Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 May 3

< 2 May	4 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hörður Björgvin Magnússon

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

There is insufficient coverage for this person to pass WP:GNG. He has not played in a fully professional league, or internationally at the senior level, meaning he fails WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - note that this is actually the fourth nomination for this article. The third is under Hörður Magnússon. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: added to box. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt - remains non-notable after four AfDs! Giant Snowman 00:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Delete and Salt - This has been voted Delete three times already. With all due respect, at some point, enough is enough. Carrite (talk) 01:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the anglicized version of the name should also be salted then. 64.229.100.153 (talk) 05:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - some of the facts on this article are misleading. He does not have Juve's no.20 shirt (that belongs to Luca Toni), nor does he play for their senior team (only their youth team). There seems to be a buzz about what a young talent he is but he has yet to achieve notability. This article can be recreated if and when he makes his début at a fully professional level, but until then this article should be deleted and salted as suggested above. —BETTIA— ^talk 11:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - agreed, the career trajectory looks really empty. Doesn't meet WP:NSPORT --Whiteguru (talk) 12:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Still fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 12:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 07:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Incubate or Userfy (1) This is a professional soccer player. (2) He has been playing internationally for at least two years. (3) He is listed with a professional soccer team among players valued at as high as 30 million pounds ref. He is himself listed as having a value of 320 thousand pounds. He has already attracted a lot of attention from the public as shown by the references in the article. Unscintillating (talk) 14:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - if he's only valued at £320k, I seriously can't see him playing for Juventus any time soon. Many semi-professional players in the fifth tier of English football are valued at more than that...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - I doubt an online football management game counts as a reliable source! —BETTIA— ^talk 08:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination does not pass WP:BIO requirements, sadly SALT should be applied too unless we plan to discuss this for indefinite time. Yamaguchi先生 14:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does anyone wonder why different editors keep re-creating this article? Would it be that they are looking for non-notable topics? Or would it be because this topic is missing from the encyclopedia?

It is not true that this article must wait for Magnusson's first game with Juventus. WP:NSPORT is a guideline, a guideline shows a pattern, not fixed pathways. I see erroneous conclusions on this point in previous AfDs, so the previous AfDs are flawed criteria also.

Fram is one of the top four teams in Iceland, the better question is, is six games with Fram along with the other WP:GNG sources available and, according to WP:N, "likely to be available", equal in the notability given one game with Juventus.

There is not a position here that has verifiable research, except for the comment about jersey #20, about which I changed the article. Un-researched !votes do not prove non-notability, and the "salt" comments here are weaker than the !votes themselves.

It took just a little research for me to find an article showing that this player was already known internationally at age 15. Checking the Fram website shows that he was the captain of the Under-17 team. By age 18, he is the first Icelandic player in Juve's 100-year history. None of these points have been mentioned by the delete !votes. How can it be a reasonable statement to call these points an "empty career trajectory"?

I was not able to find any online newspaper archives in Milan, and I feel confident that none of the !votes here have worked the Milan newspapers, so it is likely that more material exists in a Milan library. I found 67 hits in an Iceland newspaper, here. Unscintillating (talk) 10:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The general consensus is that youth team activities are not notable enough for Wikipedia. —BETTIA— ^talk 10:49, 10 May 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. Copyvio of Bio from Aaron Sanders' website nancy 10:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Sanders

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

Unable to find any coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. Does not appear to meet WP:AUTHOR. J04n(talk page) 22:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 22:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which provide more than passing coverage of this writer. It's possible I caught a passing reference in one or two places, and it's possible I didn't, with a name as common as AS, but no in-depth sources which would establish any connection to any of the claims in this biography. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 23:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources for this BLP, thus it fails WP:GNG and WP:V. Tooga - BØRK! 07:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 13:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Whpq. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 07:44, 6 May 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) 00:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Behrouz Safarzadeh

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

Unable to find any coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. Searched Google News Archive and Books under "بهروز صفرزاده", Behruz Safarzadeh and Behrouz Safarzadeh without success. There's this but it's just an add for his dictionary. J04n(talk page) 22:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 22:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 22:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unsourced BLP article. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 22:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 06:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 07:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of reliable sources that would satisfy both verifiability and the general notability guideline, and for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources found. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 17:40, 9 May 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 by NawlinWiki (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content)). Non-admin closure of orphaned AFD. Serpent's Choice (talk) 14:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nick powell

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

Fails WP:Notability Non notable actor and director. Unexplained PROD decline by article creator. Safiel (talk) 21:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. I was rather tickled by the NickPowellcopywright (sic) 2011 claim at the bottom of the page, which is a bit of a giveaway. So a few violations of guidelines there as well. --AJHingston (talk) 22:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 4 May 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, could have been a G11 just as well - it's basically a linkfarm. -- Y not? 15:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of genealogy publications

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

This list of non-notable publications is just a collection of external links. It's like a web-directory. Damiens.rf 21:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely true, this fails WP:NOTDIR. It's fixable by normal editing, though; an article with this title could exist (along the lines of List of physics journals).—S Marshall T/C 22:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It isn't "fixable by normal editing" if there are no genealogy publications notable enough to have articles. No prejudice to re-creation if articles are created and deemed notable, however. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Individual items on a list don't have to be notable enough to have articles. The relevant guideline is WP:CLN, and specifically WP:AOAL point #8.—S Marshall T/C 14:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However, if none of the items are notable enough to have an article, this is a strong indication that the page is functioning as nothing but a linkfarm. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's absolutely true. It's a linkfarm. This needs to be fixed by normal editing.—S Marshall T/C 00:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 4 May 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. (non-admin closure) Baseball Watcher 23:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2010-11 NBA Player Salaries

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

This was previously prodded, but now looking at the article it feels like an indiscriminate collection of information that looking at other years we don't have. Hasteur (talk) 21:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It appears to be sourced, and attributed to multiple publications at that. I wish that we had this information available for other years, too, but that we don't is not a reason to delete this one list. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 22:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with above- we might as well start a tradition with it- have the salaries for every year of the NBA going forward. We can even do research and create some from years past Even if a few players are left out, they could still be useful articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soxrock24 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments. It is not at all indescriminate and of some encyclopedic valye I would say, Sadads (talk) 01:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is not the sort of thing Wikipedia should be trying to do. A simple external link to STORYTELLER'S CONTRACTS or some similar site off the NBA page would get users up to the moment stats with the click of a button. As you will note from that site, there are bonuses, non-guaranteed provisions, and other contract concerns for each player. Nothing is as simple as it seems to be. It was a poor decision to launch this page, in my view, since the ultimate product, no matter how meticulously researched and maintained, will never match the easily accessible presentations of similar material on the web. We shouldn't feel that Wikipedia needs to publish itself every sports statistic — only to provide useful information that will get users what they need quickly and easily. In this case, that means a link to Storyteller or ESPN or whatever site tracks and produces these numbers. I don't know whether the solution is to delete this page — and if so, on what grounds — or just to shake out heads and move along. Probably the latter, but I leave that for others to decide. Going forward, I earnestly hope this sort of exercise isn't repeated. Carrite (talk) 12:58, 4 May 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) 00:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Online reading

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

First of all, the article's name doesn't fit the what the article actually covers, which appears to be scanlations. However, we already have an article on scanlations, poorly written as it may be. Based on the title, I would think the article is about reading text online, whether it be online newspapers, online books, online magazines, blogs, social media, forums, etc. But are there any differences between reading online vs. reading on a printed medium to differentiate "online reading" from general reading? How is reading things online any different from reading things on printed media or an e-reader like the Kindle?

Second, the article focuses entirely on scanlations, which are illegal translations of copyrighted manga and other comics. But we already have an article about that subject, as poorly written and sourced as it may be. Any information about scanlation "aggregator" websites should be incorporated into that article with the appropriate sources.

And finally, the article is full of original research, speculation, and downright excuse making. Nothing in the article is verifiable against a reliable sources. On top of that, the article reads as if supporting "aggregator" websites. The " Legal issues" sections merely makes excuses as to why these "aggregator" websites which engage in copyright violations are "OK" to use. In short, it's really nothing more than someone's personal essay. —Farix (t | c) 21:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please show where this article focuses entirely on scanlations, which are illegal translations of copyrighted manga and other comics. --Whiteguru (talk) 12:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been entirely rewritten by Colonel Warden since the AfD tag was placed on it. When Farix nominated it for deletion, it was entirely about scanlations, but now it is not at all about scanlations. Calathan (talk) 17:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 21:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 21:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 21:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Timothy Perper (talk) 00:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, there are differences between reading online and in traditional formats. This is a notable topic and so I have made a start upon developing it. I agree that we don't need the material about manga piracy under this title but that may be resolved by ordinary editing. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment.~~ Keep The changes made by Colonel Warden resolve my issues with the original article. The new material added by Colonel Warden deal with the topic and are, IMO, OK for a stub article. Timothy Perper (talk) 15:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've read news articles about how online reading is changing the market place. Some of the best selling books are available online only, and usually sell for less than printed books. This has changed how things are done. More books can be published now, it not costing people anything to put their work out there, and they don't need the approval of anyone. Having some information about manga/comic piracy in the article would be nice. Some big names in the industry have stated that they started selling their work in an online format as soon as they release the printed version in their home country, to cut down on internet piracy. Just as piracy of television episodes forced companies to adapt and allow legal viewing of their programs online with ads to defeat the loss of an audience. Dream Focus 15:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Wow, this has changed completely. Back when it first came up here, I skimmed it, decided it was a blatant delete case and so blatant there was no point in !voting; but this version is nothing of the sort.

It's kind of vague and overlaps with ebook articles, and I can't help but suspect there's an article on the general topic already (possibly under a name to do with 'hypertext'?), but still, not worth deleting. Merging, perhaps, if we could find the right target. --Gwern (contribs) 15:45 7 May 2011 (GMT)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Owen× ☎ 13:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deposit-taking co-operative

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

a small phenomenon that got a bit of coverage in Malaysia in late 80s. [1]. LibStar (talk) 02:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:30, 21 April 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) 00:25, 26 April 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, Der yck C. 20:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Turns out there is a ton of coveraqe available, even in English [2]. The article didn't make it clear, but the collapse of these institutions led to a major financial and political crisis in Malaysia in the 1980s. We can't dismiss the subject as unimportant just because it's about Malaysia; that would be a form of WP:Systemic bias. And we can't dismiss it because most of the notability was in the 1980s; that would be WP:Recentism. I have added sources to the article and clarified it, so please take another look. --MelanieN (talk) 01:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. It looks to me as if the author of the article has not been notified about this AfD. Nominator, would you like to do that or should I? --MelanieN (talk) 17:05, 10 May 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 per G12. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MARG Software Solutions

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

Notability of this article is in question. Article was deleted then reposted. –BuickCentury Driver 20:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then it violates criteria for deletion G4, if it does not look better. Shakinglord (talk) 20:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It also looks like advertising, since it is also unencyclopedic. Shakinglord (talk) 20:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as spam, I'm not clear on why you removed the CSD. Does not qualify for G4. Hairhorn (talk) 20:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retagged for speedy as copyvio. Hairhorn (talk) 20:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The editor that posted this article kept removing the speedy deletion tags, so I put this under AFD since the speedy deletion is being contested. –BuickCentury Driver 20:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but article creators aren't permitted to remove speedy tags. "Contesting" speedy does not make the tag go away. Hairhorn (talk) 20:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it is indeed a copyvio, we can close this as a speedy delete. –BuickCentury Driver 20:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as spam and copyvio. Note article creators are not permitted to remove speedies. Safiel (talk) 20:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should article creation be blocked? What about the author? Shakinglord (talk) 20:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If he posts repeatedly, should creation be blocked, if he stops removing the tag? Or, if he continues to remove the tag, do we block him? Shakinglord (talk) 20:28, 3 May 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 heads of state of Ghana. (non-admin closure) Baseball Watcher 23:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Presidents of Ghana

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

The articles duplicates the existing subjects of President of Ghana and List of heads of state of Ghana. — ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Since the notability of the subject doesn't seem to be in question, wouldn't a merge proposal be more appropriate than AfD? Or would CSD A10 apply here? - frankieMR (talk) 20:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that the CSD tag was placed by nom and then invalidated - frankieMR (talk) 20:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, or merge to List of heads of state of Ghana and/or John Atta Mills if any content can be salvaged - frankieMR (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and this article is clearly eligible under A10, not sure why the speedy was removed. Safiel (talk) 22:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it was eligible under A10, but the admin decided that because the user added more content the A10 was invalidated, although the new content also duplicated existing subjects.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 13:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At the time the tag was applied, it was valid. By the time I got to it, the article had filled out and the limited scope of the tag (referring to one president only) no longer fitted. I suggested that the tagger was free to use prod or AfD. Peridon (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of heads of state of Ghana – plausible search term. --Lambiam 18:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of heads of state of Ghana per Lambiam.--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of heads of state of Ghana per above. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 07:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of heads of state of Ghana per above. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of heads of state of Ghana per Lambiam. --Banana (talk) 18:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of heads of state of Ghana as best possible outcome. Yamaguchi先生 16:10, 9 May 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. Owen× ☎ 13:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hayley Smith (Home and Away)

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

Non-notable character. Unreferenced, and only two sentences long with an infobox. Needs to be deleted and/or upmerged to another Home and Away-related article Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 18:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Improve In it's current state, the topic does not show it need its own page, however it can be changed. JDDJS (talk) 19:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep now it has sources, so it's probably notable but I'm not really sure because I don't live in Australia. JDDJS (talk) 18:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Given the size of the relevant category, it appears likely that many characters from the series are consensus-notable. In the absence of any argument otherwise by the nominator, I see no reason to conclude that a 6-year-running character isn't similarly notable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notabality isn't determined by a bad article being around for years; it's determined by references. There are no references to prove notability. The article almost certainly fails the notability criteria for soap opera characters. Though the character was on the show for six years, we have no evidence to indicate in what context. There had been [previous AFD a couple of years ago], but it was closed because an editor had nominated 140 pages at once (despite this, many editors had still voted delete, and there was no prejudice against renomination) Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 00:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely lacks any sort of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 22:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. I absolutely despise shows like Home and Away and think that many of the character stubs that are created about shows like this should be merged into a list. However, this character is not one of them; it would easily be one of the most notable characters in the show's history. Also, the fact that the article is unreferenced is irrelevant, especially when a google news archive search for "Hayley Smith" gives two hits in the first ten about this character. Bec Cartwright's portrayal of this character won her a Logie Award for Most Popular Actress in 2005 and she was also nominated for a Gold Logie that same year. Do a google news archive search for Hayley Smith + Bec Cartwright and you get four pages of results that could all be used as references in this article. Here are another 21 articles from the Fairfax Media archives that are all reliable third party publications. They could also be added to the article. I would echo JDDJS's call of improve and must admit that I'm struggling to assume good faith about this nomination, as it seems that WP:BEFORE was not carried out and that the attempt to get this article deleted is just the nominator trying to get his/her own way at Talk:Hayley Smith (American Dad!)#Requested move 2011. Jenks24 (talk) 04:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dude; I nominated the article because it was in terrible shape, and had been that way for years. I have a solid argument for the American Dad move regardless of whether this article is kept or not Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 07:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BEFORE, did you honestly make a good faith attempt to reference the article before sending it to AfD? Jenks24 (talk) 07:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that I have added five or so refs to the article from major Australian and New Zealand newspapers. Still a stub, but I think it proves the notability. Jenks24 (talk) 08:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The character is notable for the reasons set out by Jenks24. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are half dozen helpful references added, as result of this discussion. Yamaguchi先生 16:11, 9 May 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 20:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar Salli

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

Contested PROD, reason given was; "seems a notable award". Possibly refering to the only reference on the page, Salli won the "Best Player" award at 2011 African Youth Championship. However, international youth tournaments and caps do not deem a player notable thus failing WP:NFOOTY. A lack of any significant media coverage also means Salli fails WP:GNG. --Jimbo^[online] 18:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --Jimbo^[online] 18:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He has not played for a fully professional club, or internationally at the senior level, and he has not received significant coverage. He therefore fails both WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all the coverage I can find is match reporting style with passing references. Seems a half decent player though. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I suppose a redirect to 2011 African Youth Championship would be fine, though. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 19:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 23:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Youth achievements aren't notable. Argyle 4 Life^talk 12:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 14:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination does not pass WP:BIO requirements unfortunately. Yamaguchi先生 16:12, 9 May 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. J04n(talk page) 00:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sediq Shubab

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

WP:N Long-term unreferenced BLP, has sat around with modest vandalism in the lede for the past three months. I have been unable to find reliable secondary sources providing in-depth coverage of this musician to evidence his notability under the general notability guideline. Might have PROD'd, but translation/transliteration stuff often makes finding appropriate sources difficult, additional sources welcomed as always. joe decker ^{talk to me} 18:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unsourced BLP article. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 22:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Tooga - BØRK! 07:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unsourced biography. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:07, 6 May 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 20:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

School of firelighters

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

Non-notable organisation with no verifability. Mephistophelian (talk) 17:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam and as having no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 13:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete in accordance with G11. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Might merit a mention in the article about the founder, but there doesn't seem to be any indication that it's independently notable. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:01, 8 May 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) 00:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Daredevil Mountaineer

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

Delete per WP:NOTFILM(no historical notability, coverage, commercial re-release, awards). — ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 17:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not covered in any source after nearly a century from its release date of 1913. Most of the information the article offers can already be found on Jean Acker#Selected filmography, which is the release year, the title and the starring actress. Delete per WP:GNG.Nimuaq (talk) 19:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect this 98-year-old film to producer Carl Laemmle as one of his earliest works, as Laemmle was a pioneer in American filmmaking and one of the founders of Universal Studios. If someone comes searching Wikipedia for it, they will then find it in the place where it could have historical context. of course, if somone can get past the paywalls of two 1914 articles from the The Arizona Republican[3] we might have enough to squeeze in a weak keep per WP:NTEMP. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:36, 4 May 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) 00:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahsaan Rizvi

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

Not a notable author. Cannot find any reviews for the author's book or indeed the author himself. The references are mere notifications that are more interested in celebrating the author from a nationalist perspective--but it should be noted that Lambert Academic Publishing is little more than a vanity press: see VDM Publishing. Delete as vanity article. Drmies (talk) 17:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article presents information of a young author who was widely appreciated, for becoming an author of a technical title, by the leading print media and online blogs of the country. The Alma Mater of the student, NUST, which is the premier technology institution of Pakistan, also commended the efforts of the student and placed the information on its website. The article is of common interest for those who are related to the field of technology and telecommunications —Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.177.112.186 (talk) 20:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - completely fails all tests of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No need to delete. Notability is justified by extremely reliable international newspaper The NEWS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.177.28.16 (talk) 17:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete: Recognition of such a complex and innovative technology at international level is a rarity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fake.ndakota (talk • contribs) 17:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC) — Fake.ndakota (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete The references do not show notability for the person or his book. --bonadea contributions talk 20:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recommended to keep the article Articles are published in local magazines and journals about this achievement of the author. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alsonny (talk • contribs) 19:30, 10 May 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 20:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coming-of-age film

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

Contested PROD. PROD rationale was "Consists entirely of original research (only 1 sentence is sourced, and the source is a dead link)." Contesting editor added this source, which seems of questionable reliability (no indication of authorship, hosted on a college website...likely self-published) and does not address the OR issues. IllaZilla (talk) 17:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as OR...some odd choices in that OR, too. I can see this existing one day if real references are found (a la the references in Bildungsroman, the text equivalent), but that can be written from scratch; there's no reason to keep this unsourced article which somehow identifies Brokeback Mountain and A Christmas Carol as coming-of-age films. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but gut and rework with sources. The content is still OR, but the subject is notable. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think this can be rescued. There have been many volumes of books and whole film school courses about the topic. Bearian (talk) 18:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that sources exist is one thing, but you've got to show them. It's highly likely that this is not a film-specific topic, as of course there are coming-of-age stories in literature, theater, and even music. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've been looking up something that will essentially give a dictionary style definition for this *AND* stand up to the test of being a reliable source. Lots of reliable sources make mention of "coming of age film", but its essentially understood that the reader knows what such a film is. I have found several sources that could potentially stand as reliable sources, but I'm looking for a golden source, like the New York Times, so that it won't be challenged. I'll get back to you. Funny thing, because of Wikipedia's strong rules for reliable sources, the actual definition part of this is hard to find since most people understand without having to get a long explanation. -- Avanu (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's probably true. This strikes me as more of a motif than a genre, in that it describes a type of character arc employed in many branches of storytelling (film, literature, comics, theater, etc.). In that sense it's less a genre than a thematic element, in that the primary genre for most "coming-of-age" type films would be drama. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Keep per WP:ATD and notable topic. Citation added.—RJH (talk) 22:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding that source. Now the dozens of other sources can come in and not be considered OR. I've been looking for a golden source to tie together the coming of age concept with a film genre, and yours comes pretty close. If only it were published in the NYT. -- Avanu (talk) 12:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It looks like the genre itself is discussed in some book sources: [4][5]. Qrsdogg (talk) 04:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Click the Google news archive search at the top of the AFD. It gives 17,000 results. Major newspapers do refer to films in this genre. Instead of just films, perhaps an article for Coming-of-age (genre) would be better, since there are novels and comics/manga about that, and television shows as well. This genre obviously exist, and thus should be covered in Wikipedia. I'm sure textbooks for film students include this in it, and can be used for a proper definition. Dream Focus 17:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added three book sources to the article talk page, including one devoted exclusively to the topic: Coming of Age on Film: Stories of Transformations in World Cinema. No preview on Google for that one, but there is a lengthy Amazon preview available. Many other sources could probably also be found; the article itself just needs some wikilove. I do approve of Focus' suggestion of a meta article or category though, e.g. one that comprises the whole genre, but I also think a separate article just for films is called for. – OhioStandard (talk) 05:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, that source was already listed in the further reading section. But the others are new. – OhioStandard (talk) 05:51, 10 May 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Nation (US Version) (Pal Video) (1994)

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

Appears to be a non-notable video collection...I can't really tell much about it due to the briefness of the article, but with the best Google search I could manage I found no significant, non-trivial coverage in secondary sources. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 16:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 19:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article has been around for years and still has nothing more than a track listing, and no references. It's essentially no more than a discography entry. Given that, and given that the name of the video is the same as the band's first album, I would gather that it's just a standard promotional video for the band, not something that anyone who isn't a fan of the band is likely to ever hear of.--Martin IIIa (talk) 23:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Ace of Base album article. (Happy_Nation_(US_Version)) Benny Digital ^{Speak Your Brains} 09:15, 6 May 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. Athaenara (talk | contribs | block) deleted "B1079 road" ‎ (G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page: ref Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B1079 road.) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

B1079 road

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

Non-notable, run-of-the-mill B road. No assertion of notability is made. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 15:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with nominator. This also is consistent with an old centralised discussion. Zangar (talk) 15:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
? Oh, B roads should not be created. That means I don't mind deletion (I am the author). Wilbysuffolk talk 16:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as notability is minimal Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
G7 speedy per Wilbysuffolk above.—S Marshall T/C 18:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant information to the road's entry in B roads in Zone 1 of the Great Britain numbering scheme, then delete. PWilkinson (talk) 18:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not merge. (Merge and delete is not a viable option AFAIK with our licensing schema anyhow.) coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can technically do it two ways: (1) Place a list of authors of the merged content on the target article's talk page, or (2) If there are only a few, use a dummy edit, as was done here.
The fact that it can technically be done doesn't necessarily make it a good idea, though, and if content is merged, best practice is to keep the history beneath a redirect unless there's some pressing reason for deletion.—S Marshall T/C 21:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has been speedyed by me. Wilbysuffolk talk 08:22, 8 May 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 strong no consensus lol -- Y not? 15:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian federal election, 2015

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

Unreferenced, speculative article about an election that may not occur for another 4.5 years. Speedy deletion was contested. AussieLegend (talk) 13:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Page has now been moved to 42nd Canadian federal election by User:Vikingviolinist Canuck_{My page}^{89 (talk)}, 02:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - canadian election tradition on wikipedia is to open a page for the next election once the current one is over; something I've seen not only in Canada but elsewhere in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.96.35.248 (talk) 14:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

-->The above was me. I change from KEEP to MOVE. 174.118.61.19 (talk) 02:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC) BOTH the above are me Nickjbor (talk) 02:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC) I forget this thing logs me out.[reply]

Move to Next Canadian federal election. As we've just seen, these elections don't necessarily take place every 4 years, as it stands this title contravenes WP:CRYSTALBALL. At WP:UK Politics we have used Next United Kingdom general election as an article title - we are virtually assured it is going to happen, but do not know the date - and then move the article once the date is known. Zangar (talk) 16:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/42nd Canadian federal election; the only new information is that an election before 2015 is unlikely (but not impossible, and "war or insurrection" are not the only possibilities). Hairhorn (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Move back to 42nd Canadian federal election or Next Canadian federal election. We know there will be a 42nd election. We don't know the date. The four year rule has never actually applied, as we've had early elections (even when there wasn't a no-confidence vote). The Election Act could always be amendment. So, there could constitutionally be an election anytime between now and 2016, as only 5 year limit is set in stone (barring war, which can extend it even longer than 5). The current content of the article is sheer rubbish, when it says "barring war or insurrection". An election can be called for far less. If the PM asks the GG for an election, and he agrees, then there will be one. This article provides no information, and some misinformation. It's ok to mention the 2015 date in the article, with an explanation, and with a source, but we should not put "2015" in the article title, as it gives a false sense of certainty. --Rob (talk) 18:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ... Despite "tradition", I don't think we should have a page for this topic yet (under any title)... we should not create articles based on speculation (and that is all we could have at this point in time), so let's at least wait until there is one solid verifiable fact to report (such as the date) before we create an article for it. Blueboar (talk) 18:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move to either of the two possibilities stated above. The title certainly violates CRYSTAL, but the article itself doesn't—as others have stated and this Yank well knows, the election is definitely going to take place at some time (barring apocalyptic disaster), and it's certain that all parties will be making moves with this election in mind. — Dale Arnett (talk) 19:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per crystal, it contains no valuable information. If it were kept, move to 42nd, per this pending moving discussion. 117Avenue (talk) 20:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, by the time this discussion is closed, it will be time for the article. 117Avenue (talk) 00:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move to either possibility mentioned above, probably leaning towards 42nd Canadian federal election with Next Canadian federal election as a redirect. The only WP:CRYSTAL violation I see here is the date itself, which can be fixed by editing. Articles for the next scheduled election are fairly standard, and there's little doubt that this election will happen at some point. BryanG (talk) 21:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deleting or moving it would assume the violation of federal law, which is very biased & non-neutral POV. I'm no Harper fan, but he not only created this law but when he broke it used the minority Parliament excuse which doesn't apply now. He hasn't given any evidence of plans to break this law, until he does so it should stay as is. --208.38.59.161 (talk) 21:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a violation of the law to call the election early. It's also not a violation of the law to change the law. --Rob (talk) 22:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move to 42nd Canadian federal election. It's not a violation of WP:CRYSTAL to have articles on events on such as this, which we know will occur (otherwise, all the articles we have on future U.S. elections would be deleted). It's just a question of when this election will occur. As Harper has a majority government, it's most likely that his government will last the full 4 years, but still, I think this article would be better suited by moving to a new title. Canuck_{My page}^{89 (talk)}, 23:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep / move. The date is not speculative, nor is the election itself. It's not WP:CRYSTAL as it is a fixed date, unless otherwise changed. But yes, it should be moved to 42nd Canadian federal election. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 00:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep While I could see Harper saying "Since we had so many elections we'll go the max 5 instead of 4" THAT would be crystal ballin'. No evidence this will happen in any other year (for the Harper gov to fall again, more than a dozen of his members would have to join with all 4 other parties), in the unlikely event it changes we can move the article THEN. --TheTruthiness (talk) 05:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see Talk:British Columbia general election, 2013#Requested move, it isn't our job to judge the strength of a government. 117Avenue (talk) 05:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So, what is the benefit of including "2015" in the title? Nobody is going to type the exact article title, regardless. The article content can mention the date (with a source) regardless of the title. So, why is "2015" in the title better than "42nd"? Also, early elections can happen without a no confidence, as has already occurred with Harper under the "fixed date" law. Once in Ontario, the government had a large majority, but called an election more than two years before being legally required to (max was 5 years), for no apparent reason, other than being high in the polls. Also, unlike the US, if something happens to the leader in office, requiring a replacement, it's very likely that there'd be an early election. An election can happen over a major issue (e.g. like a trade deal). I concede the election will very likely be in 2015, but so what? Even if it's 99% likely, there's still no reason to include that in the title. There's no rule that says we have to embed information into article titles. This isn't the US, where it's common to here references to the "2012" election, or even "2016" election. In Canada, the next election is generally just called "the next election". --Rob (talk) 07:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - In those that have created fixed election dates, the only elections called early were because of no confidence votes. The Ontario example you give was before they has fixed date legislation. However, the first may be this year if rumours of a BC election hold true. 117Avenue (talk) 08:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - There's an article called United States presidential election, 2012. It's not 100% guaranteed, World War III could break out but it exists with that title because that's what the current law dictates. Also it's WP:OR with this "the next election" line. In order for this not to happen in 2015 current law would have to be changed (unlikely considering who created it) or the majority gov would have to declare no confidence in itself (unlikely for obvious reasons). --208.38.59.161 (talk) 20:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - The US is totally different. It has fixed elections written into the constitution, and it has been consistently followed them for over two centuries. If the US didn't keep fixed terms, it would be a first in centuries. If Canada did follow any fixed term, that would be a first. And, if you read the law (the amended Canada Election Act), it clearly says that it does not take away from the discretion of the Governor General. So, even if the law is kept on the books, and followed, we can have an early election, as has already happened under Harper. There was a failed attempt by a person to stop Harper from calling an early election in 2008, without a non-confidence vote, and the judge refused to even consider the matter. Let's not confuse Canada and the US. --Rob (talk) 23:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        But Bill C-16, passed in 2006, assures that the 43rd election will take place on the third Monday of October in 2015. And while the Governor-general can override this date, it's WP:CRYSTAL to assume that he will, because we are in a majority government that has no reason to seek dissolution before the September. So we should be going by the date of October 19th, 2015 until further notice. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 23:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not assuming anything. I don't know. You don't know. I'm not advocating for a different CRYSTAL ball prediction, I'm advocating none. The law, constitution, and history, all make clear that there is no guarantee of when the election will be. Also, I am fine with mentioning 2015, in the article, provided an appropriate citation, which should be easy to get. In the article we can state things more completely, than can be done in a title. --Rob (talk) 00:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        All Canadian federal election articles are titled with a year, so if we rename it to 42nd we'll have to change it again later. Since there's an existing law for it to be in 2015 (we didn't just pick this date at random or pull an assumption out of our asses) and no credible other year, it's a colossal waste of everyone's time to change the title until there's some credible evidence Bill C-16 won't be followed. --208.38.59.161 (talk) 15:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete there is no guarantee that a election will happen in 2015. However it is likely that there will be a 43 election. Krj373 (talk) 07:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But there is a guarantee there will be a next election. We just don't know in which year it will happen. That's why a move to a better title has been suggested. Canuck_{My page}^{89 (talk)}, 07:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly delete - Speculation about something that might not happen. AnnihilatorHeli (talk) 11:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By this argument only things that are in the past can have articles. Albums set to be released the next day wouldn't be allowed because it might get cancelled at last minute...which is obviously dumb. --208.38.59.161 (talk) 20:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Super duper double dog dare stronger than the strongest strong infinity +1 keep I have no problem with renaming it 42nd Canadian general election, but this election is the next election and it WILL happen sometime in the future. Hishighness420 (talk) 14:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or move The election will happen; we've got similar pages up on the next UK General Election, not to mention the US Senate Elections in 2016, so I think the article in general is covered as not being too far out. And as it stands, the law at least implies a fixed date (I know Harper can move to change the law, or in a crunch he could "throw" a VONC), so I'd say that we're not in a bad position either keeping the title or changing it, but I'd err on the side of keeping it unless there's a serious indication that he's going to jump early...doing otherwise would seem to itself violate WP:CRYSTAL.Tyrenon (talk) 16:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or move but not delete. We need a page to post the relevant information that will take place after this latest election, including the results of future bi-elections. Also, we need to post future polling results. Juve2000 (talk) 17:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As a humorous example of how badly written and sourced this article is, the only source cited that supports a specific year for an election in Canada says the "First fixed-date election to be held in 2012." --Rob (talk) 00:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It will be updated at some point. 117Avenue (talk) 00:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the basis of most keep votes seems to be that, yes, there really will be an election in the future. But this is simply a factoid that doesn't merit an entire entry to itself, it can be mentioned somewhere else. AFD is about what merits an entry, not about what the encyclopedia can and cannot mention. Hairhorn (talk) 01:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You think the next federal election in the 2nd largest country in the world isn't worthy of an article? --208.38.59.161 (talk) 15:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, not now when there is a near complete absence of useful information about it. And Canada is only second largest by geography, which has squat to do with elections; it is one of the smallest developed countries by population. Hairhorn (talk) 17:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, it should be noted that the article was moved while this discussion was still open. 117Avenue (talk) 16:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is difficult to decide. Harper's got a majority government now, unlike in 2008, when he called a snap election. Fixed elections isn't in the Canadian Constitution, yet we keep hearing on the media that there will not be another election until October 2015. GoodDay (talk) 01:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or move per Tyrenon Gang14 (talk) 07:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It just seem prudent to have it all ready to go. Also it provides presently useful information that will be continually changing up to the date of the event...--Oracleofottawa (talk) 03:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at 42nd Canadian federal election. There WILL be a 42nd election, it may or may not be in 2015. DigitalC (talk) 17:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is the author advocating that the article be deleted, whether its name is the 2015 election or the 42nd general election? Juve2000 (talk) 01:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please clarify whom you mean by author? If you mean the user who created the article, Clumsyone (talk · contribs), he/she hasn't made a Wikipedia contribution since creating the article on 3 May. If you mean the current top contributor of the article, myself, I voted it be moved to 42nd, pending a related move discussion. Or possibly you mean the user who created this page. 117Avenue (talk) 01:51, 11 May 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) 00:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don Francisco Vazquez de Molinar

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

This has been tagged as a hoax, and doubts have been explained on the talk page, but regardless of that it fails WP:V and WP:N. There are no sources, and I find none except Wikipedia mirrors; and even if everything it says were sourced, there is nothing to indicate notability. The article says that he was descended from royalty, his cousin was an emperor and his descendants included a revolutionary and a baseball player, but none of that makes him notable, and Wikipedia is not a genealogical directory. JohnCD (talk) 12:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax.--Yopie (talk) 14:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 01:43, 10 May 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) 00:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vasileios Ioannidis

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

The person has no WP:PROF of any other kind of notability. He was a theologian, who was professor at a university but he wasn't distinguished in his field, he didn't write any significant works that had academic impact and he never held a named chair appointment or a highest-level post.— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 12:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Since above nom. is wrong: He was one of the main representatives in New Testament analysis in Greece (per University of Thessaloniki source-ref 3) wrote in several academic journals and published a number of books in his field espcially, being distinguished in N.T. introductory analysis. (didn't write any significant works that had academic impact mentioned above is still unexplained and subjective)

Note: Considering the unexplained nom and the aggresive national background of the nominator I assume this will turn into another meatpuppetry case (via offline cooperations).Alexikoua (talk) 13:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source 3 that is in Greek doesn't say that(it's a list of professors) and please WP:NPA. None of the sources support that he had any kind of impact with his books, in fact they're only listed and no impact is attributed to his books. If he had any impact at all there would be something on google books, google scholar or even simple google search.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 15:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep role at World Council of Churches appears notable and whilst many references are in Greek there are sufficient to document his notability. -- Paul foord (talk) 01:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Paul foord (talk) 01:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. — Paul foord (talk) 01:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a variety of material in gbooks and gschollar, some of which I've added in the article, especially about descriptions of his crucial role in the first 3 WCC Assemblies and issues about Ecumenism.Alexikoua (talk) 07:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a crucial role, but participation is enough and please add the sources before AfD. AFAIC now it passes the general NN.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 13:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now Zjarri, you may close this. --Doktor Plumbi (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 00:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.I.Casaubon (talk) 18:27, 9 May 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 20:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael K. Faught

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

The article is the CV of Dr Faught. The article looks to have been written by Dr Faught and is as such self-promotion and primarily self-serving. Moglucy (talk) 12:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is either blatant self-promotion or blatant WP:OR. The cites are all to his own cv, or his published papers, which essentially represents the primary record here (hence the OR). There is no evidence that the subject has received any independent coverage. Agricolae (talk) 03:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To add to my similarly-named colleague's findings, WoS shows h-index = 3, very much below our conventional threshold. Agricola44 (talk) 21:04, 6 May 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael K. Faught

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 20:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dependency theory of justice

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

This cites no sources and is a personal essay or original research; it covers some of the same ground as Independence of the judiciary, and a similar article was deleted per WP:CSD#A10 but the author argued that "justice" was distinct from "the judiciary" and removed a PROD from this, so I bring it here. JohnCD (talk) 10:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as someone's homework or essay which fails to establish notability. There are ghits which don't seem to pertain to the concept given here of an interdependency of "law and justice". This also seems unrelated to the social science concept Dependency theory. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons given above: essay, containing original research and synthesis. Drmies (talk) 15:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as being an unsourced essay completely full of original research in mainspace. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Violates WP:NOTESSAY. Dragquennom (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Essay and original research as above. Safiel (talk) 16:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research and non-NPOV advocacy. Chester Markel (talk) 17:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an original essay. Carrite (talk) 01:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete. Per above.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Original essay. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 14:12, 9 May 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. While there seems to be a consensus regarding the lack of reliable sources, the notability of the subject is disputed. I chose to ignore WP:IAR. Owen× ☎ 13:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MajorMUD

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

I'll probably be accused of OMG Literally Deleting MUD History From The Internet, but this article has been tagged as unreferenced since October 2008. Verification from a reliable published source is the minimum standard for inclusion. There are no hits from Google Books. It's possible something like Dragon Magazine covered MajorMUD in the mid 90s. The burden of evidence rests with the contributing editor, though. Marasmusine (talk) 08:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Marasmusine (talk) 08:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I find it very strange that MajorMUD evaded media attention as thoroughly as appears to be the case, but I've never been able to find evidence to the contrary. I actually do get two legit hits for it on Google Books today, which is more than previously, but both are passing mentions that aren't going to help with notability. —chaos5023 (talk) 20:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- MajorMUD came with MajorBBS and (so I assume) fairly decent board software, so there was no need to use Usenet which provides 80% of the primary sources for random nobodies wanting to write a book about MUDs. Had they known where to look there probably would be some excellent resources. --Scandum (talk) 12:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Meh, I'll bite. OMG, why don't you try to find sources to help it be referenced? Or trim the article back to enough to remove the unreferenced tag? I fail to see the benefit in deleting this article. BTW, you might be more forthcoming with this being the SECOND time you've tried to get this article deleted. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Quick replies: Tried, couldn't find. Trimming the article doesn't make it less unverified. If you are referring to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AVATAR (MUD), note that I was not the nominator, nor did I !vote "delete". Was there some some other deletion attempt that I've forgotten about? As the initial contributor, what efforts have you made to find sources to help it be referenced? Marasmusine (talk) 10:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Did you check google:MajorMUD+Download before your AfD? –82.113.106.29 (talk) 23:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's not relevant; please take a look at WP:N. Your accusation of bad faith in the edit summary when you added this comment is also extremely inappropriate; see WP:AGF. —chaos5023 (talk) 01:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I've added the "Mudpedia" page "MajorMUD" to external links, and asked on its talk page for help with the missing references here. –82.113.106.29 (talk) 02:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll also put in here that I have a giant stack of MUD-related books from the mid-to-late 1990s that I use for sourcing MUD-related articles (check my contributions history), and though I've looked, I've never managed to turn up mention of MajorMUD in any of them. —chaos5023 (talk) 14:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - On the talk page somebody wrote: "if you want a specific source for MajorMUD, Ron Penton's "MUD Game Programming" (ISBN 1592000908)". Can you check that alleged source? –82.113.106.29 (talk) 22:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's a passing mention in the "About the Author", talking about how Penton was into MUDs ever since his favorite BBS installed Swords of Chaos and MajorMUD. No actual coverage of MajorMUD. —chaos5023 (talk) 01:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay, thanks for checking that, and I just saw that the Mudpedia page in essence copies Wikipedia, so copying it back also won't improve the article. But it has additional references including a link to quest-ware.net (removed here by User:Marasmusine because it was added by the site owner). If you'd add these references the article is good enough to keep it. –82.113.106.29 (talk) 03:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I found the deletion link on a user talk page. The article already survived an AFD in 2007, it might be irrelevant for folks like me who never cared about MUDs. But it is a valid historic topic, it has a few links to it, and it is better than yet-another-dead-sourceforge-project stubs such as Posadis, where I couldn't resist to add an {{NN}} tag after I found that the "company" web page is now a domain for sale. –82.113.106.29 (talk) 22:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- None of that really helps; again, see WP:N. The article's survival of the previous AfD is more about the extremely flawed nature of that AfD than about this article. Regarding Posadis, see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. The thing is, while I personally feel like we in fact ought, in a better world, to have an article on MajorMUD, the project (meaning Wikipedia) has standards for topic inclusion and this topic needs to meet them like any other. I happen to think that those inclusion standards have extremely serious things wrong with them, but I don't have a credible alternative to propose at this time. Until I do, going to Wikipedia and telling us that the project should have articles outside its defined scope is like going to the Apache people and telling them that their project should also wash your laundry. —chaos5023 (talk) 01:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, the article clearly deserves its "missing references" tag, and there might be more issues, but "not notable" is just wrong (based on my Google search results). I'm not really interested in the topic, I was a Maximus sysop in 1996, I have no idea about Major BBS MUDs. –82.113.106.29 (talk) 03:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Finding sources is the first step to establishing notability, which I appreciate. Those wishing to help should familiarize themselves with our standards for WP:Reliable sources. Thanks, Marasmusine (talk) 07:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - The added link to DMOZ category "MajorMUD" covers all links you had to remove here under WP:VG/EL — I tend to accept that as relevant guideline. To get a fresh opinion about the page I added {{Recently revised}}. –82.113.106.29 (talk) 09:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Linking to DMOZ is perfectly acceptable, and recommended at the EL guidelines. However, none of the sites listed there are remotely acceptable as sources for verification. Marasmusine (talk) 15:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Google hits demonstrate nothing about notability. You're apparently not actually reading WP:N or WP:RS, so let me explain: "notable" on Wikipedia does not mean what it means in real life, especially the "I think it's significant" meaning. On Wikipedia, "notable" has actually become jargon that means "has significant coverage in independent reliable sources". Ten million Google hits do not a single reliable source make. Penton's book is fine, as are the two magazine mentions that come up on Google Books, but their failure to say anything about MajorMUD means they aren't "significant coverage". (I also found yet another passing mention, on Raph Koster's web site.) What the article needs is the kind of coverage discussed in WP:RS; if you want to rescue it, you'd do much better to find some of that instead of spinning your wheels reformatting it and adding links. —chaos5023 (talk) 10:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:IAR. The article could be shortened till the most probable data is left. --Scandum (talk) 12:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Have to say, I support an IAR rationale for a keep here. The sourcing difficulty seems to me more like some kind of aberration than the legitimate obscurity enjoyed by many MUD-related topics, and as far as I can tell there's no issue of promotional nature, the software having been abandoned by its publisher ages ago. —chaos5023 (talk) 22:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, I'm listening. The rule we want to ignore is "verification through reliable secondary sources" - let's put notability aside for the moment. I'm not clear on what the actual rationale for this is. Also, you did mention a few minor mentions in books. Is this enough for a mention of MajorMUD of equal measure in an article on a broader topic? Marasmusine (talk) 08:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - The problem is that MajorMUD had a BBS front end, as a result Usenet wasn't used, which in turn closed the community off from the mainstream community. As someone familiar with MUD history I know MajorMUD is notable, so a short article with some primary sources and one secondary source should do. MajorMUD was recently mentioned on Massively:
    - http://massively.joystiq.com/2011/04/26/the-game-archaeologist-plays-with-muds-your-journeys-part-1/
    - If we count that as a secondary source all that's needed is a few primary sources to make sure the article gets its facts straight. --Scandum (talk) 12:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - The Massively link is definitely a step in the right direction. For me, this is enough to have Major mentioned at the broader MUD article (per Wikipedia:N#cite_note-1). As it's clear that both you and chaos5023 have a good knowledge of WP guidelines and MUD history, I can concede to allowing a separate article. At the same time, I'd like the AfD to run its full course. Thanks, Marasmusine (talk) 17:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        It would probably be better to focus on MajorBBS in the MUD article, as that would cover about half a dozen MUDs. --Scandum (talk) 19:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm a little leery of making MUD the refuge for material that couldn't sustain its own article. It's already on the weighty side. I'd rather keep MajorMUD in its own article if possible, or expand on it in MajorBBS. There'd be no law that we'd have to go out and make articles on the other MUDs covered in the Massively piece, and I don't think we should regardless unless there are additional sources for them. (Though I think I have another source that I could pair with it to put together something about TOS TrekMUSE, which would be pleasing.) —chaos5023 (talk) 20:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        From what I read in "The Major BBS Restoration Project" forum merging MajorMUD and Major BBS could make sense, apparently they mainly wanted to restore MBBS for the purposes of MMUD. On the other hand the legal history is rather complex, and it's simpler to document the purported intention to sell MMUD (2011-03, 4th reference in MajorMUD) in a separate MMUD article. –82.113.121.53 (talk) 03:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It -- This article needs to be retained. MajorMUD is an important piece of history in the development of computers, particularly with the earlier BBS systems in the 1980's. Metropolis was a major host of MajorMUD games; perhaps some correlation could be made there in order to keep this article alive. Erzahler (talk) 22:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IAR Keep I think this is an important enough part of internet history that it should be kept regardless of ability to establish notability by reliable sources. Monty ₈₄₅ 19:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not a vote. I do not see how WP:IAR can apply here. The subject lacks requisite coverage to sustain an article. If it is discovered later that there was such coverage we can discuss at DRV. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you don't understand how WP:IAR can apply here, then frankly you don't understand WP:IAR. There's no doubt in my mind that this article meets our notability requirements, it's simply finding actual printed content to back it up that will be challenging. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Rules on Wikipedia are not carved in stone, and the spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The deletion policy is a guideline that can be ignored as per WP:IAR if the consensus is that content is notable enough to warrant an article. There's been quite a bit of link rot, but with a little bit of creative sourcing a small, properly categorized article can be created. --Scandum (talk) 17:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you can find evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable sources then please leave me a note on my talk page so that I may reconsider. We have a responsibility as Wikipedians to foster articles which are built on such sources, and WP:IAR is not a free pass from that. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I dunno, dude. Nowhere in WP:IAR does it say "except WP:N". The point of IAR is that our fundamental responsibility as Wikipedians is to improve the encyclopedia. Speaking as if WP:N were the foundation of Wikipedia when it's never managed to get promoted past guideline is a bit much for me. I don't honestly expect IAR-based trains of thought to prevail here, since as far as I can tell they never do at AfD, but it may mean something that a bunch of people are willing to entertain the thought, and I know at minimum that Scandum and I do not whip out IAR every time something we have any interest in is up for deletion (not saying that anybody else does, just that I don't know one way or the other). —chaos5023 (talk) 18:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - IAR Keeps do occur at AfD, though often they are not identified openly as such. Often self identified IAR !votes are the result of some personal connection to the topic, and are thus ignored. However here I think there is a pretty good case for an application of IAR. Of course the person who closes the discussion could use a non IAR justification for a keep/no-consensus, at which point it is hard to say whether the IAR saved the article, or whether it was kept for some other reason. Monty ₈₄₅ 18:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I would have to disagree. If the closing administrator opts to keep this article, despite a clear lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications, then it is pretty clear (to me, anyhow) what transpired. ;-) coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 19:19, 3 May 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, Firsfron of Ronchester 09:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per IAR as proposed by Scandum. I think that IAR applies supported by the (yes, very few) mentions of the subject available on the net, added to the difficulty that comes when trying to assess notability properly about this kind of subject at that point of time (i.e., early informatics/internet era) where peer repercussion was not massively focused on, and thus transient. Also I want to argue as I did for another MUD that back then there were way too many MUDs, so finding any third party comments about any of them does make it notable above the others considerably. I'm not saying that this very same rationale may apply for any other MUD (or an analogous case). The way I understand it the guidelines and policies are primarily meant to contain editing within a certain level of responsibility towards the selection and presentation of the subjects, a level that may grant WP the respectability and reliability it aspires to as a body of knowledge. IAR, on the other hand, is to remind us that we have a decision to make that must based on the subject in particular, and that it is not wise to hit a subject with the letter of a policy once we have responsibly found it to be encyclopaedic otherwise - frankieMR (talk) 21:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - (reduced in size since it goes on a big tangent) - I worry that the IAR keep votes we see here could be the result of editorial shame in response to the well-publicized and largely accurate criticism of Wikipedia (related to MUDs) by the likes of Raph Koster. I would hope that any editors invoking IAR here recognizes that shame is not an appropriate reason to use IAR. IAR is intended to be applied to allow rules that stand in the way of improving Wikipedia to be ignored, and not to be an ad hoc free pass that can be applied inconsistently to clear an editor's conscience or to provide a rationale for an editor who is personally invested in the topic. The natural question that arises when IAR is invoked is: Which rule stands in the way of improving Wikipedia? From what I see here, the rule appears to be WP:N. I happen to agree that WP:N is not perfect. I think that a "significant coverage" requirement for RSes should not apply in a GNG examination of the notability of the topic as a whole. If multiple RSes discuss a topic trivially then it is objectively notable - perhaps not as notable as one covered non-trivially, but still notable enough to pass the minimum threshold for inclusion on such an encyclopedia as this. Significant coverage is a logical necessity for the content of the article, but I think that once notability is established for the topic, the content can be filled in using reliable primary sources as well as secondary sources. These views of mine are, of course, not reflected by WP:N. IAR may or may not be well-applied here for the MajorMUD article - I make no judgment either way - but it should be pointed out that IAR is only a bandaid cure for a systemic problem. If users feel that there is a rule that stands in the way of improving Wikipedia then let this be a clarion call. Perhaps it is time to actually change such a rule so that it no longer negatively impacts Wikipedia. -Thibbs (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If I really cared I'd go dig up those sources, my IAR keep is because I'm pressed for time to contribute, while I'm aware that MajorMUD was probably the biggest online RPG back in 1996, with hundreds of Major BBS servers running MajorMUD, each with hundreds of users. If the bureaucrats want it deleted that's fine though, I'll happily edit MUD content elsewhere. --Scandum (talk) 23:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When ignoring rules, please also consider this fundamental concept: As an encyclopedia we are a tertiary source. We summarize information from secondary sources. We can can ignore the notability guidelines if this makes a better encyclopedia, but there's no getting around what we are. At this point I'm open to a possible merge (which is essentially a "keep"), but our content must reflect the level of content in secondary sources. Marasmusine (talk) 13:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sadly, after this discussion enters third week, there are still no proper sources raised to show for. Yamaguchi先生 16:14, 9 May 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) 00:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Di Battista

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

fails WP:CREATIVE as a journalist. only the first hit in gnews [6] seems to be indepth coverage. other hits are mainly passing mentions not about her career etc. LibStar (talk) 07:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In addition to nom's well laid out argument, the article has been around since 2007 and still consists of only three sentences of rather unremarkable prose. Nothing to show notability at this point and no reason to believe that any will be available anytime soon. BelloWello (talk) 07:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —PK T(alk) 14:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, she's a local TV reporter in a large market - doesn't meet the standards for journalists under WP:CREATIVE. PK T(alk) 14:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CREATIVE #1. The coverage in Toronto Star is significant as it is distrubted within Ontario (much like the New York Times). Google is not a sufficient basis upon which to delete an article. Her name is known and recognised within Ontario. In fact a search of the CBC web site yields many hits: [7]. The CBC is a national broadcaster. The article needs expansion not deletion. Argolin (talk) 10:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Your arguments are persuasive, do you have multiple examples of independent media coverage of this specific person? coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The coverage in the Toronto Star is not significant. It only mentions that she has been a newscaster with CityTV for 26 years. The CBC does not even give her significant coverage - 3 or 4 sentences worth of information tops. DigitalC (talk) 23:31, 10 May 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, Firsfron of Ronchester 09:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:CREATIVE, no sign of significant coverage, as noted above. DigitalC (talk) 23:31, 10 May 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, which in this case simply means redirect, as there doesn't seem to be any actual information in need of being transferred first. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Market Forces (ChuckleVision)

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

Entirely non-notable television episode. The PROD-tag was removed by the article creator without a justification ╟─Treasury Tag►presiding officer─╢ 07:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with other episode articles to create series level episode lists with one or two sentence synopsis of "plot" for each episode. Episodes are not notable enough to warrent individual articles. To me, to you... Catfish Jim & the soapdish 11:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could helpfully provide some third-party sources to demonstrate notability for individual series in that case? Thanks. ╟─Treasury Tag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 11:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the original contributor of the article can? If not, you're probably right. Perhaps merge the whole lot to List of ChuckleVision episodes as per WP:TVEP. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 18:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 20 April 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) 00:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of ChuckleVision episodes. Admittedly there's not much in this article that isn't on the list already but it would be acceptable to include the plot summary there. Hut 8.5 14:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing referenced in the article at all... ╟─Treasury Tag►CANUKUS─╢ 11:36, 1 May 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, Firsfron of Ronchester 09:31, 3 May 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 dog hybrids. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Border jack

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

Unreferenced for over a year; only one approaching reliable I can find is two sentences long. — anndelion ❋ 09:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. — anndelion ❋ 09:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When result in a news search gives you "...border. Jack...", you know you have notability problems. Unverifiable and unremarkable. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree that identifiability is fundamental to notability. However, I think the word here with "border. Jack" is "confounded". Using the previous respondent's example, i.e., the one that introduces this page for "news", I persisted to page six and found a good reference. I than added the word "dog" to the search and found more refs and added two of them to the article. Here are the three that were just added to the article:

"Woofing it up". Louisville Courier-Journal. November 12, 2006. Retrieved 10 May 2011. ...a cross between a border collie and a Jack Russell terrier called a "border jack,"...
"Couture, my dear, has gone to the canines". WCF Courier. November 5, 2005. Retrieved 10 May 2011. ...a Border Jack (a mixture of Border collie and Jack Russell terrier).
Cyndi Pratt (August 31, 2007). "Designer dogs now in fashion". Washington Times-Herald. Retrieved 10 May 2011. Pekeapoos are no longer considered crossbreds but Designer Dogs.

Unscintillating (talk) 01:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Run a regular Google search and you'll see instantly that there IS such a thing as a "Border Jack." This is a terrible little stub, but the copious hits lead me to believe that this stub should stand, that there are probably third-party sources out there... Tag it and keep it. Carrite (talk) 01:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know this cross exists, but there are no reliable sources longer than two sentences available. I'm not sure I agree with keeping an article because there are probably reliable sources covering it -- none of the google hits are suitable references, and a lot of false positives are generated. I've just tagged it in case the consensus is to keep. — anndelion ❋ 01:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Verifiable [8][9] --Reference Desker (talk) 10:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I linked to the first in my rationale/"nominating" statement, and the results in the second don't give any information at all; a passing mention in the news in a completely separate context doesn't make something notable. I have yet to find any reliable resources that say more than the minimum (in one case, two sentences). – anna 10:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm pretty sure that linking to search results doesn't verify notability. The articles within the searches you provided only seemed to mention the "breed" in a passing fashion, far from the significant coverage required by general notability guidelines. No one questions the fact that the cross-breed exists, the question is whether or not it is notable or at least, an excepted breed within the industry. The only way to establish that is with reliable sources that provide significant coverage, which doesn't seem to exist. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:47, 23 April 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) 00:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Procedurally, when you want to remove cross-contamination from search results, remove intermediary spacing; "borderjack" -wikipedia has far less clutter, and brings this to the top; not significant coverage, but if considered WP:RS will solve 'unreferenced'; species of plants and animals are presumed WP:N regardless - the only hurdle is whether that extends to dog cross breeds, especially ones with less history. Dru of Id (talk) 01:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dog Breed Info Center isn't really reliable -- it's primarily a haven for breeders who want to advertise, and propagates a lot of misinformation -- but it has a high Google pagerank, so mirrors have popped up. They have pages on many, many mixes, most of them less detailed than even the Border Jack one (which is saying something), so I'm not sure that can be used as evidence of the cross' notability.

This is not an interspecific or even intersubspecific hybrid, so that's not really a valid comparison. There are well over 600 dog breeds, but if we only take the 50 most popular, that gives you 1,225 potential mixes. I think letting this one stay is a slippery slope: if "it has two sentences in a reliable book -- it's notable!" is considered a valid rationale, we'll be inundated with two-sentence stubs. – anna 03:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Borrowing a line from yours from AfD Talk, here is a more expansive reasoning for my KEEP vote above: Here's the root of the problem: "Species are notable, sure, and de facto all separate, established breeds are as well, but there's nothing addressing crossbreeds." In my view certain of these "crossbreeds" have likely attained critical mass in terms of popular recognition as established types of dogs — Notable Neologisms, if you will. Borderjack seems to me to have more or less attained that mark. Honest people may differ in that assessment, which is what AfD is about — figuring out a consensus. By the way, the golden retriever "breed" was created as a cross-breed between yellow labs, an extinct breed of spaniel, and bloodhounds. That's how breeds are made... Carrite (talk) 16:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Inserted here: 16:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

See, for example: Goldendoodle. Carrite (talk) 16:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replied to your first message at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. How is the Goldendoodle relevant to this discussion? They have reached the critical mass you speak of -- media coverage, entire books dedicated, coverage in dog encyclopedias, etc. They certainly pass the general notability guideline. On the other hand, this cross does not, and that's what my issue is with the article. Like I said below to someone, I really am interested in seeing other reliable sources if they exist. "Significant" coverage requires more than two sentences in a "for dummies" book, I would think. – anna 16:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article is about a dog breed. It only needs to be expanded. -Porchcrop ^{(talk|contributions)} 09:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. Crossbreeds are not breeds and those standards do not apply. Read Dog breed#Groups of dogs mistaken for breeds. – anna 21:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to List of dog hybrids. As of now it seems no information can be found beyond a basic sentence or two--this would be a logical choice to hold this information for the less notable hybrid breeds. Yaksar (let's chat) 15:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - needs expanison. not deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be willing to expand upon why the subject is notable? A rationale would be appreciated. – anna 19:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to List of dog hybrids. This is a ridiculous sub-stub with not much chance that it will ever grow beyond, at most, stub size. Clearly fails WP:GNG. From an organisational point of view it just doesn't make sense to cover this on a separate page. That's how an encyclopedia differs from a dictionary. And no, a hybrid between races is not the same as a species. The species of all dogs is canis lupus (i.e. grey wolf). Hans Adler 16:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to List of dog hybrids. There does not appear to be significant coverage of this hybrid out there, hence GNG is not satisfied. Okay as a list entry, but not as a standalone article. BryanG (talk) 00:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of dog hybrids seems the most appropriate course of action here. ArcAngel (talk) ) 00:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- failed previous AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Borderjack – anna 12:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and possibly redirect to List of dog hybrids. I am strongly against any kind of "merge", as the source article is wholly unsourced. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:32, 2 May 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, Firsfron of Ronchester 09:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Evidently notable being covered in multiple books. Our editing policy is to keep and develop stubs, not to delete them. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One book, not multiple, unless you've found something that I have not. – anna 22:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no merge, no redirect Reliable references are referring to this crossbreed. I just added three newspapers. This crossbreed is notable enough to be considered a "designer breed" or a "Designer Dog". I am opposed to redirect or merge, as an editor after a merge or redirect may then delete the material from the target article. Unscintillating (talk) 02:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Being considered a 'designer dog' requires no notability at all. That said, none of the references you or Colonel Warden have added provide significant coverage -- a brief mention doesn't qualify, I would think. They mention the cross and say nothing beyond that, other than the book I linked to earlier. – anna 10:52, 11 May 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) 03:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Himati

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

Not notable outside the university Moray An Par (talk) 11:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Lenticel ^(talk) 00:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to University of the Philippines Mindanao. It should receive a mention there but is not independently notable. --MelanieN (talk) 23:05, 23 April 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) 00:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Makes a credible claim of national first "first student publication in the country to use video documentary and video blogging (vlogging) as a medium of news and opinion delivery", though "first" not verified by cited reference; if referenced, exceeds university-only notability. Dru of Id (talk) 01:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge - In all likelihood, the more notable student publications in the Philippines will be both the Philippine Collegian and University of Santo Tomas's The Varsitarian. I don't think Himati has come to that point of being very notable, irrespective of their claims of being the first student publication in the country to use video blogging (most of the references are from social media websites and their own pages, too). Having said that, a mention on the UP Mindanao article would be worth doing, but I don't think it's ready to have its own article. Yet. --- Tito Pao (talk) 05:27, 2 May 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, Firsfron of Ronchester 09:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Tito Pao, can't find sources either.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:13, 7 May 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) 00:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Health Options

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

Company appears to be non-notable. The company's own website only shows minimal coverage, media searches locate less. Article appears to be created by the company with the sole purpose of promoting it. ^Bongo_matic 08:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Does not appear that this health data collection software maker has any significant effect on history, technology, or culture. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no 3rd party refs to establish notability; article created by an SPA, so possible spam. Dialectric (talk) 15:19, 4 May 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 20:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Get Well Soon Everybody

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

WP:CRYSTAL, WP:HAMMER —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would wax poetically about the criteria shortcomings and flaws, but really WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER wraps it up in a neat little package, for easy deletion. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the polices mentioned above. Tarheel95 (talk) 15:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete also fails WP:NALBUMS. LibStar (talk) 11:37, 6 May 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) 00:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Tia Rigg

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

as tragic as her death is and unfortunately young children get murdered by relatives quite regularly, I believe she fails WP:VICTIM. there was a coverage spike [10] but no real longstanding notability. LibStar (talk) 07:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Case was extraordinary and article is well-sourced; the convicted murder also getting a WLO adds more to the notability of the crime, and much of the article is indeed not about the subject herself, but the murder and murderer.Nate • (chatter) 11:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

using your logic, the article should be renamed to the murderer's name... That would fail WP:PERP. LibStar (talk) 12:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see three significant coverage spikes, not one.—S Marshall T/C 18:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

this is a murder that gets 30 gnews in total. the spikes correspond to arrest, then sentencing then release of post mortem results. pretty much WP:NOT#NEWS. LibStar (talk) 01:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." Horrible, ghastly, in all the papers, yes; encyclopedically notable or of any long-term significance, no. Wikipedia is not a list of gruesome murders. JohnCD (talk) 07:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She passes ONEEVENT per trial, WP:NOT#NEWS doesnt apply to basically any article in my opinion as Wikipedia per fact IS built on news. anyway she passes WP:Crime. Very notable murder, huge media attention. Google hits.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:GOOGLEHITS? How does she pass WP:CRIME? In what way is she very notable? Not every murder gets an article despite you thinking so. LibStar (talk) 12:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may not like WP:NOT#NEWS, but it is policy, part of WP:NOT, and if you think it "doesnt apply to basically any article" you are simply wrong. That is not a useful keep argument. JohnCD (talk) 12:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we were to remove all material on Wikipedia based solely on news we wouldnt have much of Wikipedia left. Why do we then even have a ITN section for example if Wikipedia is not news? The notnews argument and that policy makes no sense as it contradicts itself. Anyway NOTNEWS doesnt apply here anyhow.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you still haven't addressed: How does she pass WP:CRIME? In what way is she "very notable"? LibStar (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tia Rigg, were this a biographical article, is not notable. The criminal act - the murder of Tia Rigg - is notable: "Articles about criminal acts, particularly those that fall within the category of "breaking news", are frequently the subject of deletion discussions. As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources... If a matter is deemed notable, and to be a likely crime, the article should remain even if it is subsequently found that no crime occurred (e.g., the Runaway bride case) since that would not make the matter less notable." Keristrasza (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - NOT NEWS has to be the most misunderstood and misapplied piece of policy that WP has ever sprouted. It was written to apply to "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities" - basically, tabloid celebrity tittle tattle. This was a notable crime, murder being a rarity in and of itself in the UK, leading to a rarely delivered whole life tariff. It clearly meets the requirements of WP:CRIME. I just hope this isn't going to herald the start of another "silly season" of NOT NEWS Afds being slapped onto murder articles. Keristrasza (talk) 15:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if murder were a rarity in the UK, but there are about 800 a year (and 16,000 in the US). I hope this isn't going to be the start of a silly season with articles about every one that makes a headline. JohnCD (talk) 21:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Around 600 in England and Wales, actually. A rate of approximately 13 per million of population. And child murders are significantly rarer. A damn sight rarer than your out of context figure of 800 implies. Have you seen articles about every one of them? Do people even try to create articles about every one of them? Has anyone ever argued for the inclusion of every one of them? No. Rigg's murder is notable. The circumstances, the relationship between murderer and victim, the resulting whole life tarriff, make this one of the tiny number of murders that receives coverage here. A handful each year. This is one of those that is notable. Keristrasza (talk) 21:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

13 per million x 62 million population = about 800 for the UK - your 600 is England and Wales only. Our numbers aren't in disagreement, but we aren't going to agree about how many of them deserve encyclopedia articles. Better let it rest and let others have their say. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Example of how WP:NOTNEWS is wrongly practiced. If there is wide coverage of substance we should allow it, this is not a paper encyclopedia. Yamaguchi先生 16:17, 9 May 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 21:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Fevola

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

as per WP:NOTINHERITED, the main reason she gets coverage is because she is the ex wife of the infamous Brendan Fevola, take away him and coverage just shows she's been on dancing with the stars for 1 series. [11]. would think the media wouldn't care less if she wasn't his ex wife. LibStar (talk) 07:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think this is a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:NOTINHERITED, which is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. But nobody's saying "Brendan Fevola is notable and therefore Alex must be notable as well." Alex Fevola's notability comes - like all notability - from significant coverage in multiple independent sources. We must be careful to avoid the fallacy that says "if someone is related to someone notable then they cannot be notable themselves." It doesn't matter at all why the media reports on her. St Anselm (talk) 10:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

as per WP:NOTINHERITED a relative of a celebrity should only have their own independent article if and when it can be reliably sourced that they have done something significant and notable in their own right. what has Alex Fevola done notable in her own right? if it's Dancing with the stars, an appearance in one series hardly warrants an article, her photography career is up with Australia's top photographers? LibStar (talk) 14:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Which article demonstrates her notability? The one titled Birthday girl Alex Fevola parties until dawn, or Alex Fevola confronts Lara over alleged tryst? Trivial articles serving prurient interests are not enough to establish notability, and Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard... which this does not meet, nor do the sources. Wikipedia is not the National Enquirer. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sum total of her life thus far does equate to notability I'm afraid. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 19:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

could you explain what you mean? This is rather WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 22:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She gets extensive coverage, and it might have started because of her husband but then there is a focus that moved over her. The Herald Sun and news.com.au feature her heavily, and while they might not be the best sources they are not the only ones (while others are not plenty either), and the news hits are easily 10 pages of different items, spanning about 5 years. While notability is not inherited, moving from a description as a relative of Brendan Favola to a proper biography may be perfectly in order once the information starts becoming of a nature totally unrelated to her husband - frankieMR (talk) 23:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you will almost every bit of media coverage mentions her ex husband/husband Brendan. LibStar (talk) 09:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many of them do, yes, but not all of them, and a non negligible number of articles feature her exclusively, whether about the dancing show or other events (minor events, perhaps). The main thing that brought me to keep was that the coverage spans a fair amount of time, which really helps to diminish WP:TRANSIENT and WP:BLP1E - frankieMR (talk) 17:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability is not inherited. Absent significant coverage about her, then she would simply be the wife/ex-wife of an athlete. However, notability sometimes does rub off. Regardless of the reasons why she has garnered significant coverage, the fact remains that she has. We may think the reason for the coverage is stupid, but that's a personal opinion. I think Socks the cat got way too much press attention, but there you go. -- Whpq (talk) 14:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep espcially per Whpq and Coccyx Bloccyx. She's not my cuppa tea, but she appears to have a lot of fans independent of "the ex". Wikipedia has lots of articles about people who have gone beyond being in the news to independent notability, and she seems like one of those celebutantes. Bearian (talk) 19:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. neither is having a lot of fans. significant coverage (besides her husband) in reliable sources is a reason for keeping. you should know that as an admin. LibStar (talk) 12:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how I interpret his comment. Alex Fevola has essentially become a person who is famous for being famous. There's a whole class of people like that. For example, I can't fathom Kim Kardashian.

again WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. LibStar (talk) 13:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, and irrelevant. This category of people have ample coverage in reliable sources. Perhaps you are unwilling to accept any of this as representing significant coverage in reliable sources, but other editors don't share that view with you. -- Whpq (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

as per my nomination [this search shows when you take away her husband Brendan she really isn't passing WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 13:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So exactly what i said above. You refuse to accept the coverage, and I disagree. -- Whpq (talk) 13:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the search basically confirms she has been dancing with the stars, that in itself doesn't guarantee one a WP article. the article claims her profession is a photographer, where is the coverage for this? LibStar (talk) 13:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The link you provided above gives several references, such as this one. St Anselm (talk) 14:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

all that article does is confirm she was on dancing with the stars, nothing more about her as a person except that she is a mother of 3. hardly indepth coverage of the subject, Alex Fevola. LibStar (talk) 14:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To speak for myself, I only meant that like many people, she "has become a person who is famous for being famous." Wikipedia allows such articles. I think she falls on the famous side of notable. Reasonable people can disagree, so don't get stressed out. Will it make you feel better of I !vote "weak keep"? Bearian (talk) 20:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to illustrate point about overlap of coverage with husband when one searches on gnews just "Alex Fevola" it yields 112 gnews hits. when one searches Alex Fevola and Brendan it yields 89 gnews hits. surprisingly high overlap. LibStar (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : as per WP:NOTINHERITED a relative of a celebrity should only have their own independent article if and when it can be reliably sourced that they have done something significant and notable in their own right. what has Alex Fevola done notable in her own right? none of the keep voters have demonstrated what Alex Fevola has done notable in her own right. LibStar (talk) 14:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: Unlike most reality TV shows, there is one little word in Dancing with the Stars that indicates that most if not all people on the show (other than the pro dancer partners) are considered STARS, at least by the network involved, and as such, it does convey notability. You keep discounting everything, but to me your over-reliance on ghits is actually against you this time - 112 vs 89 is 25% difference, which is pretty good, as some of those 89 that you are discounting as overlapping/associated notability, might actually be about Alex and mention Brendon in passing. There is a very good reason why we don't use Ghits counts alone to determine notability. How many Pippa Middleton articles avoid mentioning Kate? How many Michelle Obama articles don't mention Barrack? It's a curse to wives/sisters/children of famous people, but it is why counts of linked articles/mentions shouldn't be used against them. And what has she done that is notable - well her book is held by 27 libraries in Australia, and features and was launched by our future PM too. I don't know many non-notable people who announce their pregnancy in the biggest paper in Australia, either. Yes it tabloid, yes it's the cult of celebrity, but unfortunately that makes people notable these days, probably moreso than being very clever or useful or helpful to mankind. The-Pope (talk) 01:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

appearing on dancing with the stars hardly is an automatic sign of notability, what they consider "star" does not equal WP article automatically. Consider similarly ex wife of Shane Warne, Simone who also appeared on dancing with the stars. Simone Warne redirects to her husband's article. LibStar (talk) 04:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per extensive coverage. pretty clear case of notability rubbing off on a partner of another celebrity. Placing third in dancing with the stars in itself gives this person atleast minimum of notability needed for inclusion here. The Keep side has really strong arguments overall here.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is example of how WP:NOTINHERITED is wrongly practiced, coverage shows how subject is worth of note. Yamaguchi先生 16:19, 9 May 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 Energy storage#Hydrogen. Owen× ☎ 13:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wind gas

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

Poorly written stub. Wind gas is a neologism as it is not a specific type of gas, but synthetic gas produced by using wind power. This does not make it notable itself. Created by sockpuppet of indefinitely blocked user. Beagel (talk) 07:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fork of Energy storage. The term seems to come directly from the German 'Windgas' and it is real, but as pointed out it is not an independent and discrete concept. For example, the gas conversion idea could be applied to the storage of electricity produced by fixed load generators such as nuclear stations as well as variable renewable sources including solar. There is room in Wikipedia for more on all that, but this is not the way as this is just a discrete, and so far unproven, possible application. --AJHingston (talk) 10:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a real, non-notable product that is sourced only by primary sources, both the company's page and press release. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Energy storage#Hydrogen. Given the use of Windgas in German, this is a sufficiently plausible search term. The content is of interest, as it refers to a non-trivial project to make this into something practical. Here are three reliable independent sources attesting to the use of the term Windgas in German: (1) "Verzicht auf Atomstrom in fünf Jahren möglich" [Giving up nuclear power in five years is possible]. Focus online (in German). March 18, 2011. (2) "Mit Gas Windkraft speichern" [Storing wind energy with gas]. taz (in German). March 21, 2011. (3) Frank-Thomas Wenzel and Hendrik Buchheister (April 6, 2011). "Hannover Messe: Neue Energie von Exoten" [Hannover Messe: new energy from exotic sources]. Frankfurter Rundschau (in German).. The topic (whatever its name) is notable and rich enough to potentially warrant its own article; compare the well-developed article Windgas on the German Wikipedia, and our article on Thermal energy storage, which we have in spite of this also being treated in Energy storage. --Lambiam 18:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Energy Storage. Possible search term (along with windgas). No useful, cited content to merge. -Atmoz (talk) 17:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that if any content from the links supplied by Lambiam are added to the article, that content would need to be merged. The topic is notable, but at this time doesn't need its own article. -Atmoz (talk) 17:44, 5 May 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) 06:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ElectronMinefield

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

Notability for this game is in question. –BuickCentury Driver 07:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete to expand on my contested PROD rationale, there is no indication that this software product meets any of the inclusion criteria, particularly WP:PRODUCT and WP:GNG. VQuakr (talk) 07:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 12:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no secondary sources presented in the article, and zero hits from our custom Google search for reliable sources. In fact, this could be a speedy delete under criteria A7; web content with no indication of importance. Marasmusine (talk) 07:46, 7 May 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 under A7 / G11. Marasmusine (talk) 08:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maegica

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

Recently introduced game, not yet note worthy. jorgenev (talk) 06:49, 3 May 2011 06:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 06:51, 3 May 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) 06:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Fulkerson

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

I removed the {{db-bio}} tag because the article, which was created by 70.128.12.104 (talk · contribs) and has existed since 29 June 2005, asserts notability. However, the article has remained unsourced for the past six years. A Google News Archive search does not return any significant results about this individual. For example, this article from The Ridgefield Press provides only a passing mention about the subject. This article fails Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, and the subject fails Wikipedia:Notability (people). Cunard (talk) 06:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 14:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination does not pass WP:BIO requirements unfortunately. Yamaguchi先生 16:20, 9 May 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 -- Y not? 15:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship of Clark Kent and Lois Lane

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

This appears to be someone's essay/historiography on the relationship between Superman and Lois Lane. However, there is little sourced justification for why this relationship is so special that it deserves its own article and eventually devolves into a mass of WP:JUSTPLOT. I think anything notable can be covered in the "fictional character biography" sections of the two main articles. This page merely serves as WP:OR synthesis. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep and flagged for rescue. As written, there are tremendous problems, primarily because the article is not sourced, however, the concept of the article seems not only fine, but very worthwhile. Both characters are independently notable, as would be the relationship between the two of them. The "love triangle" of Clark Kent, Lois Lane and Superman has been covered in virtually all Superman media, from comics to movies and is a significant plot device as well as the foundation for the character development. There is room at Wikipedia for an article like this, although it may take some serious editing to get it up to speed. In a nutshell, the subject matter is clearly notable, the topic is verifiable but not yet verified (which still passes wp:v), and the primary problem is that the current article is borked in many ways, yet very good in many others (ie: it is wikified quite well, which can be dug into for the reliable sources). This is a matter for editing and rescue, not deleting. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I can agree that the romance between these two characters has been brought up in virtually all Superman materials, but covered in multiple third-party sources and scholarly literature? I'd have to see it to believe it. This is not TV Tropes; numerous primary sources isn't going to cut it. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge There seem to be plenty of sources which discuss the love triangle including a surprising number of philosophy texts which use it as standard set-piece. Per WP:N and WP:PRESERVE, deletion is a last resort and so we would find space for some of this with the main Superman article rather than deleting it. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you sure we're reading the same article here? The text seems to be a regurgitation of plot summary from each of the various series and both Superman and Lois Lane already contain all the key points made in this article. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Super delete. This is original research pure and simple. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I thought WP:OR issues are reasons to edit, not delete. At least that is what the policy seems to say. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - If this article can somehow be salvaged (read: rewritten) from reliable third party sources before the close of this debate, then by all means please notify me. Otherwise, this is a cut-and-dry delete. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 19:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable subtopic of Superman. Reliable sources are likely available. Edison (talk) 23:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid this can't be assumed since it has been unreferenced for two years and tagged as OR for three. If you would like to demonstrate the existence of scholarly work on the subject, please do. Otherwise, it is presumptuous to claim notability or availability of sources. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's because most people don't take the unreferenced and OR tags seriously. I know I don't. Have millions of articles out there made before they even had that requirement, so that alone isn't a valid reason to delete something. Dream Focus 12:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Wikipedia is both a serious encyclopedia and a compendium of popular culture. This fails to qualify for the former, but is part and parcel of the latter. It's a very nice little piece that should be of interest to Wikipedia users. This is regarded as a terrible AfD rationale, but it's what I feel. This is a good place for an Ignore All Rules (Use Common Sense) keep, in my estimation. Carrite (talk) 01:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is news coverage about their relationship and how it is portrayed in different media. Will Superman Be Able To Resist Lois Lane's Trap? St. Petersburg Times - Google News Archive - Jul 9, 1977 talks about their relationship, and not any other parts of that film. There are 361 Google news archive results for "Clark Kent" AND "Lois Lane" AND "relationship". [12] Looking through the first page summaries, I say this is a topic well covered. The Palm Beach Post: SUPERMAN AND LOIS WON'T LAST - UNLESS, Pay-Per-View - Palm Beach Post - NewsBank - Oct 26, 1990, I see where Superman is finally going to get married, thereby legitimizing his longstanding relationship with Lois Lane. Comics Reinventing Superman Is An Upwardly Mobile Hero. The Day - Google News Archive - Jun 22, 1986 talks about how their relationship, and how it changed, in that article. Dream Focus 12:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. These sources look great to include in the main articles of Superman and Lois Lane, but do not demonstrate that their relationship in itself is independently notable. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:Synthesis of WP:JUSTPLOT elements, lacking any WP:SECONDARY sourcing or any WP:Real world discussion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:JUSTPLOT and WP:OR.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is a plot-only description of a fictional work with no reception and significance in a real-world context and it appears to rely on original research by synthesis to generate a good deal of the content. It has only one reference and I cannot find reliable third-party sources to presume the notability of the subject. Merely trivial mentions about the character's relationship do not show that the topic meets the general notability guideline. Using Google, almost all the results are circular references to this very article. The fictional characters and the media around them may be notable but notability is not inherited. With no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, I believe that this article should be deleted altogether since the usable parts of the article are mostly plot descriptions from media that is already covered in other articles. Jfgslo (talk) 00:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is mostly original synthesis, and as per Jfgslo, plot-only description. Anthem of joy (talk) 05:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. Agree with Dream Focus, there is "news coverage about their relationship and how it is portrayed in different media".--Crazy runner (talk) 08:24, 11 May 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 due to sufficient reliable sources which verify notability. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Osama bin Laden conspiracy theories

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a premature WP:CONTENTFORK. Any useful info should be in Death of Osama bin Laden. —Chris!_c/t 04:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You cite premature content fork. However, Death of Osama bin Laden is already a fat article, and if this article in question were only a section, within a week (about how long this AfD will last), the section would break away to Death of Osama bin Laden conspiracy theories anyway. Why AfD so soon? Opinions to delete coming in in the next few days would be keeps if rendered a week from now as the article expands. This whole topic is likely the fastest growing of any ever on Wikipedia. I contend that this AfD is premature, not the article. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, the article is premature when there are limited info on the subject. You ask why AfD so soon. I ask why create so soon? I don't understand sometimes why people can't be patience and create an article when it is necessary.—Chris!_c/t 04:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Limited information, but not that limited, and it's coming in quickly. I started the article because I know there are a lot of people who will want to dump info into Wikipedia about this in the coming weeks. I didn't want them to put it in the wrong place and have it simply deleted. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Frodesiak's argument to have a special depot for conspiracy content is compelling, and it doesn't take a PhD in telling the future to know that this will be a persistent and notable topic for decades to come. Erie lhonan 17:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Already there are numerous reliable sources on this. It could be merged to the parent article, but this content keeps being removed from Death of Osama bin Laden , so this could be used as a build area for a later merge, if that is desired. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Freepers, Rethugs, Birthers and Teapers need a home of their own. Viriditas (talk) 05:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia:Fringe theories - if it must be covered, it should get a single sentence in the main article. This article violates policies on undue weight and avoiding unnecessary splits. Neutrality^talk 05:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suppose you want to delete 9/11 conspiracy theories as well then? – AJL^talk 05:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. One is a notable and complex phenomenon that has persisted over the course of years. The other is a concept discussed on a few blogs and mentioned in passing in a few newspaper articles. It's still an inappropriate content fork. Let's say someone made articles on Planning of the operation against Osama bin Laden; burial of Osama bin Laden; Osama bin Laden compound, and so forth. All of these should be discussed to the appropriate length (i.e., due weight), but that treatment should occur on the main article page. It would makes no sense at all to split them apart. So it is here. Neutrality^talk 06:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And this one is likely to persist over the course of several years as well; in fact, it already has existed. The current events just make the previous -- and new -- theories more visible. – AJL^talk 06:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I disagree. I doubt hugely whether conspiracy theories over Bin Laden's death will be of higher magnitude than 9/11. Why? Because 9/11 had consequences that many have brought to view 9/11 as an excuse for such action - i.e. War in Afghanistan, War in Iraq. Simply put, Bin Laden's death is a deliberate elimination. I suppose we are going to get the wacky conspiracy theories from the minority that Bin Laden is now hiding in a cave somewhere and as a result this page will be deserving of that. Therefore I think we should create a conspiracy theories on the death of Elvis Presley, Michael Jackson or Elvis Presley. Stevo1000 (talk) 09:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The above comment is verbatim of a below !vote. – AJL^talk 23:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A simple Google News search shows more than enough articles have been published about this topic (in just over 24 hours!) to satisfy the general notability guidelines. Qrsdogg (talk) 05:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – AJL^talk 05:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Weak keep, I guess. Although there is little doubt this article will be needed before too long, I suspect we may have jumped the gun a little in creating in so quickly (per recentism and, to a lesser extent, not news). Now that it's there, I think we may as well keep it. --Thepm (talk) 05:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Change that to a strong keep. It's now official. Conservapedia's front page says "Questions are emerging now from liberals, libertarians, Tea Partiers and even a relative of a 9/11 victim about whether the killing of Bin Laden happened as claimed." I mean, even a relative. Game over for that tricky Obama (you know he's really Norwegian). --Thepm (talk) 10:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as of right now, I really have to agree with Neutrality (the person above me, not the policy.) At this point, this really should be discussed in either the reactions article or the main death article in an appropriate subsection. Once the section reaches an overburdening length or the theories start to mature a little, it can be spun out. I have no doubt that this article will *eventually* be necessary, but right now this set of wikipedia articles would offer more value to the reader if skepticism was discussed on either the main death page or the death reactions page. It'll take little enough work to recreate it later, and I really do think it's better for the reader covered in the main sections for now. Kevin (talk) 06:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a notable conspiracy theory. 1 Portillo (talk) 06:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very relevant and interesting,. Should the US goverment release unedited pictures of Bin Laden dead and development of this article stalled then Merge ♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That makes the most sense of all. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Once the Obama Administration releases unedited pictures of UBL's corpse, the vast majority of the conspiracy talk will fade away. The BHO Administration will mostly likely release these photos to the public by the end of the week. There's no need for a content fork when this content merely hinges its hopes upon the BHO Administration not releasing the photos of the corpse. Rondy (talk) 0319 3 May 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 07:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
That's quite a WP:CRYSTALBALL-ish assumption there. Who's to say that images will be released? -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 14:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, one could have argued that the Obama birth certificate theories would go away once his full certificate was released, but they haven't. Many people would just argue that the pictures are fake anyway. Kansan (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. It's a little too early to defenestrate this article. We'll see if the theories die down or keep going. Cla68 (talk) 07:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, none of these "theories" have any traction. By "traction", I mean serious analysis and coverage in reliable secondary sources. Page consists of WP:SYNTHESIS, and WP:COATRACKing/editorializing. Abductive (reasoning) 09:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I doubt hugely whether conspiracy theories over Bin Laden's death will be of higher magnitude than 9/11. Why? Because 9/11 had consequences that many have brought to view 9/11 as an excuse for such action, hence conspiracy theories - i.e. War in Afghanistan, War in Iraq. Simply put, Bin Laden's death is an deliberate elimination. I suppose we are going to get the wacky conspiracy theories from the minority that Bin Laden is now hiding in a cave somewhere and as a result this page will be deserving of that. Therefore I think we should create a conspiracy theories on the death Michael Jackson or Elvis Presley. It would set a precedent for conspiracy theories regarding individuals. Stevo1000 (talk) 09:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is still a topic of speculation. Lyk4 (talk) 11:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Strong keep. What if everybody got all politically correct in 1963-64 and arbitrarily used their power over an important form of media and decided to erase all trace of theories concerning the assination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy as irrelevant, "inadequately sourced in mainstream media", or offensive to their sensitivities? This article is included at Wikipedia: JFK assassination conspiracy theories. No double standard just because the subject is Osama bin Laden. Wikiuser100 (talk) 12:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Normally, I'd delete, as it seems like a clearing house for any wacko to spread their theory. Rather, I'm for keeping this page, because it will serve as a useful sociological description of people whose personal belief systems have gone off the rails. I'll be monitoring the page, and deleting anything that has the slightest whiff of crankery. --Evud (talk) 12:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're taking alot on yourself User Evud with such a threat, as that is what it is tantamount to. You can view the page and its contributors however you please: your views do not make everyone else's "crankery". Consensus in such a contentious matter is required, and be sure you will be subjected to it along with everyone else. It's the Wikipedia way in such circumstances. Being "Bold", fine for cleaning up claptrap in "trivia" sections in articles with overblown "In popular culture" headings and such is one thing; at this page it is not acceptable.Wikiuser100 (talk) 12:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not a threat, but the fact you think it is one says more about you than me. I'm merely saying I'm going to attack contributions with poor reasoning and evidence on that page relentlessly, because poorly supported crankery -- and conspiracy theories ARE crankery (see Michael Barkun's Culture of Conspiracy and Ted Goertzel's "Belief in Conspiracy Theories") -- don't deserve to be on Wikipedia, sociological explanations and descriptions of conspiracy theories combined with rebuttals are another matter. After all, this place was founded on the Enlightenment and rational ideals of Diderot's Encyclpedia. --Evud (talk) 12:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Lyk4. This article is a messy aggregation of all the crankiest news available on a topic. That is not the basis of a good article. I suspect this could be a valid topic, but we should wait a few weeks until some decent reflective material is available. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is well put. It's pretty much too early for decent work right now. Carrite (talk) 15:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: There is certainly potential for expansion, and verifiability issues can be gradually improved over time. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 12:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, it was created too soon, and is very spotty at the moment, but it is/will be a notable subject easily meriting it's own article. In a way, I therefore consider a deletion discussion as almost a waste of time (except that articles under dispute usually improve / improve faster...) Ingolfson (talk) 13:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has potential. 87.211.213.223 (talk) 13:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC) — 87.211.213.223 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - Cobbled-together innuendo, recent and old, does not make a viable argument. If it someday gets to the level of 9/11 or birth certificates, then revisit. Right now there just isn't enough there but weak one-liners about blogs, facebooks, and random, non-notable professors. Many of the keep calls so far are garden variety "it is useful/interesting" twaddle. Tarc (talk) 13:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Tarc, for your friendly opinion. Because "useful" (or even only "interesting") are such twaddle aspects of Wikipedia. Ingolfson (talk) 13:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping a neutral view on things, Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid does discourage !votes that read "It's interesting/useful". -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 14:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - This will likely end up being no consensus, or euphemism for weak keep. For something of this importance, it will be notable because many people believe it. Add that to the mysterious circumstances surrounding OBL's life and death, quick burial precluding examination of body, lack of photos, only confirmation made by US Govt, this has the perfect elements for conspiracy theorists. 194.254.137.115 (talk) 13:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - According to WP:FRINGE, mere existence of a theory is not enough. In order for us to have an article on a fringe theory, the theory needs to have been discussed (as opposed to being mentioned in passing) by mainstream sources (debunking qualifies for this). As of yet, this has not happened. Mainstream sources have not yet taken note of these theories. If and when that happens, then we can create (or re-create) an article about these theories. Blueboar (talk) 14:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Changing to Keep - the current state of the article cites reliable sources that discuss the topic. Therefore, I must change my !vote... it now passes the minimum requirements set out at WP:FRINGE. Personally, I think these theories are absolute hogwash, but they are noted (and thus WP:Notable) hogwash. Blueboar (talk) 18:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete the article has already turned into rubbish William M. Connolley (talk) 14:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep but be ready for renomination It's hard to know the long term retention and consideration of these things until there's been some serious publication(if ever) about it and the current information glut gets processed by the press. i kan reed (talk) 15:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an original essay. Quoting a Keep voter above who makes my point: It's hard to know the long term retention and consideration of these things until there's been some serious publication(if ever) about it and the current information glut gets processed by the press. Carrite (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Do not confuse "conspiracy", used today to discredit anything unpopular (ask Galileo), with inconsistency (again...ask Galileo). For one, there are too many inconsistencies with this story (never mind that bin Laden has reportedly been dead for a decade). Two, no media outlet can confirm who did the operation, who took the DNA test, autopsy report, nothing. It is amazing how people want to choose which things to keep in a supposed-encyclopedia when it is backed by absolutely nothing. Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 15:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC) — Strawberry on Vanilla (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Pushing the conspiracy itself as a reason to keep the article is admittedly a tactic I've never seen before. Maybe those that wish to delete the article are in on the conspiracy. (cue X-Files theme music) Tarc (talk) 15:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cry all you want...but it doesn't change the facts: you can't give me a single government official backing any of the sources on the "Death of OBL" page. All of it is simply the media claiming a unit, that the US government denies the existence of, carried out the mission. Now who is the conspirator? Me? lol 184.37.255.61 (talk) 16:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We're not here to debate the merits of the conspiracy itself, but rather whether the subject matter meets out guidelines for inclusion. Btw, who is "me" ? Are you "Strawberry on Vanilla" but logged out? Tarc (talk) 16:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep using common sense. The conspiracies have already started flying left and right (do any of the deleters even listen to the BBC or other news?) Seriously, you could have started this article DURING Obama's speech with justification. There needs to be a place to put this "notable" information outside of the main article, with a paragraph or two within the main article for context, and a hatnote pointing here. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - most of the keep proponents seem to be pointing to lacunas in the official account, but these can be adequately covered in the main article. The conspiracy theories, on their own legs, are not yet notable. The 9/11 conspiracy theories article is crap, but it's crap that we put up with because of the overwhelming notability of the topic. This is not (yet) comparable. Savidan 16:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It may be premature, but let’s face it, conspiracy nuts will come up with all sort of BS about this and it’s going to have some prominence, even on mainstream media. Can I see the future? No. Do we have a looong line of previous examples for cases like this? Yes. Ridiculous theories regarding the killing of Bin Laden are already out, we’ll get a history channel bullpie special on these theories etc etc, so we’d might as well keep the article… Idonthavetimeforthiscarp 16:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For the reasons stated by other editors...--Martianmister (talk) 17:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep utter nonsense of course, but still notable in that reliable sources have paid considerable attention to it. Chester Markel (talk) 17:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons that have already been stated. --Veyneru (talk) 17:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is breaking news. In the next few weeks, the number of conspiracy theories is going to increase exponentially. We need to be able to categorize them and preserve them as an integral part of this incident in history. No one would attempt to delete the "John F. Kennedy Assassination Conspiracy Theories" page, would they? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gniob (talk • contribs) 17:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to Death of Osama bin Laden. Really a stub that shouldn't exist. Lugnuts (talk) 18:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The existence of the article should not depend on whether the theories are credible. The article is useful as an objective record of the scale and persistence of such theories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.22.21.112 (talk) 18:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are conspiracy theories (of course) which are receiving coverage from various media outlets (of course). They're just theories, after all. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 19:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Conspiracy theories about the death of Osama bin Laden exist so they should be reported. Biscuittin (talk) 19:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- SNOW. MMetro (talk) 19:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or wp too is run by Obama. If that is even his real name. Chaan (talk) 20:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of these "theories" have any substantial coverage, and the articles cited mostly demonstrate the fact that every idiot can self-publish their own theories these days. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is rare that I advocate removing material from wikipedia - but this page is utter dross. A few newspapers reporting facebook pages... come on! Until a credible conspiratorial narrative is created - this page needs to be deleted. 129.11.77.197 (talk) 23:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is just WP:SPECULATION at this time. Once these theories have more time to develop, and have more reliable sources, then it is time to consider an article like this (or making a section in Death of Osama bin Laden. Dougofborg^(talk) 23:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep – Why does the article not cite Alex Jones? See Alex Jones claims Bin Laden ‘mission’ is a fake -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – If you feel so inclined to have it referenced in the page, why not add it yourself, or at least talk about it on the talk page of that article. – AJL^talk 23:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons cited by Wikiuser100, among others. BigD527 (talk) 23:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Other conspiracy theories have their articles, so why can't Bin Laden's death have its own article? Strong keep. - XX55XX (talk) 23:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now for reasons stated above. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and that in case that the content is appropriate at all. It's been only two days since Bin Laden was killed. Of course there are conspiracy theories. I mean, they just dropped the body in the ocean, what's up with that? Well, that's what i thought, and of course a lot of people is thinking this sort of things. Excellent, in one year there might just be something of worth - frankieMR (talk) 00:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move to the incubator. The original text can be available for repair and updates there to any user. There is a good chance the theories will persist and become more notable and studied in the future.--NortyNort (Holla) 00:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have a reliable source reporting on the conspiracy theories disputing this so called "burial at sea". [13] [14] If reuters and the la times is reporting the controversy then Wikipedia should report it too.--RaptorHunter (talk) 00:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We can (and should) talk about it - in the relevant article - death of Osama bin Laden. No one is suggesting that we should not mention it anywhere, just that an independent article is not warranted at this time. Kevin (talk) 00:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete content fork that came about due to WP:RECENTISM. We have no idea if any of these theories will stick. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article is replete with OR and SYNTH and is written as a POV fork. There will always be conspiracy theories, but we should only bother with the demonstrably notable ones - and only then to expose the crackpots to the light day. Rklawton (talk) 01:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as already notable topic -- though the exotic idea that a government may not tell the entire truth about sensitive political and military activities is not "conspiracy theory", it's good frigging sense to anyone with a brain not brought up in lalaland (though sadly this may only be a small percentage of wikipedians and journalists!). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More than enough coverage to be notable in its own right. --Falcorian ^(talk) 02:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just like the 9/11 truth movement, this is also notable enough to have its own article. Whether the claims are true or not are utterly irrelevant. 67.80.12.192 (talk) 04:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Death of Osama bin Laden and recreate the article when it's long and comprehensive enough to warrant its own article. There is no reason why a 500+ words article should have a separate article when it could still be included in the main article. — MT (talk) 04:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm sure this'll only get more attention in the future. --Ks64q2 (talk) 06:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm a diehard inclusionist, but this article is simply rubbish. It's filled with original research, and it's egregiously POV. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this will get a lot more attention in the future. but the article must be improved of course. --helohe (talk) 10:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the points raised above; the article is not cohesive and there is not enough unified information to justify it having its own article. Maybe create a section in Death of Osama bin Laden for it. Musikxpert (talk) 11:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Death of Osama bin Laden and recreate if necessary once the initial media/emotional backlash has died down. Sources regarding the event in both articles are currently mostly press statements and media reports, and whilst conspiracy theories are forming and getting some coverage in social media, it's crystal balling at the moment while no widely accepted (in so much as a theory can be) detailed theories are establishing themselves yet. I think it will be a difficult article to maintain neutrally due to systematic bias, but certainly worthy of inclusion if and when a theory inevitably gets similar recognition to other major deaths - this is potentially the most significant death in the War on Terror so far. BulbaThor (talk) 11:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Keep or (at the very least) incubate. No point deleting now that it has been announced the photo isn't going to be released because that's going to fuel any conspiracy theory massively. Arguably there's a degree of crystal balling in keeping it, but coherent and detailed theories in the immediate future are now inevitable. BulbaThor (talk) 18:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is purely speculative, as per John Vandenburg above, we should wait a few weeks until some decent reflective material is available. --Whiteguru (talk) 12:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is only a no independent confirmation (other than from a politician) of the identity of anyone who was killed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.196.170 (talk) 14:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:N. --143.105.11.99 (talk) 14:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC) — 143.105.11.99 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - the conspiracy theories have already sprung up everywhere and show no signs of abating.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now - it's too soon after the event to form a neutral opinion and all official material has not been released yet.--Rogington2 (talk) 16:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Death of Osama bin Laden. Should get a passing mention in the main article, at most; this soon after the raid, this is all speculation at best anyway. Names are hard to think of (talk) 16:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Keeping the article right now may violate WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NTEMP but I'd venture that this topic will be notable enough to warrant its own article. However, if kept, the article will need major re-working. Most of the current version reads like a big ol' WP:POVFORK-- more care needs to be taken to comply with WP:NOR and WP:FRINGE. Specifically, WP:RS are needed to describe what the Conspiracy theories are, and then more WP:RS to describe the mainstream view on that point. Mildly Mad^T_C 16:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is notable enough to have its own article. After this has died down a bit, we can think about merging it into Death of Osama bin Laden —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feedintm (talk • contribs) 17:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -No body, no picture, and a nonexistent assassin group is a recipe for widespread coverage of a conspiracy theory.Smallman12q (talk) 18:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The other article is large enough, and this has sufficient RS coverage for an article on its own. And, of course, the fact that there were over 23,000 editor views of the article yesterday does seem to demonstrate perhaps a modicum of viewer interest.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep so much about it even now and these things only grow with time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.93.177.221 (talk) 21:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is more than enough information being released in regards to conspiracy theories. I've just added a section about Iranian conspiracy beliefs and also a belief from Andrew Napolitano. It is not just a Facebook phenomenon at this point, these theories are world-wide and being repeated and invented by high-level people. Silver seren^C 21:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More and more doubts are being cast in sources and this is a serious question over whether this even occurred since there is absolutely no valid evidence that it did.-Metallurgist (talk) 22:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's too much of this stuff to cram into the Death of Osama bin Laden article without adding undue weight or sacrificing verifiable material. I don't actually believe these theories, but that is irrelevant. Wnt (talk) 22:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now Don't dignify this garbage by putting it in the factual articles. Give it some time and then it can probably be cut off like a dead leaf on a house plant. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's a substantial amount of material with a good number of references that would overcrowd the Death of Osama bin Laden article if it was merged. There's no doubt as more information comes to light and events occur more conspriracy theories will also start. Editor5807^speak 23:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - enough's been said about this to merit a seperate article. Giant Snowman 00:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I wonder what people would say if GWB said he got OBL, but released no photos. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 01:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just another awful place for all the cranks to post their nonsense...this is already a COATRACK.--MONGO 02:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep widely covered in reliable sources.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though we all know its pretty much nonsense. As per wikipedia neutral approach, all parties should be given space to voice their finding. Given that most of the content has been cited, so this page is worth the purpose. Jalal0 (talk) 04:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like there's a conspiracy to keep this! Lugnuts (talk) 06:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable topic, surrounding an event of historical importance. Enough content and coverage in reliable sources to merit an article. Makes for interesting reading, the kind of extended detailed content people should expect from Wikipedia. -- œ ^™ 07:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to coverage in the mainstream media. --131.123.122.23 (talk) 11:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC) — 131.123.122.23 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - Heavy coverage in media... will basically never stand a chance of getting deleted.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Those theories are perpetrated by anti-americanism sources and filled with BS statements by who don't know a s**** about military operations. --Ciao 90 (talk) 15:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Says who Ciao 90? You?--BabbaQ (talk) 15:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am in no way trying to disparage those who's "keep" !votes are in good faith. I would however, like to note that several of these are based on nonsense (i.e. "Obama is actually Norwegian", ect.), and I hope that this is taken into consideration. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge any valuable content to Death of Osama bin Laden and Reactions to the death of Osama bin Laden. Take note there are no articles on conspiracy theories surrounding the deaths of Elvis Presley, Jimmy Hoffa, Princes Diana, Marilyn Monroe, or Adolf Hitler. Only John F. Kennedy is accorded that honor. Also, three separate articles devoted to the death of bin Laden? Really? — the Man in Question (in question) 16:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are a good amount of articles on the web relating to this, so I think this should be kept. Buggie111 (talk) 17:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quite a few reliable sources are talking about these conspiracy theories. As of the time of this comment a search for "osama bin laden conspiracy theories" returns 3,870 results in Google News, and from what I can tell all of them discuss conspiracy theories surrounding his death. If it was just a few fringe blogs speculating about this with no mainstream media coverage, I would agree to delete. But given that this has been picked up by well known commentators and elected politicians and has been covered by a large number of mainstream media organizations I would say there is enough here to warrant a separate article. 96.241.74.23 (talk) 17:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a discussion over whether there are conspiracy theories—it's a discussion over whether conspiracy theories deserve an article independent of the Death of Osama bin Laden and Reactions to the death of Osama bin Laden articles, which doesn't make much sense to me. For example, the childhood of Osama bin Laden was been covered by a large number of mainstream media organizations, as has his marital status, but that doesn't mean there should be separate articles on these topics. — the Man in Question (in question) 19:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Articles are often broken up for space purposes or to go in depth on a detail; see Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories and 9/11 conspiracy theories. There's simply too much detail on this notable topic to include it all on the bin Laden death article.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not known, though, that these "deathers" will have any lasting impact or notability. "Birthers" and "truthers" are not the same. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's amazing how short the media's memory is. I thought the people talking about death panels were "deathers". Hopefully the "proofer" name will catch on.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By bringing together disparate sources and uniting the conspiracy theories, Wikipedia creates, rather than records, a unified conspiracy theory. — the Man in Question (in question) 21:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I have no idea what the "deathers" or "proofers" or whatever you want to call them believe. They don't have a cohesive theory, let alone notable belief of it. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:SNOWBALL Anentiresleeve (talk) 21:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is definitely not a candidate for a snow close. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably is, the only reason some are voting delete is because they don't like it.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing much of the same things being said that were said at the snowball close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm arguing these "theories" are an indiscriminate collection of information regarding loose ends and such, and do not have the same notability as JFK or birther or other conspiracies. Due to the recentism, this isn't a snow. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep just to add a small note, I think the notability of this topic is underestimated as part of a regional bias. All conspiracy theories covered on WP are covered because the theories in themselves are notable through influence and coverage (such as 9/11 theories), not because they're true (or likely to be). The topic of this article is mostly notable in non-English speaking regions of the world (notably Russia and some Middle Eastern countries where it's a semi-government view apparently), which I can understand is reason for people to say 'delete' through not having heard of it, but that's precisely the bias. 158.143.132.22 (talk) 21:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC) — 158.143.132.22 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Oh, and before people tag me as SPA, this is a dynamic IP and I've been around a while! 158.143.132.22 (talk) 21:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a little late for that. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I want to know about these theories —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.189.102.226 (talk) 07:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but Delete the more blatant, pourly sourced fantasies: any opinion hanging around shouldn't be copied here unless some serious media have talked about it. --Azurfrog (talk) 10:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's a good place to put diverse theories about who knew what and how much/little the Pakistani government really knew/approved, if that is mixed with fringe, UFO and Reptilians-from-outer-space theories, that just adds to the puzzle and fun of reading. Some Professor somewhere believed that binLaden was betrayed – not too far fetched IMO. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 14:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has received lots of coverage from the moment Bin Laden's death has been announced, and given the political climate in this country, will be ongoing for years to come. Shaliya waya (talk) 15:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourcing isn't the issue here so the relevant issues come down to recentism and notability. I'm not concerned about recentism - this deals with one of the most notable world news events of the year, if not the decade. As such, this is a major topic that has garnered serious worldwide discussion and as such, is certainly worthy of encyclopedic coverage and whether or not the theories themselves are fringe (they seem to be) has no bearing on WP:FRINGE, which prevents Wikipedia from promoting fringe theories. WP:FRINGE itself says that the policy does not prevent coverage of such theories, so that argument is really a non-starter. (Also, the comparison to pop culture figures such as Elvis Presley is also not really apt as the death of bin Laden has great geopolitical ramifications). Kansan (talk) 15:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reliably sourced, legitimate fork. JoeSperrazza (talk)
Keep Having a separate page for this de-clutters the already packed death of osama bin laden article. The theories are being covered by numerous mainstream media outlets and are sure to be discussed for decades to come any time bin Laden's death is mentioned. See the Kennedy assassination for further proof of this. (NotorSB (talk) 09:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Keep Well sourced, filled with information that would otherwise make both the Osama bin Laden and the Death of Osama bin Laden pages look cluttered and messy.Cssiitcic (talk) 01:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Main article is long enough, good idea to split this off. 75.111.17.134 (talk) 04:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep PsychoticReaper (talk) 05:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no concrete proof of Osama's death has been offered. Let the conspiracy theorists run. For the most part, notable they are not. Merge any worthwhile content to the 'death of' article Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously properly sourced and notable, legitimate fork. Drmies (talk) 05:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - lots of perfectly good sources, although the article seriously needs more work. --Anthem of joy (talk) 13:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though the idea(s) are ridiculous, it's a legitimate topic to be an article on its on. Also neutral POV for Wikipedia. Shuipzv3 (talk) 13:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not see enough reliable sources for this to gain the status of an article --Guerillero | My Talk 02:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep will, as with many other conspiracy theory articles, provide a good place to examine pro/anti views and make your mind up. Mike Young (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article needs to be kept. There have been many sources confirming the so called "conspiracy" such as Dr. Steve Pieczenik and Dr. Paul Craig Roberts. Look them up.Terrorist96 (talk) 00:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Although I hate conspiracy theories and the such, it is still notable and it seems to be well-cited.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 01:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Are lots of the individual theories not worth mentioning for lack of sources? Maybe. Is this a notable subtopic with a ton of reliable source coverage? No doubt about it. Abide by the sources, says I. Steven Walling 01:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is enough reliably sourced information for an article, independent of the main article that actually describes his death and previous unaccepted descriptions of his death. Even though I don't believe a word of what is described in the conspiracy theories, they have had widespread replication across different sources, including tertiary compilations of theories in newspaper articles including what some people might think are rational arguments rebutting the official story (whatever the US government says that is at this point in time, as they have changed their story many times so far). Ansell 22:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Keep, certainly has received significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 06:43, 10 May 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 per G3/G11. MrKIA11 (talk) 06:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jack3d

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

Complete POV article. Not even sure if it's that notable of a product Devourer09 (t·c) 04:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - G3 Hoax if not real, G11 if real. VQuakr (talk) 04:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above and spam.Pudge MclameO (talk) 04:28, 3 May 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) 03:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mason SBDC

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

Contested PROD. Flagged for COI. No credible referenced independent assertion of notability; Google Books shows mostly directory references and two case studies of this organization as a preliminary screening Wtshymanski (talk) 14:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, the wikipedia page for Mason SBDC does not seem to be particularly advertising anything. Also, considering the fact that other SBDC sites are also in wikipedia there is no reason to delete Mason SBDC.-- 12:28, 19 April 2011 Wow0928 (talk | contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 27 April 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, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nominator' I don't believe this organization passes the guidelines listed in WP:CORP and I have not found any significant reliable sources discussing this organization. --Wtshymanski (talk) 04:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This Virginia-based non-profit does not appear to have attracted notice from newspapers or other reliable sources. There appear to be many SBDCs out there, and the "history" section of this article discusses the history of all those broadly, not just this one. If and when it is the subject of in-depth coverage from secondary sources, an article may be appropriate; at this point in time, however, deletion seems proper. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 10:47, 6 May 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) 06:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cadence (software)

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

Non-notable software Devourer09 (t·c) 03:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.

Delete. Yet another web-based project-management tool. What is it with "project management", that every business that's ever made a package imagines itself entitled to everlasting fame as a result? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't find any reliable third party sources. Steven Walling 00:57, 9 May 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 as improved per the so-called "Heymann" standard of improvement. While the arguments to merge are colorably good, there is no strong argument to delete outright. The article is well-referenced per the rules on recognizing good sources, and those sources provide significant coverage per the rules for significant coverage on general notability. I'm going to go with a keep, but this does not preclude further discussion about what to do next on Talk:James William Middleton. Bearian (talk) 16:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James William Middleton

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

Reminder to closing admin. The article in question was protected from editing and improvement for several days, please take this into account when determining a day to close and extend accordingly. (thanks - Avanu)

This biography of a living person appears to be based on inherited notability, viz. his sister, who is notable in her own right. Notability is not inherited. Sources also suggest that he is mainly known for the one event - his sister's wedding - and I see more gossip and trivia than substantive information. NellieBly (talk) 03:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong KeepThis is so ridiculous, the same thing someone tried to do to Pippa Middleton's page. These people are of high nobility that shouldn't even be questioned. His sister is the future Queen of England, if he isn't 'notable' for some now, he will be in the future, he's only 24 or something. We have articles on every member of Princess Diana's family and they married into royalty as well, sure they had some titles of their own, but still. People want to know information about these people and it's relevant for Wikipedia to have articles about them available. Maybe some are just jealous. :) (Rharrington 03:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)) Rharrington112 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rharrington112 (talk • contribs)

Keep He gets coverage for his famous cakes and other things besides this one event. Dream Focus 03:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For clarification purposes for those editors who are not experts in the UK/Commonwealth honour system: the sister and brother of Kate Middleton are normal everyday middle-class people, as Kate was before she met William. They are not "high nobility" (and likely don't want to be) and are not "dukes" or other peers, nor are they in line to inherit or be granted a peerage just because their sister married a member of the Royal Family. They are also absolutely not in any way, shape, or form members of the Royal Family - the Royal Family is composed of the Queen's descendants and their spouses, plus a few descendants of earlier sovereigns who perform royal duties. --NellieBly (talk) 03:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect Notability is not inherited in this case. Having a sister who is a duchess doesn't make someone notable, and he's obviously not a duke. AniMate 04:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although obviously not as well covered in the media as his sister Kate, James has been the subject of a number of articles in reliable news sources and is clearly of public interest. I believe he meets WP:N and therefore !vote for the article to be kept. --Zoeydahling (talk) 05:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is clearly of public interest: James Middleton gave the Bible reading during the marriage ceremony in Westminster Abbey of HRH Prince William of Wales and Miss Kate Middleton. Digital journal reports that Google search surge auto-suggests 'James Middleton gay' and Pink News reports that within seconds of his beginning to speak, "hundreds of people asked on Twitter and other social media networks if he is gay [though] there is no evidence to suggest that he is". -- 78.35.72.233 (talk) 05:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject was winning awards and getting coverage for his business activities years ago and so his notability does not depend upon his sister. As a topic, this has far greater notability than topics of the nominator's creation such as Manitoba Provincial Road 200. Our editing policy mandates the keeping of such well-sourced information as deletion would be disruptive. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the brief blast of royal wedding mania is pushing us into ever further reaches of WP:NOTINHERITED & ever more tenuous connection to this WP:BLP1E. (And WP:PRESERVE is not the sum of WP:Editing policy, is not to be read in isolation from other relevant policies, and such a balanced reading is not "disruptive".) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please read the Wikipedia guidelines for Notability:

"The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention to support a claim of notability."

"The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BIO1E#People_notable_for_only_one_event

"When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate. For example, George Holliday, who videotaped the Rodney King beating, redirects to Rodney King."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BIO1E#Invalid_criteria

"Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person."

-- Avanu (talk) 06:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have all that. The subject has received coverage and awards for his business activities. In the case of the 1E, he had a significant part as the only person to be reading a lesson before an audience of billions. These facts are well-covered by numerous reliable sources and so the topic has notability in spades. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you covered BIO-1E, what about ""The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest"? -- Avanu (talk) 07:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That Google search surge auto-suggests a term in regard to his name is as significant proof for public interest to him autonomous. -- LeoDavid (talk) 07:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google search is not a Reliable Source. In an effort to demonstrate independent notability, I reviewed the existing References in the Article, and they are all heavily related to Kate Middleton. This does not demonstrate independent notability, and coincidentally enough, the References themselves make mention of this. If you want to save this, you need to find evidence of Independent Notability or merge this to Kate Middleton (or similar) -- Avanu (talk) 07:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy. I know Google search is not a Reliable Source. But the fact is, that this search engine giant auto-suggests a term in regard to someone's name is notable, because this was/is catching the attention of the media. And, as you know how search engines work, there`s a countable backgrund, named public interest. -- LeoDavid (talk) 07:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Without a doubt, Google will try to find what people are looking for. But the question in relation to Wikipedia, is whether this notability is independent of his sister and her wedding. Example -- Avanu (talk) 07:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However, like Prince Harry is the only brother of the future King, James Middleton is the only brother of the future Queen consort. This is a unique feature offered by him, thus he'll stay in public interest to the death, to his cost or for his delectation. -- LeoDavid (talk) 08:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So are you claiming that he has no independent notability? Another way to put it, is he "James Middleton, person of note for his own endeavors" (aka notable) or is he "Kate's brother" (not notable) ? -- Avanu (talk) 08:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That claim relies upon a whole heap of WP:CRYSTAL and a particularly selective & narrow view (a 'special pleading') of which relationships are of "public interest". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, "crystal ball"? So why, in your opinion, the Duke of Cambridge is notable? Not because he's the future king? Oh boy. And, by the way, why is Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor notable? Because she's the child of the child of ... (and an also-ran ninth in line of succession). Anyway Keep. -- LeoDavid (talk) 09:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: the same "crystal ball" that would have said, a generation ago, that Willy's mother was a "future Queen consort". And look how that turned out. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon! This claim is sarcastic and absolutely impious. -- LeoDavid (talk) 09:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. It is merely suggesting that you are indulging in 'counting your chickens before they hatch'. Given the frequency of British Royal Divorces (Margaret, Anne, Charles & Andrew) in the last couple of generations, a degree of healthy skepticism is in no way "impious". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know this might sound silly, but is James Middleton's dog also notable by the same logic? What about his girlfriends? What about his ex-girlfriends? Or the guy who washes his car? I know I'm being a bit silly here, but this is the same point we're asking about. The cutoff in Wikipedia is "independent notability", not notability because they are associated with someone notable. Matthew Broderick is not notable for being Sarah Jessica Parker's husband, but for his many films. Likewise, the question is whether James Middleton is notable on his own or not. If you can name his notability (by Wikipedia standards) outside of being related to Kate, then he passes that test. Otherwise, he gets merged. -- Avanu (talk) 10:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To speak of the devil is no clairvoyance? Fess up: why is, for example, Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor notable? An eight-year-old. -- LeoDavid (talk) 10:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leo, that is a discussion and a question for that article. We can't fix every article at once, and to bring up outside articles only invites this discussion to become wildly off track. -- Avanu (talk) 10:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, You have no logical answer. But there's a significant analogy between both articles. -- LeoDavid (talk) 10:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have a logical answer. I could sit here and debate the pros and cons of this article, then we could simultaneously debate the pros and cons of any other article you decide to bring in for analogy's sake. The problem is that such a discussion would become more and more unmanageable. Its entirely possible that the Lady Louise article is also not notable, but that is a discussion best left to that article, and not an endless debate here. -- Avanu (talk) 10:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)(i) The question is WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS & thus irrelelvant (ii) "Lady Louise is ninth in line of succession to the thrones of 16 independent states" may give her slightly more notability than 'brother in law of the second in line of succession'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the grounds that he is now notable however it happened. The guidleline saying that notability is not inherited cannot be taken literally. Firstly, it isn't a firm rule - as I have pointed out elsewhere it does not apply to the children of US presidents, whenever they lived, and there are lots of other examples. Secondly, it is a useful guideline for structuring articles, and you would, for example, expect to read about a film star's family in the article about her. But if a child grows up and starts being written about for themselves even though they may only have come to attention in the first place because of that relationship they will graduate to their own article under the General Notability Guidelines. Thirdly, it is the relationships between people and things (I'm using the term in the Wikipedia sense of more than just blood ties) that defines the world and gives it structure. Wikipedia acknowledges this through its Orphan policy. It is only fair to add that it was the nominator of Pippa Middleton for deletion who commented that James Middleton's case for inclusion seemed stronger than hers. There was overwhelming support for keeping her. --AJHingston (talk) 10:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A reasonable defense of your position. Its refreshing to see. :) -- Avanu (talk) 10:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - More than enough third-party coverage to demonstrate notability. Whether he has achieved/contributed anything worthy of such notability is debatable but irrelevant according to WP policy.Rangoon11 (talk) 11:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep since he clearly meets the general notability guideline, in that he has received coverage, directly and in detail, from multiple reliable sources – such as the ones which are clearly listed in the article for instance. Goodness me. ╟─Treasury Tag►directorate─╢ 12:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Treasury, I think the question has moved from, is he notable, to is he independently notable? -- Avanu (talk) 12:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you think the question has moved from. However, if a subject so blatantly meets the GNG then WP:ONEEVENT is not an issue IMO. ╟─Treasury Tag►duumvirate─╢ 13:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear case of WP:ONEEVENT - Yes he has had significant media coverage but all surrounding a single event. His business activities are not notable by WP standards. Adpete (talk) 12:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Pippa Middleton and add some info on Michael & Carole into article: Middleton family D B D 12:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball Keep - in the agreement of meeting notability guidelines, he is less popular than his sister does. Reliable sources are also agreed to included the guidelines. ApprenticeFan ^work 12:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. agree with case of WP:ONEEVENT —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirame (talk • contribs) 13:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was plenty of coverage of him before the wedding, and there has been plenty since and it will continue. If he had not done a reading, or even not attended the wedding, that still would have been the case. The cause of his fame is that he is the brother of Kate Middleton.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please most of the coverage before the wedding with even a mention him was in the context of looking forward to the wedding and along the lines of check out the embaressing/chavvy in-laws to be. The coverage of him and pippa mostly showed no notability in them just pointing our they would stick out greatly among the royalsNirame (talk) 17:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ: [15]Rangoon11 (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. So, James was an independently notable cake maker well before the wedding yes? Well, no. The earliest reference in the article is from 1 Oct 2008, and introduces James as "the younger brother of Kate Middleton, the girlfriend of Prince William". The peice covers James as one of four business people, the others being Maria Balfour, Marcus Waley-Cohen and Alex Finlay. All are unsurprisingly, red links. Marcus's business at least has an article, but is tagged for having no references. And also, none of James businesses, or the Middleton family business even, has any article. And his awards? Well, we have no article on Smarta 100 or Haines Watts Young Entrepreneur. And the reader cannot even tell the how/s what's/whys of those awards. All of this is....surprising, given the premise. Sure, he's made cakes for notable entities, but using that as a claim to notability itself is no different to arguing he's automatically notable as someone's sister. By now, it should be beyond obvious that this is a smokescreen for the real argument, that by making a reading at the wedding, he surpasses BLP1E. Well, if people really believe this stuff when they write it, then by all means, go and try and replace this as the example in the policy, as being a Presidential assassin is clearly setting the bar way too high. You'll soon find out how off base you really are. Oh, and he's not a Duke. He is though apparently a cross dressing probably gay man according to Wikipedia now, and forever more. Anyway, someone was talking about attempts to prevent the root causes of these blatant BLP violations and attacks on Wikipedia as a credible biographer was disruption yes? Interesting theory that. I wonder who's next to be wikipised. I'm guessing the parents. MickMacNee (talk) 15:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per MickMacNee. His business is not notable, and he is not notable for anything other than being Kate's brother. If we based the notability on Will and Kate's wedding, then every person who took part in it would then also have to be notable by the same logic. So taking that away, he's not notable on his own. (Yet?) --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficiently ample RS coverage.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly noteable and not BLP1E as per above. Though a risk we can handle any BLP concerns/ attacks that find their way to the article just as we would with any other high profile person. The only good reason to delete would be if James requests it. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, notability is not inherited and this is a clear case of WP:POINT based on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alice Ward. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep This article about a living person definitely has a quality problem but no notability problem. As brother of the future queen media coverage for the next decades is guaranteed. BLP issues should and can be handled. --Adornix (talk) 20:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really? How much "media coverage" did Charles Spencer, 9th Earl Spencer garner between his sister's marriage and death? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 20:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simply to answer: enough. -- LeoDavid (talk) 20:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since Adornix has a crystal ball, what's tomorrow's lottery number? --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 21:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As noted above, his only claim to fame (besides the wedding) is a series of bakeries. However, the only currently used reference that dates to before William and Catherine's engagement is this one... and even then the first sentence of the blurb on him mentions that he is Kate Middleton's brother as a reason the reader might have heard of him, showing that WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:1E apply. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, he is only getting this coverage because is Kate's brother. Hence why so many profiles of him published after they announced their engagement. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This should be a very simple case of WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:BLP1E he is notable for being the brother of some one notable, and the test of that is would we know anything about him if his sister had never met William, and the answer to that is no we would not. He has revived a huge amount of coverage (more than others need to have to be kept at AfD - I will come on to this later), he is without question a likely search term so at least this needs to be changed to a redirect and not deleted. However if WP can have a article on for example Steven Akers which was overwhelmingly kept at WP:AFD with only minor coverage then this should, given the scale of the coverage of this person probably be also kept. I do think the idea of User:DBD to crate a Middleton family article does have some merit and after the fuss of the last week has died down then suspect that is what might happen.Mtking (talk) 02:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect to Middleton family and as per User:HJ Mitchell protect the redirect. Mtking (talk) 22:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep or merge: As long as the information is locatable via redirect, I don't really care under which lemma it appears, either Middleton Family or James William Middleton. But let's be honest here: is Jane Fellowes, Baroness Fellowes really relevant because she is the daughter of a minor earl? That would seem to be the only difference between her and James Middleton. Surely being a cake maker is at least as good a claim to relevance as being the daughter of a minor earl. And if we are honest, we will realise that the media did not cover either of these people for those reasons, and that media coverage is what really leads to notability in the first place. And who among us honestly thinks that this week marks the last we will hear in the press about James?--Bhuck (talk) 08:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Brother of the future Queen? Of course he is notable! Plus, it is not just about him attending the wedding but because he is related to The Duchess of Cambridge by a degree and he would thus become ever more notable as time passes. --Charlie Huang 【遯卋山人】 09:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some people seem to misunderstand WP:NOTINHERITED, which is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. It's simply not true that he is not notable if "we know not anything about him if his sister had never met William." It doesn't matter at all why or how people get coverage - if it is significant coverage in multiple independent sources, then he is notable. And this is what we have in this case. St Anselm (talk) 09:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

StAnselm, I'm afraid you have this reversed. The page says "Arguments to Avoid in Deletion Discussions" and has "Notability is inherited" as one of the things to avoid. You need to look at the page, not just the link that leads you there. -- Avanu (talk) 11:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As notable as Pippa (and yeah, that's a !vote) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, somewhat reluctantly. He seems to technically meet our notability criteria, although I'm not exactly thrilled about the current state of the article--looks like a BLP disaster waiting to happen. Do we really have to mention that he once mooned a friend of his and that his sister laughed when she found out? Hey, that could be his hook at DYK: ...that the future Queen's brother once mooned a friend of his and that his sister laughed when she found out? Qrsdogg (talk) 14:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Striking comment, looks like someone bolder than I fixed this up a bit. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought: I think a Merge and redirect to Middleton family would suffice since that's really the source of his notability. Qrsdogg (talk) 19:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete notability isn't inherited, he's not a member of the nobility and no nobility status has been announced.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 14:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or merge). There is simply no article here. 95% of it is lifted from the articles on his sister. Good grief, are we going to have articles on every Middleton repeating the same family information. The other option would be to merge this into an article on "the family of Kate Middleton".--Scott Mac 15:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think that's a pretty silly claim, considering this "95%" you reference was just added by me in an attempt to flesh out the article and has since been reverted due to alleged BLP violations. Even without the information, there are a number of sources on the page that are not simply rehashings of what's been stated on his sisters' pages. Regardless, it's pretty obvious that when two (or more) people have the same parents and grew up in the same "early life" situation that the information for that section would be the same. Even if the stuff you are referencing hadn't been deleted, I see no reason why the fact that it's the same as on Kate's or on Pippa's when it holds true for all three of them is grounds for deletion. --Zoeydahling (talk) 16:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course there's a high overlap, since all his importance comes from his family. When articles substantially overlap we merge (if they have independent notability). The material removed was salacious tabloid tittle-tattle which has no business with an encyclopedia.--Scott Mac 16:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment is it fair to other users that a person voting to delete then locks the article so others cannot edit and possibly improve it to wiki standards.Nirame (talk) 17:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was thinking about it some more, and I think the offspring of royalty is a completely different topic, and should not be weighed in this discussion. Offsprings of royalty inherit some form of nobility, whereas Pippa and James do not, and should be notable on their own. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 16:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into new article, I'd be inclined to agree with some of the previous comments that the notability for each family member is probably only inherited from their daughter and in-laws. However, there is an interest out there so I wonder if, as other editors have suggested, a joint article on the Middleton family or Family of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge or something similar might be a better bet rather than having an individual article for every family member - we also have Carole Elizabeth Middleton for example, which could easily be redirected to a joint article. Before the wedding, there was quite a bit of research done on her extended family and background in parts of the media, which I'm sure could become vaguely interesting. Bob talk 16:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This person is not notable beyond the wedding of his sister per WP:NOTINHERITED and also WP:ONEEVENT. Mo ainm~Talk 18:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A party organiser and a baker are somehow notable just because a sibling has married soneone who is notable. Neither Pippa nor James Middleton will ever appear in EB or ODNB but oh, WP will reduce itself to something of a farce. How more ludicrous can things get in WP.--Bill Reid | (talk) 18:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP has its own policy, and it is patently very different to that of the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography or the Encyclopedia Britannica. Middleton satisfies the general notability guidelines. That may mean that, in your view, the guidelines are wrongly drafted, but they are the guidelines of this project nonetheless.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you will find the WP:GNG is a guideline and not a policy, however WP:BLP1E is policy. Mtking (talk) 22:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Into an article on Middleton family , including his mother and Pippa and father, and bald chav of an uncle LOL... .♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - one event - not inherited - no objection to a redirect to the most associated article or a minor merge if any detail is not already at the merge target or as User:Blofeld has commented above. Off2riorob (talk) 18:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've created Middleton family, I strongly urge that these pages are redirected, they are not notable in their own right, other than being in her family. The family, yes it is notable as it married into the royal family, so an article on the family will suffice.BTW western fans here may have noticed the strong resemblance of James Middleton to Bill Carson of The Good the Bad and the Ugly LOL. He needs water, not deletion LOL! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, salt for a year, and if anybody remembers his name then and can create a decent article on him, then maybe we might have something worth keeping. I'd be surprised, but a lot can happen in a year. However, at the minute, the gentleman is only in the media eye because his sister just became the best-looking princess for half a century. He has a passing mention in several sources, but only by virtue of being Kate's sister or of his reading at her wedding. There may be some notability to his business ventures, at least sufficient to pass A7, but none of them are so notable that their directors are notable (like Tesco and Sir Terry Leahy, for example). He might be notable in 20 years when he's the uncle of an heir to the throne (but that relies on the assumption that the Duke and Duchess stay together and have children), in which case he would probably be a duke or earl of somewhere obscure. As it is though, he is not notable just because his sister has married into the Royal Family and his companies have had some, but very little, mainstream media coverage. Finally, I think it's telling that more then half the article is either quotes, almost cut-and-pasted from one of his siblings' articles, about a film he had nothing to do with or about his reading at the wedding. No, the poor state of an article is not, in itself, a reason to delete the article, but when there is so little to say about someone (because so little is written in reliable sources) that people have to pad it out with tangentially related rubbish, that shows the subject is clearly not notable in his own right. Alternatively, a protected redirect to Middleton family (where this article is duplicated in its entirety) would suffice, from which we can expand if he becomes notable in his own right. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Middleton family for now but the above comment about Salting for a year is absurd. The interest in Middleton family members may have started because of the royal connection but that does not preclude that interest kick-starting independent notability, as it has for Pippa Middleton and may well do yet here - we don't know yet. RichardOSmith (talk) 19:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not a fan of family articles. It's not an uncommon surname and dispersed in the UK. It is likely that there have been a good number of notable Middletons and they may not be closely related, and opens the door to inclusion of all sorts of people with little relationship to the intended purpse of the article. It was the maiden name of Margaret Clitherow. I'd personally prefer a better title, and I agree with RichardOSmith that we should not make too many assumptions about how things will develop. --AJHingston (talk) 20:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Middleton family as proposed above (is that really the best title though?). This is textbook inheritance and cruft. My bet is that in one year there will be as little if not less to write about him (and reasons to do so), and I would personally choose to get his and other relatives' data into a section at Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, but I don't think an article on her family is inappropriate, and it is a fair compromise between the participants of this AfD - frankieMR (talk) 20:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per St Anselm. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep James Middleton may not be direct nobility but he is a relative of our future king and therefore should be in wikipedia

Copied previous !vote by 82.25.135.244 from the talk page. Assuming "kwwp" means "keep" - frankieMR (talk) 20:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our? We have a President, thank you very much. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 22:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I see 4 Telegraph stories (generally considered a reliable source) that substantially cover Mr. Middleton. If that isn't sufficient to satisfy the GNG, I don't know what is. Buddy431 (talk) 21:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not whether he is notable, but is he independently notable. His notability has been established beyond doubt. The question is whether he is notable on his own, which means he deserves a separate article. If he is not independently notable from his sister, then his information would be merged into an article about her, or someone else independently notable. -- Avanu (talk) 21:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it state in policy or guidelines that a topic must be 'independently' notable? I ask the question as I am unclear as to what is meant by 'independently' here. Middleton clearly satisfies the GNG according to my reading of it. I am genuinely confused as to whether I have missed something. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly inheritance and one event are concerned with that. What i understand for independent is that he oughta be regarded significantly for his actions instead of the direct effects or aftermaths of an event that is not his. The reading at the wedding, aside from being of only so much relevance, ends up depending (and is more appropriate) on the wedding. His work as a cake maker so far shows that he is a working professional, and even inclusion of that requires but brief sentences - frankieMR (talk) 00:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable for his business interests. Not known to the general world except for being someone's relation (and well-read Brit though I am, I didn't know he even existed until the other day). Hence no independent notability and therefore no need for a separate article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Middleton family (or Delete). There may be enough information about him in reliable sources to pass the notability guidelines, but I'm not convinced there's enough to justify a separate article; enough content is duplicated between the articles on the various Middletons that I think it would make more sense to cover them in a single article. The fact that this article has recently suffered repeated attempts to add BLP-violating content is another good reason for not keeping it separate. Robofish (talk) 23:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as his only claim to fame is being the brother of the Duchess of Cambridge. GoodDay (talk) 23:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; pretty much by definition, someone who is only "notable" because they are $relation of $notable isn't. That his sole presence in reliable sources is in relation to a singularly notable event that isn't even centered around him is simply further proof of that point. — Coren ^(talk) 23:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reluctantly, but i think his business endeavors are notable DGG ( talk ) 23:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The jury seems to be out on that. Certianly they're not A7 candidates, having been nominated for and won awards, but if they are notable, they should have their own article(s) since this article is about the man and his biogrpahy. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
merge to middleton or delete - I think that the notability of the whole family holds up as an article with sections about each, but that the individuals are a little light on notability and therefore subject to a lot of BLP nonsense. Let us not forget, these are real living people, not fictional minor nobles from the 19th century, whose gossip is only found in what are now reliable sources. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – "the individuals are a little light on notability" seems to treat all five immediate family members as being equally notable or non-notable, but there are wide variations between them. Kate is unquestionably notable; two Afds this year have found Pippa to be notable, and the creation of an article on the family doesn't change that in either case. I tend to agree that Michael, Carole and James are "a little light on notability", but each is an individual and if notable at all then each merits an article. Moonraker2 (talk) 02:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability has already been established. However, it is independent notability (not just notability) that determines whether a subject is worthy of their own article. -- Avanu (talk) 02:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what "Notability has already been established" refers to. The notability of Kate and Pippa has been established, but this discussion is about James, and his is clearly in doubt. On "independent notability", that looks like the very point I was trying to make, that notability needs to be assessed separately for individuals and not collectively. Moonraker2 (talk) 02:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, James *CLEARLY* has established notability. You are mistaken. What I am referring to is found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Invalid_criteria

"For example, Brooklyn Beckham and Jason Allen Alexander are included in the articles on David Beckham and Britney Spears, respectively, and the links, Brooklyn Beckham and Jason Allen Alexander, are merely redirects to those articles."

Britney Spears has notability on her own, Jason Allen Alexander has notability by virtue of Britney's notability. See the difference? -- Avanu (talk) 02:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is what is needed to justify a stand-alone article, not a mention in another article. I don't agree that "Jason Allen Alexander has notability by virtue of Britney's notability". That's contradicted by the "Invalid criteria" section you linked above. Moonraker2 (talk) 03:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you're actually reading what is written on that page, but "That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A); see Relationships do not confer notability. However, person A may be included in the related article on B." James easily meets the "General Notability Guidline" WP:GNG, but maybe not the notability guidelines for people WP:BIO. So, the information here could easily be justified in the Kate article, but maybe not on its own. -- Avanu (talk) 04:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The key words here are surely unless significant coverage can be found on A. Rangoon11 (talk) 11:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline keep – Most of the sources relied on in the article are specific to James Middleton, so the question is whether he has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", where "Significant coverage" means addressing the subject directly in detail, "more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material". If he stands up to WP:N, it may be only just, but the coverage is fast multiplying. Moonraker2 (talk) 02:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He's not (yet) notable in any sense of the word, so merge anything worth mentioning into an article on the family. Or delete. But don't keep, unless Wikipedia is Debrettopedia or some such. -- Hoary (talk) 02:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Because so lots of peoples participated in discussion about this article. It's mean, that this person become every day more notable. For example, I was interested to read biography of this person and looked for it--Noel baran (talk) 06:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but is there actually a book written with him as the sole subject? Right now, the only information we really have are from tabloids, because he's really only being covered for being the brother of someone notable, not because he himself is notable. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 16:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. But I am strong supporter of this point of view, that in Wikipedia should be articles about all potential interesting subjects. Brother of eventual future queen - one of them --Noel baran (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily passes WP:SIGCOV however isn't this a moot point as someone has already created Middleton family and we now have duplication?--Egghead06 (talk) 06:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. If you ignore the sources that cover him on the basis of his relationship to Catherine, the remaining sources do not indicate notability. Chillllls (talk) 14:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep He's a bit unconventional and, as sibling to the wife of the heir to the throne, likely to receive the interest of the press and the public for years to come. --DL77 (talk) 15:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is the same argument a few others already said. We can't know at this point if he will get coverage for years to come, thus the AFD. If we knew for sure, this AFD would have no ground to stand on. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 16:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a textbook case of WP:NOTINHERITED. Was he notable before his sister got married? No. Why is he notable now? Because his sister got married to someone important. That's flat-out "inherited" notability. He has not done anything "significant and notable in [his] own right", as the essay says. SheepNotGoats (talk) 17:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. ArcAngel (talk) ) 18:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read that link? This isn't a case of NOTINHERITED. James is presumed notable because he is covered in multiple independent sources, not because he's the brother of someone else famous. It doesn't matter to us why he's covered in multiple independent sources, only that he is. Buddy431 (talk) 19:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, yes, clearly it is. Why did you not ask that of the other who put the same rationale? ArcAngel (talk) ) 20:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does matter why he's covered because that relates to the assertion of notability. A person is not notable simply because a news article exists where they are mentioned. There are two possible arguments for his notability: either he's notable for being Kate Middleton's brother or he is notable for his baking company. The former is inherently not allowed because of WP:NOTINHERITED. As for the latter, the sources on the article don't indicate that he's especially notable for being a baker and it looks like this article was originally being used as a negative coatrack with a BLP-violating speculation about his sexual orientation. If the threshold for inclusion is having a few reliable sources use my name in an article, excuse me, I have to begin working on my own bio. Chillllls (talk) 21:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your coatrack suggestion is incorrect. The article's original state said nothing about his sexual orientation. And even if it had, that would not make it a coatrack because a coatrack means facts which are unrelated to the ostensible topic, not facts which are. You also don't understand NOTINHERITED. That just means that a relationship is a weak argument by itself for notability, in the absence of sources about the subject. Once you have sources which are directly about the subject, then the subject is notable per the WP:GNG and the relationship is then irrelevant. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should've not literally said it was a coatrack, but it started to get diverge from the subject when discussion began, in the article, about Twitter speculation on his sexuality when he spoke during the royal wedding. I know what a coatrack is and I shouldn't have used that term but I couldn't think of word to describe the situation where at one point about a third of the references on the article had to do with Twitter sexuality speculation. As for the notability inheritance, you are operating on the basis that he is notable because reliable sources discuss him. I agree that if you look at his notability at face value, yes he meets the guidelines at GNG. The point that I'm trying to raise, and I think others are too, is that all of these articles cited discuss him with "learn a little bit about the brother of Kate Middleton" as their premise. His notability for those articles is inherited from his sister and therefore the assertion of notability for Wikipedia also rests on his sister. Chillllls (talk) 22:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep This is a very marginal keep, but I would expect additional RS info.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Rharrington112 said! This is becoming ridiculous! James William Middleton is the brother-in-law of a future king and already a very public person! And there are many sources and newspapers writing about him for some time now (even independent and serious ones). That's damn notable! Again, I don't understand the obsession by some here to see this page being removed. Is it because of chronic shortage of wikipedia space? As I already wrote: really strange if you consider that less important subjects, like a Pokémon character, or all members of the Rodham family (of Hillary Clinton) have each their own pages, upto their insignificant cat and dog Socks and Buddy! And somehow James William Middleton is not notable enough? It's a mystery to me. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 07:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think you are entirely right about inconsistences in Wikipedia. The principle that notability is not inherited is frequently and sensibly breached. What we need to debate here is not whether James Middleton should be in Wikipedia but how best to do it. The choices are

1 Retain him in an article of his own. This should really depend on whether we think that there is going to be enough encyclopedic material to justify it.

2 Merge him and other family members into an article about the family. My concern about that is whether we can find a sensible and encyclopedic way of limiting it to the intended purpose. 'Middleton family' by itself isn't enough because it is a common name and may have arisen in different parts of the country so relationships cannot be assumed. It could end up a rag bag of all sorts of irrelevant material.

3 Put him under the article about his famous sister. I think that is wholly impracticable in the long run since the material about her will grow and grow and she and her relations are living separate and very different lives.

The guiding policies here the Five pillars of Wikipedia especially the last, and Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. The right answer is what best suits the needs of users.—Preceding unsigned comment added by AJHingston (talk • contribs) 10:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have good reasoning here. I think the "Middleton Family" seemed like a good concept, but as you point out, it probably can't be executed well. As we're seeing, a reasonable idea is to merge him with his sister's article, *but* since there is more and more information on him, its clear that a WP:SPLIT is the answer. So we end up back here. So despite a weakness in independent notability, it wins based on volume of information. -- Avanu (talk) 12:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems evident there isn't a SNOWBALL's chance at reaching a consensus. Can there possibly be anything left to say about James William Middleton that hasn't already been said in this colloquy? [email protected] (talk) 12:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A regular '"keep" close seems more likely than a "no concensus". The article has had over 40,000 hits in the last few days proving its interest to our readers, and I note the Foundation's Head of reader relations has unprotected it to allow further improvement by the resuce squad and others. A careful evaluation of the sources show extensive coverage for James in his own right, with some articles scarcely mentioning his sister. He had a highly successful business launch in the midst of the Great Recession, and won numerous awards before the wedding mania. So he's independently noteable and there is no clear policy based reason to delete this very interesting and popular article. No objection to an early snow keep if thats what youre suggesting? FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the aforementioned Head of reader relations says on his user page "all edits that I make under this user name are made only in my individual, personal capacity as a volunteer, administrator, or otherwise regular member of the community." St Anselm (talk) 22:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Middleton family (or Delete). - he wasn't notable last week so unless he is one event notable he sits better in a family article. Off2riorob (talk) 22:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His sister is notable, he read the lesson at a notable wedding, he makes cakes, he caused the 'shudders', he left uni, he lives in a flat with a sister and a cocker spaniel. That fails WP:GNG. Recreate when he is notable (and not merely talked about because of a flash in the pan from a single event, where the notability is entirely is due to his sister—see WP:NOTINHERITED). Johnuniq (talk) 23:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Johnuniq, you seem to be missing the point of WP:GNG. None of the facts you mention ("His sister is notable, he read the lesson at a notable wedding, he makes cakes, he caused the 'shudders', he left uni, he lives in a flat with a sister and a cocker spaniel") could ever make anyone either notable or non-notable. GNG is simply about whether there is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". There can be significant coverage of people who have no sisters, no dogs, no jobs, no degrees, no businesses – all such questions are red herrings, the issue is coverage and the degree of it. On that front, there is clearly a discussion to be had, I don't say the answer is clear. Moonraker2 (talk) 07:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - GNG is the grass cutter of notability - its almost true to say that in this modern media communication where almost any trivia is spammed to the world that nothing fails GNG - that is the reason we have articles about nobodies that nobody reads and that no-one protects from defamation or libel and as such getting over such a minimalistic hurdle should not be a reason to support any biography or topic. Off2riorob (talk) 07:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The coverage shows that than an article on the event is needed. WP:1E and WP:BLP1E show that no article on this person is required. Johnuniq (talk) 07:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Middleton family (or Delete). Not enough for a stand-alone, and will tend to repeat the family and upbringing material for the most part. Merge seems like the preferable compromise here, and we can look again after the wedding madness fades.--Scott Mac 09:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Middleton family or delete. This is just a case where BLP1E and being a relative of a notable person coincide. These don't make a person notable, and the present state of the article shows why. Hans Adler 10:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A documented article, and notable enough for me. --DThomsen8 (talk) 16:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into an article on the Middleton family or Delete. He's just not independently notable. Imzadi 1979 → 21:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's the brother of the girl who is going to be the Queen. Ergo he is notable. None of the royals has ever done anything except be a royal. This one may not be a Windsor, but he is now notable and people will want to follow his doings as evidenced by the ~10,000 users who have visited this page every day since it was created.I.Casaubon (talk) 11:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's getting profiled in major newspapers.[16][17] He's notable not because he did anything but simply because he's a celebrity. Kinda like Paris Hilton. Not because he did anything. He's simply famous for being famous. But he is famous.I.Casaubon (talk) 20:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of the royals has ever done anything except be a royal. Well, they tend to do horsey things. Those aside, "Snowdon" (as he calls himself), or "Antony Armstrong-Jones, 1st Earl of Snowdon" (as "nobility"-addled Wikipedia calls him), is a photographer of some note. As a photographer, he gets an entire page within the recent Photographers A–Z (Taschen). That's largely on the strength of his achievements before becoming a royal; but even after joining this amply financed family he kept on working for (unsubsidized) publication. And please, don't knock Paris Hilton, an artiste of staggering accomplishments. -- Hoary (talk) 23:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Middleton family article. This individual is not independently notable. Neutron (talk) 14:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Middleton family. That he might become notable in his own right sometime in the future is a discussion for the future. Right now he isn't. If he does manage to receive independent notability then the article can and probably will be recreated at that time. You or I or anybody may gain enough notability to have our own article. That this man by virtue of his connections is much more likely than average to gain such notability is irrelevant. He's not yet so shouldn't have an article yet. Rubiscous (talk) 00:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge, if you must. There are a thousand fine reasons above, and I'm just adding my voice to the choir. Notability is not inherited, BLP1E, etc. etc. Royals aren't notable for being royals, they're notable because people keep writing about royals. Once people keep writing about this gentleman, he'll make for a fine topic I'm sure. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or at most, merge into Middleton family. WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:BLP1E, etc. Taken on his own, he is clearly not notable. cmadler (talk) 13:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Our notability guideline for people, WP:PEOPLE (which trumps the WP:NOTINHERITED essay to the extent there is any conflict) states "That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A)." There is plenty of significant coverage on A, in this case James Middleton. Hence, he passes the notability guidelines. Even if he did not, the guideline would suggest merging and/or redirecting, not deleting. Rlendog (talk) 14:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a tough one. I am internally debating whether being a good cakemaker is notability enough. He did get commissioned by a famous magazine to make a blackjack's worth of cakes, and HELLO magazine is notable, and they covered him, so it's leaning to a borderline keep. In fact, for that reason, I will say keep. CycloneGU (talk) 14:55, 11 May 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) 06:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maoist Rebel News

This page looks like a blatant political advertising, either by the owner or by fans. There does not appear to be sufficient third-party sources to establish notability or verify much information. Subject has a YouTube channel with relatively few subscribers and no independent coverage whatsoever.All available sources regarding Maoist Rebel News appear to be blogs, social media, or associated with Maoist Rebel News. PIL1987 (talk) 01:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Promotional bit pushing a now-deleted YouTube channel. Pretty easy call, with all due respect. Carrite (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Now-deleted YouTube channel? Could you please explain it to me. 204.195.30.8 (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability for a youtube channel based "news" show. -- Whpq (talk) 14:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page is definitely a blatant act of political advertising for the MRN YouTube channel, evident by the fact that the supporters of MRN are constantly trying to remove evidence that indicates that the Maoist Rebel News network has in fact plagiarized from the World Socialist Website. Should an encyclopedia be used to promote some relatively unknown YouTube channel with a user known for plagiarism? See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5sbUU2Zto4&feature=channel_video_title for proof of plagiarism. Soviet Lizard (talk) 12:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC) — Soviet Lizard (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Not adveristing, also there is no proof that he plagiarzed. Also, this is not adversiting. Give me one section that is adversiting and I will change it or debunk it. 204.195.30.8 (talk) 21:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The link proving the plagiarism has been shown repeatedly, yet it keeps getting taken down by MRN's supporters (makes the neutrality disputable). Other people have shown (the Wiki page in itself is proof of this) that the article is an act of advertising for the MRN (again, set up by MRN supporters, only "external links" with info about it are blogs and websites related to MRN, etc., MRN supporters keep trying to hide the evidence if plagiarism). They have also shown that the MRN YouTube channel only has a small handful of subscribers and is not well known enough to warrant an encyclopedia article. Soviet Lizard (talk) 18:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 3 May 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. Changing the length of the list is a content dispute, not a reason to delete. Owen× ☎ 13:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of top 500 Major League Baseball home run hitters

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

WP:NOT#STATS. There is no particular reason to use either the "top 500" or 135 HRs as a cutoff. In fact, we have a perfectly good list to describe the top home run hitters: 500 home run club. While I think this is similar in many respects to the ongoing discussion about List of Major League Baseball players with 2000 hits, that article at least has a distinct cutoff. This doesn't have one. Why "top 500"? – Muboshgu (talk) 01:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —– Muboshgu (talk) 01:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —– Muboshgu (talk) 01:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. —– Muboshgu (talk) 01:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The old Sporting News Baseball Record Book used 300 as the cutoff point for career achievement in home runs. That cut the size of the list down to 100+. Taking the top 500 seems excessive. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am very surprised that this page is being discussed for possible deletion. I use it all the time in baseball research to gauge new and old power hitters against each other. I probably visit this page 3-4 times a week. A cutoff of 500 people is not more or less arbitrary than a cutoff of 300 home runs. In fact, I evalute hitters with less than 300 home runs at least as often as those with more. Fortunately for me there is an alternative website I can go to ... http://baseball.wikia.com/wiki/Top_500_home_run_hitters_of_all_time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.46.198.232 (talk) 15:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or you can go to www.baseball-reference.com, or www.fangraphs.com, or www.thebaseballcube.com, or whatever stats site you want. Wikipedia is WP:NOT#STATS. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be concerned about "Is it up to date?" and the more names it has, the harder it is to keep it up to date. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You can always use pages like Baseball Reference's career HR list. isaacl (talk) 16:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would also add that 'difficulty to maintain' is never a reason to delete, via WP:NOEFFORT. Many articles are somewhat out of date, but they get updated, often by new users. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - How do we know it's up to date? How do we know it's reliable? Have I said anywhere to delete it? No, I'm simply raising questions that need answering. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 500, at its face, doesn't seem to be so indiscriminate. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But why not use 300 as the Sporting News uses (per Bugs)? Why not 400? Why not 1000? I don't see any discriminate reason 500 was chosen. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - 300 home runs, not 300 names. They were using what they considered to be a reasonable threshhold of achievement. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh, my bad. That still suggests that "Top 500" is overly inclusive and an excessive listing that violates NOTSTATS. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment wouldn't we be better served by having some external links to Baseball Reference (and/or Retrosheet, MLB etc...) on a few simple articles that deal with, perhaps, the top handful or so of "record" holders rather than a whole wealth of different lists/articles dealing with generally arbitrary statistical accomplishments? In any non-US sport this would be gone aeons ago. I have no doubt it'll be kept though - perhaps a wider discussion needs to take place about this sort of sports record article at some point. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with your sentiment. That's part of the reason I nominated this article. We do have pages for the "main" recognized thresholds (ie., 500 home run club, 3,000 hit club, 3,000 strikeout club), but these simple counting lists are a problem. Perhaps a larger discussion is in order, at a RfC. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A list of all time leading home run hitters seems appropriate, and I don't think that inherently needs to be limited to the 500 HR club. Certainly 400 home runs is a notable accomplishment, maybe even 300 (especially given Bugs' comment). Or maybe a top 50 or top 100. But top 500 is too much. A list of all time top home run hitters that includes the likes of Juan Uribe, Edgar Renteria, Ken McMullen, Andy Seminick and Bill Mazeroski (since we are talking about most home runs, not most famous home runs) is silly, and I think oversteps being indiscriminate. Rlendog (talk) 14:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In some ways this is actually worse than the 2000 hits list I nominated, I just didn't want to start with this one as it has a greater following thanks to the labor needed to keep it updated. Clearly violative of WP:NOTSTATS as it's a pure statistical listing with no establishment of notability. And any claim as to why this list is set at 500 is madeup. It's at 500 because that's what baseball-reference listed on it's HR leader page at the time this was created, it's just a direct clone of that (they've now expanded to 1000). This list is also far more violative of WP:ROUTINE. At least 2000 hits is a milestone that gets mentioned for the individual in game summaries, the Ryan Braun's of the world do not even get individual mention for crossing this arbitrary plane. I also have the same issues I raised (arbitrary cutoff list on a subject, career HR leaders, that we already have a list with established notability for in 500 home run club). Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is very useful and trustworthy. IMHO not too large or long. Happy138 (talk) 17:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What gives it notability beyond 500 HRC? Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It adds more information and is well-kept, followed and updated. Happy138 (talk) 08:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of those satisfies Wikipedia:Notability. Staxringold _talk^contribs 11:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Asinine nomination. If you don't like the threshold of inclusion, bring it up on the talk page and let's revise it as needed - that's an editorial deletion, not a grounds for deletion. Keep. -- Y not? 20:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it "asinine" that I'm mentioning the arbitrary threshold of inclusion is evidence that this page violates WP:NOT#STATS and provides no more value that 500 home run club and external baseball stat sites provide? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, not asinine at all. It would be asinine to AFD... List of highest paid Major League Baseball players purely over the cutoffs (20 people) because that is, as you say, editorial. This nomination is about an arbitrarily defined list that is secondary and supplemental to one that serves the same purpose but does so with a well-defined (and highly notable) cutoff. This list is more akin to List of highest paid Major League Baseball players (21-40) or something. Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, slightly less asinine, but still pretty asinine because merging two overlapping lists is also an editorial decision. AfD is not your forum. -- Y not? 13:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Who said anything about "merging" them? This one simply shouldn't exist. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I actually think this is a very useful list. Alex (talk) 22:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Utility does not equal notability. The folks at B Ref and other sites update HR totals daily. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ I like the idea, but the number of players should be much smaller. BUC (talk) 11:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Umm... are we deleting or are we editing? Am I the only one here who perceives the difference between deletion and editorial decisions? -- Y not? 15:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think Stax and I are quite clear in how this is a deletion issue and not an "editorial" issue. I disagree with BUC's reasoning for his delete. It doesn't matter how many players are listed, what matters is that this subject isn't notable, and that which is is subsumed by 500 home run club. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ok I'll change to Move and shorten to a smaller number of players. BUC (talk) 10:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: I thing it's great. Czolgolz (talk) 12:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But why should it be kept? WP:ILIKEIT is an argument to avoid in a deletion discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, I find it to be a very useful resource for rapidly changing baseball statistics. You know, the sort of thing you might look up in an ENCYCLOPEDIA. Czolgolz (talk) 17:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - But this is a thing one would find in an Almanac. Like the Sporting News source Bugs referenced. Encyclopedias are not full excessive listings of statistics, as per Wikipedia:NOT#STATS. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~but shorten~~. I agree with Bugs. The equivalent lists for triples and doubles use a number of triples/doubles as the cut-off, and that seems to make more sense. It says to the reader that, e.g., 100 triples is a noteworthy achievement and this is a list of the guys who have done it. On the other hand, many of the guys on the home run list will never be considered noteworthy as home-run hitters. --Coemgenus 16:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If this factors into your decision making, I'd like you to know that I'm highly likely to nominate those other lists (triples, doubles, total bases, walks, strikeouts, all of them) as violations of WP:NOT#STATS. Only recognized notable groups (3000 hits, 500 HRs, 300 wins, 3000 strikeouts, and if I can find enough sourcing for 300 saves, that one too) should remain. If you want to say 100 triples is a noteworthy achievement, that seems like WP:OR to me. Why set the number at 100? Are there sources to indicate why 100 triples is of importance?
- The sources are clear. Notability for HRs in a career is 500. For hits, it's 3000. Wins is 300. Strikeouts is 3000. I believe there is enough for a cutoff of saves at 300, but I'm not sure about that one. The rest is all cruft that violates WP:NOT#STATS and should go. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, in that case I'll just change to "keep" to keep the issues separate. --Coemgenus 17:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fair enough. Editorial and deletion decisions should be separated from each other. But in saying keep, you're not telling me why this is notable, independent of 500 home run club. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's why I agreed with Bugs. A reliable source used 300 as a threshold, so that would meet your criterion. But if you want all or nothing with this AfD, I'll put in my two cents for doing nothing. --Coemgenus 17:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Understood. I'm not sure that one reliable source using a cutoff of 300 is sufficient, though. Especially as it is an almanac that doesn't confer why the topic at hand is notable. Notice that while Bugs made that contribution to this discussion, he hasn't voted one way or the other. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:34, 9 May 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) 06:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Sabo

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

Unsourced BLP of a non-notable sessions musician; neither evidence nor assertion of notability. Orange Mike | Talk 01:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unreferenced BLP article. I thought we even had a CSD criteria for this, perhaps I'm mistaken. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, solid.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He gets some passing mentions like this, and this, but there is not significant coverage about him to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:27, 5 May 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) 06:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eben Rey

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. ttonyb (talk) 01:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject has received no kind of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party sources. Sorry, LinkedIn is not a third party source. Neither is a personal website. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 19:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO … a social networking site like LinkedIn can hardly be considered a WP:RS, and the other so-called "references" are also rather dubious … see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radio alchymy by same fanboy author. Happy Editing! — 71.166.156.113 (talk · contribs) _{22:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)}[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 3 May 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) 06:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign Service Crisis Management Award

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

Award does not exist and documented references do not document its existance or consideration for existance, fictional award without substantive documentation Mikebar (talk) 01:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note, this is only the first of 6 articles that need deletion consideration, see Awards_and_decorations_of_the_United_States_government#Service_Awards for a complete list (ones noted for being uncited, all have previous tags on reference issues). Mikebar (talk) 01:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all without prejudice as Crystal Ball exercises. This is quite fascinating, actually, everyone should have a look at this article, "Diplopundit is Officially a Source in Wikipedia — In Disputed Proposed Awards Entries for State Dept!!!" Money quote: Frankly, I have no idea if these really are proposed awards for State Department personnel; not privy to discussions in the Sounding Board, this is the first time I've heard of these service awards. But if these are proposed awards, who has gone through the trouble of designing the ribbons and the medals during the proposal stage? Carrite (talk) 04:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The sourcing in the article is problematic to say the least as none of it appears to actually confirm the claims being made. -- Whpq (talk) 14:31, 5 May 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. (non-admin closure) Baseball Watcher 01:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SAKHR Software Company

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

The sourcing is so mediocre here that I'm unsure myself whether it meets our standards for notability. I don't want to judge falsely, but it's been unsuccessfully tagged for improvement since last year. Orange Mike | Talk 00:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am trying to edit the page with relevant citations but the changes are automatically rejected, what do i do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manayer (talk • contribs) 13:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Arabic is of very high interest now, and a leading company for Arabic translation and software is likely to be interesting. Whether it is notable, and whether there is proper referencing, is an open question, but I would certainly want this article kept available for improvement. The use of copyrighted material is also a troubling element. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It gets ample coverage. Click the Google news archive search at the top of the AFD to see plenty of it. I read through the Business Week article about it, referenced in the article already, and its clearly notable. Dream Focus 15:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What business week article are you referring to?--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The one in the article that says Businessweek. Look for it. its not that hard to find. Dream Focus 10:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: thin coverage, with the handful of hits on Google News appearing to be generally low-quality/bloggish and promotional, and generally mere-mentions from Google Books hits. As far as significant & reliable coverage the BW article appears to be all there is -- and is insufficient on its own. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously notable - see this case study for example. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For those who are wondering what this "obviously notable" mention is, this seems to be the right link. From what I can tell, it's nothing more than a mention in a less than one page section that cites it as a good example of an Arab franchise.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The link I provided shows the entire page; yours just provides a snippet. If the first link is not working for you then perhaps it's your browser or geolocation. For those who can't read it, it is a summary of the company headed Sakhr Software. There are 15 lines of good hard facts and numbers like sales, salaries, staff &c. It is written in a neutral tone and so is an excellent source for our purposes. There seem to be lots more sources of this quality to be found in Google Books because this company's work on machine translation of Arabic is quite advanced. This is good evidence of notability. Q.E.D Colonel Warden (talk) 06:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Click the page on the link I showed and it gives you the full text, along with a search showing it as the only mention of "Sakhr" in the source.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, what of it? The source easily satisfies the requirements of WP:N and so we're good. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hardly think so. Once again, it's a less than one page mention of the company, using it as an example of franchising in the Arab world. hardly significant coverage.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIGCOV tells us what is needed: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.. The source supplied in this case meets this requirement and there are plenty more such as Mass media, politics, and society in the Middle East. There is therefore no case for deletion as ordinary editing may be used to improve the article per our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it needed to be the main topic. But it's pretty obvious that,once again, a less than one page description using the company as an example is not significant.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

W delete I have removed the worst of the spam content, but would note that there seems to be a fair number of press links with content (including the Financial Times piece) that look suspiciously like recycled press releases, as is common in the IT industry. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does the use of bare URLs rather than full inline citations affect whether this article is deleted? --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not a valid reason to delete something. Also, I doubt most people really care or even notice. Dream Focus 12:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I put a comment on the talk page, asking for the bare URLs to be converted into inline citations, perhaps with archiving where needed. --DThomsen8 (talk) 16:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The BusinessWeek article and the OECD-published book linked in the article and above demonstrate notability. Loads more such sources can be found by searching without the superfluous word "company": Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources have been added, other improvements have been made, and this article should be Kept. --DThomsen8 (talk) 16:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not too sure if I should be commenting, since I created the page, but I don't think it should be deleted. Arabic is a notable topic of discussion and as far as I know, Sakhr is one of the first and only companies who have made a name for themselves in terms of machine translation, OCR, etc. I think it's important that something about the company stays on Wikipedia. Debolina Sengupta (talk) 04:55, 9 May 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) 06:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Radio alchymy

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

Non-notable radio program lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:N. ttonyb (talk) 00:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks WP:RS to satisfy WP:GNG … see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eben Rey by same fanboy author. Happy Editing! — 71.166.156.113 (talk · contribs) _{22:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)}[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 3 May 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} 15:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Shaw (musician)

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

Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP:, also does not appear to meet MUSICBIO J04n(talk page) 00:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 00:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable muscian. Keb25 (talk) 00:39, 2 May 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) 00:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - This is actually the second AFD for Adrian Shaw. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrian Shaw. -- Whpq (talk) 14:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article states he had an album reviewed by the Sunday Times. I was able to track it down. It's actually a review of an album by Teenbeat, of which he was a member. Although this certainly contributes towards establishing notability, I can find no other coverage about him. -- Whpq (talk) 14:39, 5 May 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} 14:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sheprador

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

This is a dog crossbreed that I've found no reliable sources covering (all current info is unreferenced). – anna 11:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. – anna 11:35, 26 April 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) 00:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find any good sourcing that was non-trivial and non-commercial. It's clear this mix exists; it's not clear that this mix has any demonstrated cultural impact. No sources = no article. — Scientizzle 14:31, 11 May 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. The sources provided in the article are either self-published blogs, or otherwise non-independent or give only trivial coverage. This matter is not sufficiently addressed by the two keep votes, and that gives a clear indication that the notability guidelines (many of them cited by Qworty) are not met. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sparrow Hall

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

The references in this article are not sufficient to show notability of the subject. In the latest version (at the time of nomination), there are five references. The first is a listing showing only that Hall will be giving a presentation at Bennington College. The second, fourth, and fifth references are merely press releases issued by Hall himself. The third "reference" is a video trailer for ... something? Whatever it is, it's not a valid source for a biographical article.

Also, as a result of the trivial nature of the references, very few (if any) of the biographical details recounted in the article are sourced. Per WP:BLP, then, the article would need to be pared down to insignificance if kept. Powers ^T 13:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Biographical details recounted in article seem to now be pared down and sourced. Validays (talk) 10:37, 30 April 2011(UTC)
- Yet still insufficient to demonstrate notability. The new sources consist of a blog post and A Crowd Electric's own web site. Where is the notability? What has Hall done? Powers ^T 15:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - And we still have no source for his birthday, which is pretty minimal biographical information. If any significant sources had been written about him, they'd at least include his age, don't you think? Powers ^T 14:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep albeit a weak one. Ghits pull up variety of sources of an underground nature, so some notability there re: his books & music. While had not heard of this person before, enjoyed reading the Gsearches and learned a few things. Article has improved a great deal over since deletion nomination.Readorama (talk) 21:34 2 May 2011(UTC)
- Help me out here; what has he done that's been noted by secondary sources? Powers ^T 23:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:53, 27 April 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) 00:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. Searches for his name with "A Crowd Electric" finds no coverage in reliable sources about his musical work. Using the titles of his written work also turn up nothing in reliable sources. The sourcing at this time consists of a link that confirms he is an alumni of Bennington College, which confirms a cfact, but does not substantiate notability; somebody's blog which does not qualify as a reliable source; and the web site of A Crowd Electric which is not independent. -- Whpq (talk) 14:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Give me a break--the guy has done nothing more than co-author a single short story? That hardly makes him notable as an author! Abysmally fails WP:BK, WP:AUTHOR, WP:CREATIVE, etc. He needs to publish a book with a legitimate press and then have a lot of WP:RS notice the book. He appears to be years and years away from notability, and may never get there. Qworty (talk) 21:08, 7 May 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) 03:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William Nicholson & Son Ltd

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

Contested nominatotion for PROD, no rationale given. No credible asertion of notability of this particular organization. Wikipedia is not a directory or collection of indiscriminate information. This organizatin does not appear to pass the guidelines under WP:CORP. Google Scholar gives one incidental hit in passing. Google Books shows nothing significant, even allowing for changing HTML ampersand to "and" and also checking "Sons". Wtshymanski (talk) 13:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:54, 27 April 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) 00:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there just doesn't seem to be anything showing notability does there? Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:20, 3 May 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. J04n(talk page) 00:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Sánchez Amezcua

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

A common name if we ignore Amezcua (as the lede does), I have been unable to find anything but wikimirrors to verify the existence of this footballer. joe decker ^{talk to me} 00:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't verify existence, let alone notability. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 11:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Mediotiempo.com has no record of this individual playing for Morelia during the times mentioned in the article (see http://www.mediotiempo.com/equipo/morelia&id_liga=1). If he exists and actually played for the club, it was likely the reserve team and he is unlikely to be notable. In any case, none of the information in the article can be verified. Jogurney (talk) 13:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 12:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 14:17, 9 May 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Youves

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

Non-notable punks. Damiens.rf 16:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article already cites coverage from NME and Rock Sound, and there's more out there, e.g. The Fly.[18] and from when they were called Mirror!Mirror!: BBC, The Fly, artrocker. Easily passes WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC therefore.--Michig (talk) 18:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 27 April 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) 00:02, 3 May 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

T. Edward Damer

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

It's not clear to me how he qualifies per WP:PROF. The article is mostly a duplication of the information about his text book, which has its own article. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although his textbook is at 6th ed, that in itself doesn't mean much if you know how Cengage works; it's common to even have text books in double digits edition number there. I note that Damer is not mentioned in the SEP entry on fallacies/informal logic, so his textbook doesn't seem particularly notable. I also didn't encounter his name while reading a few other research-type books on fallacies, which are listed at Fallacy#Further reading. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on his home page, which I've added to the article, he seems to have received a number of teaching awards, and to have held a number of administrative positions. I'm not sure that puts him over the WP:PROF bar. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google shows that his book is widely used as a college textbook. I think that may be enough for WP:PROF#C4, and while the teaching awards probably aren't enough on their own they save this from being a case of WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I only get some 3 pages of google hits there. You'd expect a textbook to have some market share, or else it would not have more than one edition. I don't think this is sufficient for a biography here; I don't see that as "significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions." By your standard most programming books on a popular language like Python or Java, which publish more than one edition, entitle the authors to Wikipdia biography. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I should point out that informal logic, which what his textbook is about/for, is the most popular philosophy topic for undergraduates in North America to take a class in (according to one of the researchers in the area, see article for ref). There are at least three other textbooks from Cengage alone that compete here, and two of them are historically noted (see the history section at informal logic):
- Nancy Cavender; Howard Kahane (2009). Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric: The Use of Reason in Everyday Life (11th ed.). Cengage Learning. ISBN 9780495804116.
- Walter Sinnott-Armstrong; Robert Fogelin (2010), Understanding Arguments: An Introduction to Informal Logic (8th ed.), Belmont, California: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, ISBN 978-0-495-60395-5
- Trudy Govier (2009). A Practical Study of Argument (7th ed.). Cengage Learning. ISBN 9780495603405.

-- I've linked the notable authors. Kahane is not notable for much else besides his textbook [19], but the other two are noted for their other writings (as well). Damer doesn't seem to rise to same level of notability either way just yet. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:55, 28 April 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) 00:01, 3 May 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. (non-admin closure) Baseball Watcher 00:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Elfman

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

No improvement or evidence of notability added since surviving first AfD nearly six years ago. » Swpb^{τ • ¢} 21:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Minor author; verified two X-Files books, not comparable to Kevin J. Anderson. Can you link the previous AfD? Dru of Id (talk) 23:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, previous AfD is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Elfman. » Swpb^{τ • ¢} 00:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He's better known for his young reader books, especially The Almanac of the Gross and Almanac of Alien Encounters which have received coverage and recommendations in reliable sources (mainly obstructed by pay walls, but the Google results show some of this coverage).[20][21][22] [23] Great L.A. Times quote: "This book is literally so revolting that I couldn't bear to look at it for more than a minute at a time. Kids should adore it."[24]--Arxiloxos (talk) 04:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Appears to meet WP:AUTHOR, more definitively meets WP:CREATIVE (in the gross books for children mega-category); sources are available and I'll see if I can get his bibliography completed, and work in the review above. Dru of Id (talk) 22:52, 27 April 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) 00:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Noted sci fi author.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:JUSTAVOTE. note to closing admin, this is part of a spree of 7 keep votes in 7 minutes by this user. LibStar (talk) 11:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And how do you know that I didnt read trough all these article before making my judgement. For this one for example it is a clear cut keep case. Libstar, relax. Please.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete don't see how he meets WP:AUTHOR or WP:BIO. a mere 3 gnews hits. don't see the significant peer recognition for him as an individual required for WP:AUTHOR. LibStar (talk) 12:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even a "mere 3 Gnews hits" is still 3 hits. Gnews as I have told you before in my opinion doesnt equal notable or non-notable. I find Gnews tool to be unpredictable etc etc.. Anyway meets WP:AUTHOR.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

well I'd like to know where you find reliable sources from, if you bother to search at all. I find vague blind voting to be quite unpredictable etc etc. LibStar (talk) 13:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets multiple different subsects of criteria, in addition to the sources mentioned above. -- Cirt (talk) 06:40, 10 May 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.