:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sonoma Risk Insurance Agency

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

fails WP:CORP. no wide indepth coverage. just 6 gnews hits [31]. LibStar (talk) 07:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted per G12 by JIP (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of assassinations and acts of terrorism against Americans (USA)

List of assassinations and acts of terrorism against Americans (USA) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'd like to get opinions on this list right from the start: Is the notable and manageable in its defined scope? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The list is far too broad, and could be (and likely has been) divided into several subcategories. I vote to delete--Chimino (talk) 06:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Darn, y'know what — I just noticed it's copy-pasted copyvio. So I guess we'll kill it speedily. My apologies. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. A messy AfD overall. A lot of sources provided, not really established either way whether they are enough for notability. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

D'Jais

D'Jais (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Look, here's what we need to know:
(1) Why is this bar somthing people all over the world might want to know about?
(2) Where is the answer to (1) written down, in a newspaper, magazine, or book?
EEng (talk) 19:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I see on the talkpage thay you say there's a one-page (really?) NYT article. Can you point us to it ?But you need to know that restaurant reviews, travel articles, etc., aren't going to be enough.
  • I'm not sure that everything in Wikipedia meets standard #1. Some people would want to know about it, though.

Basically, I would not have posted this page if I hadn't seen the New York Times articles. My argument is that this bar is iconic enough that when the NYT publishes something about shore clubs, or needs to report the response of shore clubs to an issue, one of the people they contact is Frank Sementa (or Kipp Connor) at D'Jais. D'Jais is a significant a part of youth culture in this region of the states. I don't think I said there was a whole page dedicated to D'Jais - I just listed the page number of the article. I just looked and there are 5 NYT articles, 1/2 to 3/4 page long. They are about issues affecting D'Jais and other clubs, but D'Jais is highlighted. Two feature both pictures and text pertaining to D'Jais: "Is Tourism necessary?" - small picture of Kipp Connor and D'Jais, 1/2 page article. "Belmar tries to soften effect of summer invasion" - 1/4 page picture of Frank Sementa in front of D'Jais, 1/2-3/4 page article.139.84.48.251 (talk) 21:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC) The 5 articles are in addition to the restaurant review.139.84.48.251 (talk) 21:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC) I am the author of the D'jais Wikipedia page, but forgot to log in. 139.84.48.251 = Smm201`0 (talk) 21:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little confused how you could read the D'Jais page and not see the references. Don't you have to read the page to review it?
References
1.^ a b Glickson, G. (1992, September 6). If you're thinking of living in Belmar. New York Times, p. R5.
2.^ a b Cowen, R., & Shih, E. (2007, September 2). Sun, sand, surf combine for a fine end to season. The Record, Bergen County, N.J., p. A01.
3.^ a b c d DeMasters, K. (2002, August 18) By the beach, a club and a club sandwich. New York Times, p. NJ12.
4.^ a b c Dellisanti, A. (1990, May 27). A beach fee dispute and a question: Is tourism necessary? New York Times, p. NJ2.
5.^ a b Entertainment/News Editors (2004, July 9). 18th Annual New Jersey Sandcastle Contest Attracts Over 9,500 Visitors; More than 350 Entries of All Ages Competed in Belmar Event. Business Wire, New York, p. 1.
6.^ a b c Entertainment/News Editors (2003, June 20). Record Turnout Anticipated for 17th Annual New Jersey Sandcastle Contest in Belmar Business Editors/Travel Writers. Business Wire, New York, p. 1.
7.^ a b Entertainment/News Editors (2002, June 26). Sand Sculpting Expert to Offer Free Clinic on Building the Perfect Sandcastle. Business Wire, New York, p. 1.
8.^ Robbins, L. (2005, August 29). After break and break up, Clijsters makes a fresh start. New York Times, p. F4.
9.^ McAleavy, T. (1996, Jun 14). Towns teach bouncers a thing or two. The Record, Bergen County, N.J. p. 020.
10.^ a b Larsen, E. (2007, April 3). Resort towns look for balance. Knight Ridder Tribune Business News, p. 1.
11.^ Shaheenbelmar, J. (1986, June 8). Belmar tries to soften effect. New York Times, p. NJ22.
12.^ Special to the New York Times (1986, June 22) Jersey town shuts bars early - and stirs debates. New York Times,p. 34.

Smm201`0 (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to read WP:N, WP:RS, WP:NOTTRAVEL. In most of these sources the word "D'Jais" appears only once, one of a list of beach bars, or "Celebrity X is hanging out at D'Jais before returning to Belgium", plus there's one short review. 5,6, and 7 mention that D'J sponsors a sandcastle contest -- sponsoring a sandcastle contest doesn't make a place notable.. I don't want to hurt your feelings, but this isn't going to cut it, sorry. But there's a few more days, maybe you'll come up with more. EEng (talk) 23:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC) P.S. it doesn't matter about other articles. There's plenty of stuff in WP that shouldn't be there. See WP:OTHERSTUFF[reply]
  • Your description of the references is clearly selective since D'jais is clearly mentioned in a substantive way in the other articles that you chose not to mention. I suspect that your involvement is at the request of your friends since your initial comment was made without having read the article.

Smm201`0 (talk) 02:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uh oh, you mentioned that you're new to Wikipedia, and you're off to a very bad start. You are encouraged -- in fact required -- to assume good faith on the part of other editors; see WP:FAITH. I commented on the articles that I was able to accesss, although I can't say I tried as hard as I could for all of them. The rest appear from the titles to be unlikely to be about D;J in any substantial way. That remains to be seen, but you'll be very lucky to find any editor who will wade through the sand-castle articles trying to find one article that lends notability (and more than one will be needed, by the way). So again, for the third time, will you please read the notability guidelines and tell us which, if any, of your sources qualify (and please provide live links to those sources if you can)? The article's already been deleted once and it's your job now to see that it doesn't happen again, if that's what you want. EEng (talk) 03:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cannot provide live links to the print New York Times articles or post them online because they are copyrighted. I have access through a university to full text newspaper articles, which is how I located them. Others with access can verify their existance.Smm201`0 (talk) 21:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, if you have live links to any of these articles you can and should supply them -- copyright has nothing to do with it. That makes things easy on everyone.
Beyond that... this is now the 3rd or 4th time I've asked:
  1. Please say 'which' of the articles listed above are the ones you claim satisfy the notability criteria at WP:CORP, particularly WP:CORPDEPTH?
  2. For each of those articles , if you haven't supplied a link then please quote the passage that mentions D'J. I predict they are very short.
I'm asking this very directly because, as I've said before, it appears from those of your sources I'm able to see, and (for the others) from their titles plus they way you use them in the article, that they are trivial mentions and reviews.::EEng (talk) 00:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Look, once again, will you please' say which sources -- listed in the article or not -- establish notability under WP:CORP? I keep asking you to do this. A pile of 22 sources -- most of which seem (by their content for those linked, and by their title for those not -- e.g. sandcastles) to be trivial and to mention or likely mention D;Jais only in passing -- plus your statemtn that "there are additional sources" is no help. Which ones do you claim qualify the bar for notability. If the notability-establoishing sources aren't linked, then please quote the bit that talks about D;Jais. Please, will you do that? EEng (talk) 04:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listen, I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this. I feel I've already provided my rationale. You've already suggested that it be deleted. Have a good night. Smm201`0 (talk) 05:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked several other editors to give their opinions, so it won't be just you and me. One in particular is very good a digging up sources for notability. EEng (talk) 14:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gene93k (see above) has already linked this discussion to different AfD topic forums in order to encourage discussion. Smm201`0 (talk) 15:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smm201`0 (talk •contribs) 15:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note (by EEng): Smm recently posted the below at the article's Talk -- I'm copying it here to centralize discussion
Rationale for KEEPING D'Jais in a nutshell. D'Jais is a significant a part of youth culture on the East Coast of the US. D’Jais is one of the most, if not the most, famous nightclub catering to college age youth on the Jersey Shore. This bar is iconic enough that when the New York Times (which is the most respected newspaper in the Northeast US, read by people in the highly populated NY, NJ, PA, and CT metropolitan areas as well as many across the world) publishes something about an issue affecting Jersey Shore clubs, they contact D'Jais management for an interview. In addition to brief statements used to support the facts included in the Wikipedia D’Jais page, a good amount of the space in some of the 1/2 to 3/4 page NYT articles is dedicated to D’Jais in particular. For instance, two articles feature both pictures and text pertaining to D'Jais (e.g., "Belmar tries to soften effect of summer invasion" features a 1/4 page picture of Frank Sementa in front of D'Jais and "Is Tourism necessary?" includes a picture of Kipp Connor and D'Jais). The quantity of articles referring to D’Jais is also a sign of its significant notability. There are numerous NYT articles that cover D’Jais and still others in the Asbury Park Press and local papers (e.g., Coast Star, Coaster). Topics covered include issues related to the tourist industry, impact on local community, sandcastle competitions, charity events, regulatory decisions, reviews, club culture, and general news stories. There are also many web sites and blogs that discuss D’Jais at length, but I chose to focus on the highest quality references to document facts. Smm201`0 (talk) 14:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
quote above submitted by EEng. Smm201`0 (talk) 15:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC) I'm striking out the foregoing because it gives the mistaken impression that I wrote the above. As my introductory note (just above your text above) says, the above is your posting to the article's Talk, copied here to centralize discussion. I've clarified the introductory note to make it clear I did the copying. EEng (talk) 16:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete - I checked the New York Times citations given and see no indication of notability. The Times citations, links (where available) and my comments below.
    • 1.^ a b Glickson, G. (1992, September 6). If you're thinking of living in Belmar. New York Times, p. R5.[34] Single mention: "The most popular dining place in town is Evelyn's Seafood Restaurant. D'Jais, Reggie's, Paul's Pub and Tropical Pub are beachfront night spots that attract college students."
    • 3.^ a b c d DeMasters, K. (2002, August 18) By the beach, a club and a club sandwich. New York Times, p. NJ12.[35] Restaurant review, no value in establishing notability
DeMasters, Karen (18 August 2002). "Quick Bite/Belmar; By the Beach, a Club and a Club Sandwich". The New York Times. Retrieved 6 February 2011.- D'Jais, the Belmar bar and dance club, has been a Jersey Shore institution for young people since the 1950's, but some people are surprised to learn it also is an outdoor restaurant with excellent food. The casual restaurant, which has a roof over the tables, overlooks the ocean. The menu has been developed by Mary Fallon, who has cooked for the owner, Frank Sementa, for more than a decade. Mr. Sementa, who played at the club in a local band during the 1970's, bought the establishment in 1979 and added the restaurant 12 years ago

I hardly see this as having no value. - Theornamentalist (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it really does have no value. This is an utterly routine, caapsure review of the same kind done by NYT of hundreds of restaurants a year. Statement "has been a Jersery Shore institution" is the kind of throwaway line found in most reviews. See WP:CORPDEPTH. EEng (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, when did you gain the rights to say exactly what is a "throwaway line" or what, is in fact "routine"? We are just here to report what other people have reported, not to pick and choose. This bar gets coverage, period. I think the article simply needs a proper rewrite at this point. - Theornamentalist (talk) 18:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Editors use their judgment to decide what is routine and what is significant coverage. "Coverage, period" does not lend notability. Except where the article is hopelessly promotional, the quality of the article has nothing to do with it -- the question is about the subject -- are there sources that indicate notability. So far there aren't. EEng (talk) 01:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 4.^ a b c Dellisanti, A. (1990, May 27). A beach fee dispute and a question: Is tourism necessary? New York Times, p. NJ2.not found in archives
    • 8.^ Robbins, L. (2005, August 29). After break and break up, Clijsters makes a fresh start. New York Times, p. F4.[36] Single mention, where this celebrity is taken to her boyfriend's "favorite dance club"
    • 11.^ Shaheenbelmar, J. (1986, June 8). Belmar tries to soften effect. New York Times, p. NJ22.not found in archives
    • 12.^ Special to the New York Times (1986, June 22) Jersey town shuts bars early - and stirs debates. New York Times,p. 34.[37] Named as an example of a club losing money due to early closings; an 11-word comment from manager Sementa is quoted; not enough for notability
    • (not listed) Where the Party Is Perpetual[38] Single mention as 'a wildly popular club' in an article about summer house sharing, not good enough. --CliffC (talk) 16:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Archives issue. Online article archives may be different from print archives. I located the print articles through a university full text article database. It may be possible to access print archive databases through public libraries.Smm201`0 (talk) 16:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why should we repeat work you've already done? You've been asked over and over and over to quote, from the articles to which you have spacial access, the bits mentioning D'J, just as CiffC did above. The reason you should do this is that the article titles suggest they would have very little to do with any particular bar, including D'J, and would only mention them in passing. Even of D'J's owner is the "go-to guy" for quotes on town-tourist friction, that might have something to do with his notability (if this were an article on him), but not the bar. EEng (talk) 16:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC) P.S. Please don'e misunderstand me as suggesting that you should start an article on the bar's owner. He'd need a lot more than that to be notable.[reply]

Soliciting others to participate in AfD discussions. EEng, I'm sure that you didn't mean any harm, and just wanted to prove your point, but I believe it is against the rules to specifically solicit people you know to participate in AfDs. Gene93k has already added this discussion to several AfD discussion groups. This should eventually generate additional discussion. Smm201`0 (talk) 18:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, you're wrong -- see WP:CANVASSING, and I clearly said what I was doing (see higher up). This the second time you've accused me of wrongdoing. Please focus on the debate, not me. You still haven't pointed to the sources lending notability -- all you've done is list the 22 sources in the article. If the subject is notable, then somewhere in there are 3 or 4 that show that. Would you please name them and give the quotes mentioning D'j? EEng (talk) 01:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The mentions in sources are trivial. From what I've seen so far, not a single one of these sources is about D'Jais. Rather, all of the articles are about some other topic, and they just tangentially mention D'Jais. This is not how notability is built. Since the New York metropolitan area is so huge, it's possible to find any number of articles that mention D'Jais or any other business in a glancing way. Stuff such as "this celebrity was seen here" or "these new municipal ordinances affect local businesses" or "young people like to go to hundreds of different places and here are a few of them" does not satisfy notability standards. (And yes, I know these are not the actual quotes, but this is the meaning of three of the sources.) If there were a feature piece in the NYT Magazine that was about D'Jais, then it would be one step toward notability. Then if there were a chapter about D'Jais in a legitimately published (NOT vanity-press) book about the cultural life of New Jersey, that would help. Then Entertainment Tonight or some other show like that could do a fifteen-minute segment about D'Jais, further establishing notability. These are not the only possibilities for relevant WP:RS, but these are examples. So in summary, as the article stands, none of the sources are about D'Jais in any significant and non-trivial way, and all of the mentions of D'Jais in the sources we've seen so far are merely incidental, tangential, and trivial. So the place is not notable per WP guidelines. Qworty (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that CliffC, Qworty, and OhNoitsJamie were all recruited by EEng to participate in this discussion. Quorty has just gone in and deleted a great deal of well documented content from the article in a very sloppy way. Please go into the "history" section to see pre-Qworty versions of the article.Smm201`0 (talk) 00:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You already complained above this (above) and once it enough, especially since it is not, as you claimed above, "against the rules," nor was I "recruiting"; see SP:CANVASSING. I've removed your bolding and underlining as it's calculated to make it seem as if these other editors' opinions are worth less see WP:FAITH. I made a point of asking one particular editor to take a look, who's very good at finding sources for notability, which is the problem here. EEng (talk) 01:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Qworty, I usually appreciate attempts to improve my work, but you deleted carefully documented facts along with their references. You also made editing decisions about content's accuracy without reading the articles on which the statements were based, and left a lot of typos. I am putting the content back in so that people can see all of the information and references to help them determine whether to keep the article. They may decide the article is fluffy or they may not. I would appreciate it if you would leave it there at least until a delete/keep decision is made. Smm201`0 (talk) 00:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The debate is not about the article but about the sources supporting the notability of the subject. As the AfD notice says, the article can be edited during the debate. You reference to "my [i.e. your, Smm;s] work" is troubling -- it's not "your" article as you well know. The material Qworty removed probably doesn't belong; maybe you think it does. That's a content dispute having nothign to do with notability. EEng (talk) 01:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on notability arguments thus far. I have looked at the following arguments for notability on this restaurant. All of them fail, thus:
1) The place was founded in 1959. I can find no source for this, and even if it were true, the fact that a restaurant with a dance floor has been there for that long would not make it notable. Looking through the news archives (which convey no notability in themselves), I can find no evidence that a restaurant of this name existed prior to 2003. Also, it is not likely that a dance place would have been named “D’Jais” in 1959, since the phenomenon of guys known as “DJs” spinning records for people to dance to did not yet exist, and cute spellings such as “D’Jais” also were not common to the era. The building may well have been there since the 1950s, but despite deep historical research, I am unable to determine what purposes it was put to in those years—which is further evidence that the place, whatever it was, was not notable in those years, and is NOT historically notable.
2) I have looked at all of the sources. All of them are trivial. They are tangential one-liners in articles that aren’t about the place, or capsule restaurant reviews which every restaurant receives. One of the most ridiculous sources, not even a one-liner, but just a phrase, was used over and over again before I took it out, and documented nothing more than the fact that you used to be able to get five beers for a dollar in the place. No notability whatsoever per WP:RS.
3) There is no notability—ever—through association—but the original version of this article strained like crazy to establish notability through association, primarily by asserting that somebody who had once played guitar in the restaurant had also played with Bon Jovi. Well, come on. That’s absurd. That doesn’t make this restaurant notable.
4) Also—incredibly--it is being asserted that this restaurant is a tourist attraction. No evidence is given for this wild claim. It’s hard to imagine planeloads of tourists from Paris or Tokyo flying thousands of miles to see a dance club just because some guy who once played guitar there has also played with Bon Jovi. It just stretches the bounds of credulity to the breaking point.
5) So far, there has been only one person—from New Jersey—defending this article. From the edits made and the discussion, it looks like this person is a boomer who drank and danced at this restaurant in his youth, enjoying five beers for a dollar, and perhaps seeing on stage a guy who would later become a sideman for Bon Jovi. However, please note WP:MEMORIAL. That’s right. Wikipedia is not a memorial for any editor’s lost beer-drinking boomer-dancing days. No notability whatsoever per that “reasoning” either.
Qworty (talk) 00:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Qworty, watch your civility, please. EEng (talk) 01:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for civility. Did you see the attack page he built against you, based on this AfD? Thankfully, it's been speedied now. Qworty (talk) 01:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, no. What did it say? I'd sure like to have seen it. They're always so funn yet sad. EEng (talk) 01:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of those rare occasions when I regret that I am not an admin, with the fabled ability to see that which is no longer visible to mortals. --CliffC (talk) 03:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) About the attack page Smm201`0 created regarding editors commenting on this AfD. Sorry, EEng, but this is all that's left of it: [39]. It was quite an interesting personal rant against you, accusing you, among other crimes against humanity, of being a puppetmaster of a tremendous number of socks, INCLUDING ALL OF THE EDITORS WHO BELIEVE THIS D'JAIS THING SHOULD BE DELETED. And YES, it was created by your new buddy, Smm201`0, the sole defender of D'Jais. The evidence that he was the creator is here: [40] I think the guy should be banned for this attack on you, but since I was only a tangential victim of it, I'm willing to let it slide. Qworty (talk) 01:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, Smm, is it true you said all these mean things about me? You really should be concentrating on notability sources for D'J, not worrying about me. EEng (talk) 18:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He also said that I didn't exist as a human being. That I was just a fictional account that you had made up, so that people would stop flying from all over the world to have a watered-down American beer at D'Jais. He hurt my little feelings deep down inside me. Qworty (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you keep refering to Smm as "he" -- I get much more the impression of a spoiled girl -- maybe a bleach-bottle blonde? EEng (talk) 23:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the occassional misunderstanding [41] your opinion is not a common one [42] [43] [44]. We're all human and sometimes show annoyance, but as least where I've done so it's in the context of some discussion to which I've contributed evidence and arguments (except where, as with Macann, deletion was so obvious that the discussion was over before it began). You've added nothing here but your hurt over past deletions.
So, do you have anything to say about the issue at hand?
EEng (talk) 14:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In general, as a long time listserv modder, I've been surprised by administrators' tolerance for personal attacks, misrepresentations, and hatchet jobs euphemistically called "editing", but imagine that their job is so immense, that there is no way to keep on top of all discussions. I image they triage issues and tend to the most potentially catastrophic first. Smm201`0 (talk) 15:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)Smm201`0 (talk) 15:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite break

  • I've moved what I've been working on into the mainspace with this edit. Removed advert and COI tag too; anyway, I think that it passes our notability threshold. Also, I've used sources that are only available to view online. Let me know what you think :) - Theornamentalist (talk) 04:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You and I have been discussing your new version on the article's Talk. I disagree that even your original "new" version passes N, much less when the various non-RS sources (e.g. those cut-paste from the bar's website) are discounted. Please, again, specify exactly which sources you think qualify for notability. Thankfully, now, most or all are linked from the article, or easily found on Gbooks, so it's apparent exactly what's being said in them. EEng (talk) 16:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other coverage available.
The print and online information looks pretty consistent. Ideally, public libraries would offer online access from home (some probably already do) so print articles would be more easily accessed. Here is the list of references from an earlier version so others can more easily see the coverage of this club (more articles in the APP and local papers as well). I deleted the references already included in the current (02/08/2011) version of the article.
  • Ames, L. (1978, May 7). The lively world of club circuit rock. New York Times, p. NJ28.
  • Bowman, B. (2009, July 16). "Challenge" in Avon to help military families. Asbury Park Press (online).
  • Buckley, C. (2010, June 3). Where the Party Is Perpetual. New York Times. Retrieved February 5, 2011.
  • Cowen, R., & Shih, E. (2007, September 2). Sun, sand, surf combine for a fine end to season. The Record, Bergen County, N.J., p. A01.
  • Dellisanti, A. (1990, May 27). A beach fee dispute and a question: Is tourism necessary? New York Times, p. NJ2.
  • Entertainment/News Editors (2004, July 9). 18th Annual New Jersey Sandcastle Contest Attracts Over 9,500 Visitors; More than 350 Entries of All Ages Competed in Belmar Event. Business Wire, New York, p. 1.
  • Entertainment/News Editors (2003, June 20). Record Turnout Anticipated for 17th Annual New Jersey Sandcastle Contest in Belmar Business Editors/Travel Writers. Business Wire, New York, p. 1.
  • Entertainment/News Editors (2002, June 26). Sand Sculpting Expert to Offer Free Clinic on Building the Perfect Sandcastle. Business Wire, New York, p. 1.
  • Glickson, G. (1992, September 6). If you're thinking of living in Belmar. New York Times, p. R5.
  • Larsen, E. (2007, April 3). Resort towns look for balance. Knight Ridder Tribune Business News, p. 1.
  • McAleavy, T. (1996, Jun 14). Towns teach bouncers a thing or two. The Record, Bergen County, N.J. p. 020.
  • Mikle, J. (2009, June 14). Cheap concerts, free festivals could be music to your ears. Asbury Park Press (online).
  • Robbins, L. (2005, August 29). After break and break up, Clijsters makes a fresh start. New York Times, p. F4.
  • Seidel, B. (2008, October 3). Art News. Asbury Park Press (online).
  • Shaheenbelmar, J. (1986, June 8). Belmar tries to soften effect of summer invasion. New York Times, p. NJ22.
  • Zedalis, J., & Alexander, A. (2005, September 2) Perfect forecast for finale season of surf and sun expected to end on a high note. Asbury Park Press, p. 1. Smm201`0 (talk) 21:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to EEng I left the message on your talk page, because it pertained to you and was directed towards you. I see no point in removing it from a talk page. By the way, you said copied from which would imply that you had left it on your talk page. Also, the comment left in this discussion above by me was prior to the one left on your talk page. I am aware of where discussions belong.

Aaaaaaaaanyway, here's a breakdown of the websites and how they are used, there are three that I would consider inarguably primarily about D'Jais, and to top it off, all of the supplementary material, which is just as good in cementing this thing. I'll go through the books later tonight.

Good. Which three? As mentioned, I was ready to change my mind about notability until I found that so many sources were not RS e.g. copied from bar's webpage. EEng (talk) 23:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indented them. - Theornamentalist (talk) 00:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "D'Jais Oceanview Bar and Cafe". The Coast Star & The Ocean Star. Star News Group. Retrieved 7 February 2011. A mistake to use, copy of D'Jais site, however, that can be used.
  • "D'Jais Oceanview Bar & Cafe". Metromix. Retrieved 7 February 2011. small blurb, used to reference theme nights.
  • "Top 100 Bars Down the NJ Shore". Fun New Jersey. Retrieved 7 February 2011. information in description not used; only its ranking and title of "Best overall part spot", figured it didn't harm the article to mention its popularity.
  • Lott, Kara (5 May 2005). "D'Jais bar put on notice by Belmar" (PDF). The Coast Star. Retrieved 7 February 2011. D'Jais at the center of cities council, history, study conducted by town and ABC, two pages. Primary focus.

- Theornamentalist (talk) 22:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I looked up the citation listed above from 1978, "The lively world of club circuit rock"[45] because you need to be a subscriber (or pay) to see pre-1980 articles, to see if it had any meat. This is a long article about a rock band called Holme performing at the time in North Brunswick, no mention of D'Jais but two mentions of Sementa (1) when listing the members of the group - "Frank Sementa, the drummer" - and quoting them collectively as agreeing with the guitarist on a point and explaining "the kids like to hear songs they know, things they can identify with, and that's what we give them. But we also play a few of the songs that we write and arrange ourselves, and they seem to like those as well." (2) The closing paragraph reads "Frank Sementa, drummer for Holme, summed up the situation at the club level. "It's a nice situation, but it can be a trap," he said. "You build up a following, you get to like the money. It can all become so pleasant that you don't take risks, you don't push on." --CliffC (talk) 03:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That article was the source for some factual statements made about the owners in the original article.Smm201`0 (talk) 03:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not characterizing it as a good, bad or indifferent source for D'Jais, I'm just summing it up in the context of this AfD for those who don't have access to the NYTimes' pre-1980 archives. --CliffC (talk)
No problem. You just sounded puzzled, so I clarfied. It reported that owners Sementa and Conner were in Holme, and that Luddecke managed bands.Smm201`0 (talk) 13:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden blade

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

Fails to demonstrate significant coverage in reliable, third party sources. Ironholds (talk) 04:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete only ref is another wiki, not notable. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 17:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Completely misses notability guidelines. --Ezhuks (talk) 02:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Hidden Blade - Wikipedia is not a game guide. Not a copyright vio or anything, though, and maybe some of this can be cited and scrunched over to one of the game articles at some point. --EEMIV (talk) 20:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google news archive search for "Hidden blade" AND "Assassin's Creed" shows 70 results. [46] They all mention it, and sometimes its cool new upgrades for sequels, but I don't see any great detail about it. Lot of stuff to look through. Was it voted the coolest video game weapon ever somewhere? Characters get on list like that, published in notable magazines, but I'm not certain if weapons do. Dream Focus 11:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Re: GAMEGUIDE, see Stutter step and 26 other articles in Category:Tennis terminology; Golf swing, and 37 articles in Category:Golf terminology; 164 articles in Category:Chess openings, and 23 articles in Category:Bridge squeezes. There is a double standard being applied here. Anarchangel (talk) 09:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC) Fixed link Anarchangel (talk) 00:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems to be a rather WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS comment. Your wording seems to imply I'm being biased in my nomination, or the commentators here are being biased in their judgments - if you wish to provide the names of unreferenced articles in those categories, feel free. Ironholds (talk) 10:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I am sorry that there was a misunderstanding; I never intended for my comment to reflect on the nomination. EEMIV was the first and at the time the only person to mention GAMEGUIDE; I was responding to his use of it. Anarchangel (talk) 00:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know what you mean, and you're right that video games aren't treated the same way as sports. But I would suggest that there is only a handful of sports notable enough to have those kind of articles, and they will all have lots of enduring notability. Whereas there is a vastly higher number of video games out there, and any particular game tends to only be of note for a few years before technology and the the fanbase moves on to something new. e.g. if we were writting this fifteen years ago the weapons of Duke Nukem and Quake would have been very notable, but not so much now (although the BFG has an article).--ThePaintedOne (talk) 11:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • (as the indenting hopefully indicates, this was added after the response below; just making sure, tho') But do you agree, ThePaintedOne, that GAMEGUIDE is flawed in this respect? I don't mind editors asserting that game mechanics articles should be deleted because the game mechanics of a less notable game does not meet WP:N, I mind that editors who intuit that an explanation of circle strafing is sort of like a walkthrough, which is sort of like a how-to manual, use WP:GUIDE as an additional criteria for game mechanics articles. And there is no excuse at all for the inevitable votes to delete because an article mentions circle strafing and other similar techniques as available to use in the game, which happens often, or used to, when there were still some game articles around to nominate. Anarchangel (talk) 00:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would disagree. The question here is whether or not this page meets WP:GNG. That's a test all of the articles Anarchangel has showcased will also be expected to meet. If there is any double-standard here, it's one being played by reliable sources such as newspapers - who care a lot about tennis, but not so much about computer games. That isn't something we can fix, and it isn't something worth being brought up. Ironholds (talk) 11:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would broadly agree with that, although I think it is relevant that notability is supposed to be enduring. e.g. football has stayed relatively unchanged and popular for a long period of time, whereas the vast majority of computer games appear, are popular for a few months, then fade away to obscurity. When you are talking about a relatively minor facet of one game, that gives you a pretty slim piece of notability. To try and give a comparison (and this is awkward), an article on a commonly used football technique might be notable, but an article on a technique that one player used in one tournament but was then not seen again, probably isn't. Other than maybe as a mention in the article of that player or tournament. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 11:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Alright. Very good. And I concede that the blade may not be used outside of the Assassin's Creed series. But it isn't going away, within that series; using your analogy, it has already been used and will be used in more than one "football game". I note that you conceded awkwardness; I trust that you are referring to comparing one player's single appearance in a single football game to one vid game? Perhaps you could allow, one player's career, since each vid game is a release within a market, all the people who buy it, the popularity of it, etc etc? In which case, if a player used a technique throughout their career, and it was attributed to them, and no one else did it, could it be notable? Well, I stay about as far away from spectator sports as I possibly can (sigh), but are there not trademark victory dances that some players do? In this context, I can see that the precedent seems to be for collections of such things to be notable, but singular occurrences of them are not. So then I have to concede that it seems as though proximity mines in first-person shooters would be notable, just as Save point should be, but unless and until the hidden blade becomes used in other games, it is not. Anarchangel (talk) 00:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Centennial Aviation Club

Centennial Aviation Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • I think the club is a very neat idea and was actually surprised to not find anything in a search of Google News. I would have thought you would have gotten some local press coverage. I am sure you will and at that point you can recreate the article. Understand that Wikipedia cannot get out in front of coverage just because something exists and we think that it "should" have an article. See WP:NOR. IMO, it would be better for you just to store it on your personal computer until you can come up with some notability for it. --Lyncs (talk) 05:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your comments I am storing the page on my computer and hoping that it stays even if only in the user namespace. We have received some local news coverage and I will be working to add that to the article tonight (EST USA).Andrew Kurish (talk) 14:42, 7 February 2011 (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. GedUK  19:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Soldier Angels

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

I see no indication of notability in this article. Levinge (talk) 04:13, 3 February 2011 (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. JIP | Talk 06:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

131 North Sparks Street

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

Non-notable housing property. Advertising link used as reference. E Wing (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2011 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jagadananda Goswami

Jagadananda Goswami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Keep he is a notable historical figure in Vaishnavism! (User) Mb (Talk) 22:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know of any reliable sources that discuss how this subject is notable? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I had to look for more sources, but he seems to be a notable Gaudia leader, and a historical figure if you dig deeper. I do for example find [47] and there are many more. Also this one [48] The name is also used for a contemporary saint of Caitanya Mahaprabhu which is confusing, but the saint should be included and there are other sources that mention his name, both in the sect and outside. --Wikidas© 11:44, 7 February 2011 (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) 18:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AnaJet

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

No evidence that company meets WP:CORP. Fails WP:GNG, as there do not appear to be multiple non-trivial reliable sources discussing the subject; most available content is press releases and/or otherwise primary/tangential. Previously deleted under A7 due to lack of claim of importance and G11 as advertising. Kinu t/c 23:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is evidence that this company should be in Wikipedia. The company is not advertised by the companies they supply machines to which are already in wikipedia(alphagraphics, Sir Speedy). These companies are referenced in businessweek, just like Anajet. If these companies have space on wikipedia, then so should AnaJet. Their validity with less sources of information should allow this page to stand. I may be an amateur on wikipedia, and I am just learning to cite my sources. MantisMB (talk) 00:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF for why appealing to the existence of other articles as a justification for keeping an article is not usually workable. -- Whpq (talk) 15:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tagged for speedy db-corp, no indication of significance. EEng (talk) 01:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but not speedily. The article does list sources, including sources that would contribute towards establishing notability, but falls short. The Businessweek source is a directory entry. It serves to verify facts, but does nothing to establish notability. The A E Mag source is primarily about Direct to Garment printers with some discussion of Anajet's product. The Orange County Business Journal provides coverage about the company as the primary subject, but the publication is local in nature. Taken together, this does not represent significant enough coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand the meaning of speedy under db-corp. db-corp allows deletion where the article contains no credible indication of significance, which this one doesn't. No need to waste time investigating sources if the article's author couldn't be bothered to say why anyone would care. Since you still say it should be deleted anyway, you should have left the speedy tag on and saved the rest of us time fooling with this AfD. EEng (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage in some reliable sources is a credible claim of notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, A7 reads, An article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. It goes on to say, The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The clear implication is that claim must appear in the article text itself; whether sources cited in the article support that claim or indeed, whether or mot the article cites any sources at all, has nothing to do with it. The intent is to save work, including the work of consulting sources. in cases where the person who started the article was himself unable to indicate why anyone would want to know anything about its topic. EEng (talk) 18:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your interpretation. -- Whpq (talk) 18:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm beginning to think you may be right. Be we all agree on Delete, yes? EEng (talk) 13:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, delete. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with Whpq that semi-decent sources preempt A7. For example, most specialized articles (e.g. dense set in mathematics) do not assert their significance; their significance is established by reliable sources (in this case books and papers) written on them. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 01:59, 3 February 2011 (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. Insufficient sources to show that this is particularly notable. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Accelerated PSO

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

I declined a PROD on this article but the prodder is insistant that this should be deleted. The original rationale from the talk page can be viewed here Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When I wrote the reason for deleting the article I was unaware of the name of the WP rule justifying deletion, now I know it is called WP:Content forking. There are thousands of variants to particle swarm optimization (see e.g. Google Scholar) and Wikipedia should only list a few representative ones in the main article. A reference to the source of Accelerated PSO is already included in the main article, see the 'Yang' reference. So this is a clear case of content forking, apparently with the intent of promoting or giving unjustified weight to one such variant. This is also suggested by the fact that the article was inserted by a couple of single-purpose accounts. Finally, the article is of low quality. Optimering (talk) 07:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I should perhaps presume that the Wikipedians who respond to this are not experts on particle swarm optimization and metaheuristics. Briefly stated, it is a highly experimental research field, as I mentioned above there are literally thousands of variants of particle swarm optimization, genetic algorithm, differential evolution, etc. There are certain trends in that research and representative work should be referenced in the main articles to give the Wiki reader a concise overview. The Accelerated PSO is referenced under 'Yang' in the main article, and is given similar weight as other references of equal relevance (which is to say that Yang's work is not unique in its scientific contribution and hence does not deserve special treatment in the main article). Wikipedia would become severely bloated if all such variants were listed, either in the main article, or even worse, in independent articles. This is precisely what WP:Content forking seeks to prevent. I am supposedly an expert on the subject (please see my edit history) and I can't readily think of any PSO variant that would merit its independent article. To me this is a clear case of content forking (possibly with promotional intent and WP:sock puppetry to avoid detection) and the page should be deleted. Optimering (talk) 07:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why would someone want to "promote" a PSO variant? It's not exactly a product for sale. Isn't it possible that this article simply was created by a new user with an interest in the subject and not for some devious purpose? Lots of people create accounts, do some quick editing, (which sometimes includes new articles) and lose interest.--Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In academia people are 'rewarded' according to the number of publications they make and the number of citations of their work. The identity of the creators of Accelerated PSO and their intent cannot be known, of course, but that is only a minor point. The real issue is whether the subject is notable enough to justify an independent Wikipedia article, which is not the case. I feel I am the only one in this discussion who has actual knowledge on the subject and my arguments for deleting the article have been made very clear. Since I have more important things to do, if you are still unsure beyond this point you really need to obtain confirmation of its notability from independent sources, e.g. professors or renowned researchers in the field. (Ironically, it is quite possible that they will refer you to me.) Optimering (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's the beauty of Wikipedia: it's a community. You're losing any support you might have had by saying things like "…I am the only one in this discussion who has actual knowledge on the subject…". So what? I'm a mathematician but I don't go around telling people I know more than they do and that their opinion on maths articles is worthless. You'll find a very large proportion of Wikipedians are academics; so you're just one of the rank and file here. — Fly by Night (talk) 16:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fly by Night, you misunderstood me. What I meant was that out of you, Ron Ritzman and me, I was apparently the only one with any knowledge about particle swarm optimization and Accelerated PSO. So it is beyond me why you take it upon yourselves to express opinions and even make administrative rulings on the subject. Can we leave the debate before it gets too heated and just await another ruling, please? Optimering (talk) 07:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What on earth are you talking about? Are you suggesting that it's wrong to express an opinion on an AfD discussion page? That's what these pages were invented for! As for making administrative rulings; well, that's just baffling. What administrative rulings? Where?! I posted my !vote on an AfD discussion page. You totally misunderstand the WP:AfD procedure. You posted a template on the article saying: "Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page." That's exactly what I did, and that's what happens on AfD discussion pages: we discuss the deletion for around seven days and then, hopefully, after reaching a concusses, a decision is made by an administrator. I don't think you should be tagging things for deletion when you obviously don't understand the basics of AfD. You've made 192 edits in your 10 months history on this project. Please, learn to walk before you try to run. — Fly by Night (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I really hate to put more oil on a totally unnecessary fire, but... have you also bothered to check the quality of his edits instead of merely the quantity? —Ruud 23:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have. His edits seem, so far, to be very good. However, as an academic I would expect him to write to a high standard. However, article edits have almost no connexion to knowledge of the back room workings of Wikipedia. Judging by previous discussions on the user's talk page, and the way he has communicated with me on this discussion page, he has almost no clue. Quite why you need to get involved is beyond me. Can you not see the way he has interacted on this page? Telling everyone that he knows more than they do and that their oppinion is worthless, asking people not to contribute to a discussions page, and making ignorant, bizzare and false accusations. As for this "fire" being unnecessary: yes it is. I would hope you take the time to read it from start to end from an unbiased point of view. I understand that you might be trying to take him under your wing and to help him out (I have read you now deleted communications on his talk page), but the best thing you could have done is to have a quiet word with Optimering. He's totally out of line here, and you have to be able to see that. — Fly by Night (talk) 00:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the remarks by Optimering seem quite reasonable and polite. I do not find your description of them to be accurate at all. On the other hand, your comments in this discussion, I would characterize as polemic and rude. —Ruud 02:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC) Objectively trying to read this discussion again, yes I have to agree Optimering could have phrased his (slightly elitist, but not entirely unreasonable) concerns more eloquently. The same would apply to some of your remarks, but I could image this was due to feeling slightly offended. Shall we focus on rationally debating the suitability of inclusion of this topic instead of on form of the arguments already made? —Ruud 02:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please, let's. — Fly by Night (talk) 14:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(And to clarify on the point some of his remarks not being unreasonable: lacking expertise on this subject does not disqualify you from taking part in this discussion but in my opinion does burden you with the obligation of doing bibliometic background research on the topic, in order to make your opinion here an informed one, which you failed to do.) —Ruud 13:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree per WP:NOT PAPERS. I am a mathematician and have more mathematical understanding that the general reader; at whom these articles should be targeted. It is, after all, an encyclopedia and not a research journal. All that aside, my original point is still valid: the main article doesn't contain the information in the nominated article; so a keep or a merger would be the best bet.— Fly by Night (talk) 14:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as lacking notability. There are *lots* of variants of particle swarm optimization and I don't see any sourcing to show that this stands out from the others. It's not even clear that it merits space in the primary article let alone its own article. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An out-right delete seems a little strong. Reading your reasoning, a merge would be the better option, no? — Fly by Night (talk) 19:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article, including section headings, is 15 lines long. How may citations do you want for a 15 line article? Shall we delete Academic genealogy of computer scientists? It only has one citation and around 50 lines. What about Proofs involving the addition of natural numbers? Again; only one citation. What about Ysselsteyn? Again; only one citation. Do these articles sound familiar? They should do: you created them all. But, hey, that'd be ridiculous. Wouldn't it?! We have a saying in English: "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones." Also, as Optimering has implied: you don't know anything about the article subject so you shouldn't really be commenting. — Fly by Night (talk) 00:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I did not express myself clearly enough here and you misunderstood the meaning of my comment. By "citations" I was not referring to the number of references in the Wikipedia article, but by the number of citations in academic papers to the book Nature-Inspired Metaheuristic Algorithms by X. S. Yang. You can verify this by clicking on the "Cited by" tab at the ACM Portal through the link I provided. Three independent citations is quite low and a good indicator this particular variation on PSO is not noteworthy. Mentioning it while not referring to the large number of other variations would be a violation of neutrality and poor editorial judgement. —Ruud 02:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair enough then. I see your point now. — Fly by Night (talk) 14:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment POV Content forking is in the eye of the beholder. I ignore claims of knowing other editor's intent in creating articles as no more substantiatable than those of fortune tellers and spoon benders. Another critically flawed essay, that somehow sneaked into a guideline. Anarchangel (talk) 09:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sexy Album (Smosh)

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

No sources at all that I could find. Album fails GNG, and before you even bother, need for sources trumps the "albums of notable artists are notable" argument. See WP:42. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:10, 3 February 2011 (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) 18:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kyrie Kristmanson

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

Only the Ottawa Citizen is significant coverage. I'm not quite sure this artist passes WP:MUSICBIO. I'm fairly neutral here but lean to delete; starting the AfD to get other opinions. (Prod was removed.) — Timneu22 · talk 00:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER, WP:BIO. Qworty (talk) 05:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any significant coverage counts toward notability. Even if the Ottawa Citizen is the only significant coverage in the article, that would be enough on its own even if it weren't true that there's other coverage of her out there — which there most certainly is. I have her album on my hard drive, frex — and I know that "Bearcat has heard of her" isn't, in and of itself, a notability criterion, but what I'm saying is that because I depend on gold standard sources like CBC Radio and Exclaim! to hear about new musicians in the first place, a musician can't even get onto my radar without already having enough coverage in reliable sources to meet our inclusion rules. I'm not suggesting that she's notable because I've heard of her; rather, she has to be notable for it to be possible for me to have heard of her. And having won two notable awards kills any notion that she somehow fails to meet WP:ENTERTAINER, too. Keep; I'll work on getting it up to snuff. Bearcat (talk) 23:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update: while certainly further improvement would still be welcome, I've expanded the article and added a number of additional sources besides the one Ottawa Citizen article. Bearcat (talk) 01:14, 28 January 2011 (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) 00:57, 3 February 2011 (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) 18:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sahtyre

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

Non-notable rapper without WP:RS to satisfy WP:BIO. Tagged for notability since October, 2010, without any improvement. Edits are from multiple WP:SPA and WP:COI accounts. Qworty (talk) 01:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2011 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Martin van Beynen

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

Journalist/Leader writer for a newspaper with a circulation of around 100,000, who has been criticised for some of his writing. I don't think the sources are sufficiently neutral (most are from the organisation he works for, and one from a rival newspaper) and I don't believe that they manage to establish notability. dramatic (talk) 00:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He is certainly notable if a rival outlet discusses him.Rick570 (talk) 01:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC) He won a major journalism award in 2010 and I have referenced the report from the Herald - so now two from a rival. The man's notability is pretty firmly established.Rick570 (talk) 04:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In case you hadn't noticed, our media are quick to jump on any whiff of scandal regarding their competitors (especially TVNZ vs TV3). I think for people working in the media there needs to be some proper biographical coverage which isn't attached to a particular event - e.g. a page or two in The Listener.dramatic (talk) 02:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The New Zealand Listener is part of the APN Network which includes The Herald which has covered him on an important and controversial issue (Bain). He has been noted personally by two important rival outletsRick570 (talk) 22:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Everyone above knows of him. References from two news outlets (apart from his own) have been provided. He meets all the notability requirements.Rick570 (talk) 19:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do you cfome up with that statement? I for one have certainly never heard of him. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 20:50, 4 February 2011 (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. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chen Kuangyi

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

Is this model truly notable? It doesn't looks like she's done much work at all. Delete unless notability shown. --Nlu (talk) 06:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(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)
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) 00:47, 3 February 2011 (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) 00:08, 10 February 2011 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

De La Salle University (Indonesia)

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

Long, unsourced article on a university. I strongly suspect that this is the copy of the school's prospectus. If not it is WP:OR Travelbird (talk) 08:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The Manado project was another important result of regional solidarity. Universitas Katolik De La Salle - Manado began to function in September 2000 on a property leased from the Bishop. It functioned originally with lay volunteers from the Philippines, and later with a local Indonesian staff. The DLSU, Manila, supervised the initial operations and then handed it over officially to the District of the Philippines. Its legal status is that the property is owned by the Bishop and Brother Armin Luistro as founding members, who in law cannot dispose of the property. University administration comes under a Board of Management."[49]

This is also discussed in reliable sources about Armin Luistro (currently education secretary of the Philippines)[50][51][52] and at the university's history page[53] Searches for <"de la Salle" "Manado">[54][55] and <"Universitas Katolik De La Salle">[56] turn up a variety of articles and books that confirm the school's existence and history. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That may be. However that still doesn't change the fact that the text is almost certainly a copyvio. Travelbird (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly possible, but no copyrighted source has been identified and I didn't come across one. And no one seems to have asked the creator of the article before bringing this to AfD. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An explanation: This university (which has only 10 years of existence) was founded according to the model and under assistance of DLSU-Manila; that is why the latter's wikipedia article has been used during editing as a temporary basis for a new article about DLSU-Manado. However, it has been listed for a long time in Lasallian educational institutions (not to mention an Indonesian page titled 'Universitas Katolik De La Salle'). Improvements to come shortly. EtienneC (talk) 02:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EtienneC2011 (talk • contribs) [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) 00:45, 3 February 2011 (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) 18:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Qatari legislative election, 2013

Qatari legislative election, 2013 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Classic crystal ball. As shown in edit history, the election has been repeatedly cancelled/postponed. Sources don't support 2013 claim. Discussion of elections belongs in Politics of Qatar. There's no content to merge. Rob (talk) 11:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete If they were originally scheduled for 2008 and then for 2010, I'm not betting that the Emir will let them take place in 2013... Mandsford 14:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Though I could live with merger to Politics of Qatar and recreation when they are actually held – how do we know that beforehand? They are just like any other election which are bound to happen and for which we create articles years in advance (though I usually create them only the year before they are to be held). —Nightstallion 10:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But as both the sources show, there's nothing showing anything actually scheduled for 2013. The article itself says "sometime by 2013" and that's an assumption based on the latest decree extending council terms. Arguably, multiparty elections in North Korea are destined to happen someday. I prefer your approach, i.e., creating an article a reasonable time before events are scheduled to take place. Mandsford 14:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you say they are "bound to happen"? The national election has *never* happened, and may never happen. We don't even have a planned year. It's like creating an article Qatar earthquake 2013 because it might happen, and Earthquakes tend to happen eventually. Per WP:V nothing in this article is verifiable, not even the title of the article. --Rob (talk) 17:38, 28 January 2011 (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) 00:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's easy. KON-kreet. Mandsford 17:01, 3 February 2011 (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) 18:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shelley Emling

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

Procedurally completing incomplete nomination on behalf of Spooned25 (talk · contribs). I assume the deletion rationale is along the lines of "author who fails notability guidelines." For my part, I am neutral. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:51, 27 January 2011 (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, 3 February 2011 (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) 18:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Megha (singer)

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:ENTERTAINER. ttonyb (talk) 15:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - She may be notable; she may not be. However, this article as is, and as created, does not display notability. After a copy-edit to remove the puffery there was still little left to warrant its inclusion. I think that the COI/NPOV reversal of a previous delete nomination by the creator doesn't help either. Acabashi (talk) 19:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Leave as is - There are so many singers in Wikipedia who are listed. Why delete this one alone? She has sung for all the famous india music directors. And I have added references for her songs. Some of which are famous songs that millions of people in her country listen to in radio, tv and other sources. If that is not enough, I can add more citable references. Solar345 , 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE most of the external links and references only present a song listing and don't give any reasonable demonstration as to why the Artist is notable. With the obvious WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments discounted, it is not demonstrating to me why the artist is notable and why we should have them in the Wiki. Hasteur (talk) 04:47, 3 February 2011 (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) 18:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reinhard Blutner

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

Apparently fails WP:PROF and the general notability guideline. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 3 February 2011 (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) 18:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Russian federal subjects by per capita income

List of Russian federal subjects by per capita income (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A completely unreferenced, incomplete, and abandoned list which does not even specify the year for which the stats are given. All amounts are in US dollars. No prejudice against re-creation if properly sourced, but in this form the list is useless.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 27, 2011; 16:20 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 3 February 2011 (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) 18:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rune Massing

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

The only competitions this badminton player won (Dutch National Junior Championships and German Team Championships) do not even have their own articles. He played in Belgian International (badminton) and Israel International (badminton), but didn't win either. This badminton player fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for athletes. Neelix (talk) 18:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for athletes. Two times German Team Champion, second in Dutch national singles championships, second at Israel International, participation at European Team Championships [57] and 2001 IBF World Championships – Men's Singles. If there is no article at Wikipedia about a championship it does not mean, that the person who won the title is not relevant. In these cases one can use other Wikipedias or primary and secondary sources. 6.610 google hits. --Florentyna (talk) 07:41, 28 January 2011 (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, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think it is all said and done. Compare it to other WP:NSPORT. Has participated in a World Curling Tour sanctioned event (Curling), Have competed at World Championship (Cycling), The player has competed in the Fed Cup, Davis Cup, Hopman Cup or similar international competition (Tennis). All of these points are given for Massing in a similar way in Badminton. --Florentyna (talk) 07:35, 3 February 2011 (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) 18:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Subliritum

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

This band fails the general notability guideline and WP:BAND. Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:23, 27 January 2011 (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) 00:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual landfalls of tropical cyclones

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

The page is entirely unsourced (well, almost, just one for one little bit), full of original research (Debbie 61 did not hit UK as a hurricane, Lisa 10 didn't affect the UK), it's WP:TRIVIA, and per WP:NPOV, "unusual landfall" is original research. There is no rhyme or reason as to what could be in the article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unsourced, impossible to source. There is no such thing as an "unusual landfall" TC. Complete WP:OR. -Atmoz (talk) 14:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Inherently WP:OR and unless some meterological society somewhere has an official definition of 'unusual' it always will be.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Fascinating, but unsourcedalicious as well. To be sure, there are some coastal locations where hurricanes and cyclones are demonstrably less frequent than others (such as California vs. Florida), and with objective measures, there's no need to use subjective terms like "unusual". Frequency and windspeed are not impossible to source. It certainly hasn't been done in this case, however. This might work better if it were divided into articles about severe weather by region, such as "Hurricanes in the United Kingdom" or some such. Mandsford 18:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just put citation tag on the page, dont delete the article..HunterZone (talk) 11:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of it can't be sourced since it's untrue, like Debbie 61 hitting the UK, or Lisa 10 affecting the UK. And simply sourcing it doesn't deal with the article being trivial. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the fact that a cyclone made landfall in a particular country can be sourced, but how can you consistently source whether that is unusual or not?--ThePaintedOne (talk) 16:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well "Unusual landfall" means those cyclones that effect a particular country rarey like Middle east(Oman), Brazil etc.. We dont see tropical cyclones there every year...Therefore the name of the article should not be changed but, yes we can remove those lines which are not true or put citaion there..HunterZone (talk) 03:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's hilarious, guys, and two polite chuckles are in order, one for each witty observation, but not really the fix I'd suggest if the article creator wants to work on it in his own userspace. I hope you don't mind my borrowing the musical notes.... ♫ La la la... ♫ Mandsford 22:17, 5 February 2011 (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 Doce Pares. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cacoy Doce Pares Eskrima

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

A non notable martial art with no independent sources. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it could use a clean-up and needs major sourcing, though. Yeah, definitely a soup sandwich, but maybe salvageable, if not I'd merge the important parts into the main Escrima article.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I merged the pertinent info into Doce Pares. I can add more sources to that piece later, it needs a workup.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:10, 3 February 2011 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

De Campo Uno-Dos-Tres Orihinal

De Campo Uno-Dos-Tres Orihinal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non notable martial art with not independent sources. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sourcing can be fixed.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 15:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as a practicioner (and workshop attendee)of some of these styles, I know that most English language sources will be lacking. I would rather see them merged into the larger FMA or Escrima articles than just wholesale delete them. I know they can be confusing to non-Martial types, much how I could be confused by reading something out of my element like flower-arranging styles or ballet styles.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just wrote a long response and then my connection went haywire when I hit save. Bottom line--These articles need independent sources to meet the Wikipedia standards for notability. Foreign language articles are accepted with a good translation. Many martial arts articles get deleted because of a lack of reliable independent sources. For example, I believe De Campo 1-2-3 is notable, but a quick search didn't give me any independent sources. Papaursa (talk) 05:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Completely understood. Just saying that you have to dig a little deeper to find sources than google books. I have numerous back issues of Black Belt and Inside Kung Fu magazines and a bunch of FMA books, seminar newsletters and the like that are probably not available to the deletionists wanting to kill all the FMA pieces.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 05:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGF. If you can add sources like the aforementioned magazines, that would be good. People who create articles should read and understand the policies--which require reliable sources. If authors don't source their articles, they really can't complain when they're removed (or expect others to source it for them). Papaursa (talk) 12:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm adding what I can find, I didn't create these, but know a little about each.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 14:49, 4 February 2011 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eskrimadors

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

A non notable movie about martial arts with no independent sources. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still don't see how local coverage meets WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 18:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Guideline does not demand that a Fillipino film have worldwide coverage. Notability, even if local to the Phillipines, is notable enough for en.WIkipedia. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that they were all from one town in the Philipines. Papaursa (talk) 19:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually not all were. And to further address your point... rather than only a "town", Cebu is a province in the Philippines, consisting of Cebu Island and 167 surrounding islands, and with a population in 2009 of some 3.5 million... and the newspapers you feel are "local" are major to and cover that entire region. Further, and not just a "town", Cebu City is the capital of the Cebu province, and is the "second most significant metropolitan centre in the Philippines". The city's population was nearing the one million mark back in 2007. Not a "town". Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:28, 7 February 2011 (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.