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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Ferns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The article is a BLP (and, perhaps, a vanity piece) on a student filmmaker. It is lacking in reliable sources, and I am not finding anything on Google to help it meet notability requirements as per WP:BIO. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 23:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Google may not bring reliable sources yet the artical its self features reliable links and I shall edit it to contain a newspaper clipping on the subject of michale and his films --Whenigrowup999 (talk) 23:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Added Newspaper clipping and BAFTA websites award winners list and aceptance speach video , all for notibilty . --Whenigrowup999 (talk) 23:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Being a BAFTA Award winner meets WP:ANYBIO.[1] However, the very new article sent to AFD only 4 minutes after its creation[2] will need further sourcing and cleanup for style... but such would seem do-able through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep: I'm quite interested in hearing what was the bloody rush to nominate this article for deletion? BAFTA awards are highly notable, and the mere assertion of one should have been enough to provoke some research. With an article nominated moments after creation, it doesn't seem as if such research was attempted. Meanwhile, the creator kept on improving the article, and I can only hope his reception as a newcomer to Wikipedia didn't turn him off.  Ravenswing  17:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I made a special point to give him the "Welcome message" that no one else had.[3] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Yep, I saw that, good on you.  Ravenswing  21:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Per RGT.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per RGT. Hopefully this rush to nominate didn't scare away a new editor. Probably one of my biggest pet peeves is when people rush to delete an article that could easily be notable. -DJSasso (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If you read his biography carefully, he is not a BAFTA Award winner -- he is the winner of the BAFTA Scotland New Talent Award, which I assume is the Scottish equivalent of the Student Academy Award. I am unaware that Wikipedia is extending notability to student filmmakers, especially those that appear to be writing vanity articles. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 00:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Something of a "When did you stop beating your wife?" statement, isn't it? We are, in point of fact, choosing to believe someone honored by BAFTA to be notable. That the subject is young, or that you speculate that he is the creator of the article, isn't particularly relevant to WP:ENTERTAINER or the GNG.  Ravenswing  04:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (A7) by Jimfbleak. Non-admin closure --Pgallert (talk) 07:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth McCarthy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Biography of an actress whose listed roles appear to have been non-notable (generally un-named, uncredited and/or in a non-notable production). No significant coverage in reliable sources found, as required for a biography of a living person. I42 (talk) 22:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No significant roles. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The actress has had only minor roles and lacks coverage. WP:TOOSOON. BUT if article author, new User:Lizflicks is not a single purpose account and not Elizabeth McCarthy, I might suggest he/she request userfication for work out of mainspace while he/she goes through the 500+ misc g-hits to find if any of them might act as sources to meet WP:GNG. The common-ness of the name will not make the work easy, but could be good practice for a newcomer. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete; A7 or G11, as this seems to be both non notable and an autobiography. WuhWuzDat 04:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Maybe salt.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (G5), article created by a banned user in violation of ban. –MuZemike 04:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apple hat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I could not find significant coverage for this type of pastry. A few recipes or mentions, but very little overall. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I couldn't find anything for an encyclopaedia article, either. I found Deacon Porter's Hat (which is best treated as a subtopic of Mount Holyoke College#Traditions I suspect), but nothing on this. Uncle G (talk) 12:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:N as it lacks 3rd-party, verifiable sources other than a few cookbooks. No news articles or significant book mentions could be found (except for the cookbooks). Geoff ^{Who, me?} 22:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 15:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC) The inappropriate comment of "The Bushranger" is insulting 60 internationally highly respected scientists! The article was never meant to describe an accomplished fact of science but the discussion process towards a model that in fact combines unambiguously quantum physics with the theory of relativity. This discussion process will be never finished, as humans will never understand the reason why anything exists at all. However, the discussion has now reached a point that it is worth to share the current results in public. To explain to me that Wikipedia may be only the right place to integrate these scientific findings after they have been spread across all other media on a global scale could have been said in a polite way, without calling the recognized competence of all listed renowned scientist that are in fact all involved in the ongoing discussion into question. Many thanks to all other valuable comments to help us to decide about the right moment to publish in Wikipedia. Until this moment please pay in Wikipedia attention to the fact that "Rotational symmetry of quantized space-time" and "Escape of time" is protected by copyright. Thanks again, Henryk --Frystacki (talk) 12:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rotational symmetry of quantized space-time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Gibberish essay.TimothyRias (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:OR and WP:SYN None of the sources deal with the subject in any sense. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 22:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:OR and WP:COPYVIO of [4]. --Kkmurray (talk) 02:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:OR, WP:NOTESSAY - and probably fails WP:CSD criteion G3. If there was a theory that"unifies quantum physics and the special theory of relativity and general theory of relativity," this would be the lead article in every science journal, and possibly even HUGE TYPE on the front of the New York Times as the greatest scientific achievement of the millenia (or perhaps ever). Presenting this theory here as an accomplished fact of science is a blatant hoax. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 02:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete on the basis of verifiability at least. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete, original research. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 13:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - original research filled with wild speculation. Bearian (talk) 22:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. On second glance of the article and the source from which it is cribbed, this is complete nonsense to me. Bearian (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no reliable secondary sources on the discussed subject itself, as needed for such a subject (WP:PSTS). -- Crowsnest (talk) 12:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I note that this article contained a list of many eminent physicists under the heading "group of involved experts", so I await with interest a reply to this email that I just sent to the originator of this theory/hypothesis/conjecture/model/whatever:

Dr Frystacki, I note that clicking on "Participants" on your web site brings up a list of eminent scientists under the heading "Invitation / Participation in scientific discussions". Have any of these have actually accepted an invitation to participate in discussion of your hypotheses?

Phil Bridger (talk) 01:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to World War III in popular culture. Redirect created, all the content is still available for a merge. Tone 15:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

World War III (science fiction) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article has a number of arguably irresolvable problems: 1. It reads like a personal essay, with little or no objective content, and heavy reliance on primary sources. 2. It is highly partial in its coverage, and only has a vague grasp of its subject matter. For instance, it seems to equate a "World War" with a "War of the Worlds", which is not the same. 3. Any valid information this article contains would be better placed in World War III in popular culture. Serendi^podous 16:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect to World War III in popular culture per nomSadads (talk) 23:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect per nom. As it stands, it does seem much more like an essay than an encyclopedic article, and suffers from OR, NPOV, and selection bias. bahamut0013^words_deeds 00:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect any valid, referenced info.ArchieOof (talk) 20:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect as indiscriminate and lacking third-party sources to verify notability. Unresolvable amounts of WP:OR as people try to argue about what fictional wars qualify as a third one, and which do not... with no third-party sources in existence to back either point of view. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with World War III in popular culture where content is appropriate and reliably sourced. It reads to me like the creating editor simply needs a little guidance on the encyclopaedic purpose of Wikipaedia. Uncensored Kiwi ^Kiss 10:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 15:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jackfoot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is an original research essay about a self-invented term for an unrecognized and unattested musical "genre" (which retroactively reclaims decades-old songs from other genres as being part of it), not a real encyclopedia article about a real musical genre that's actually recognized as such by real sources. I would simply delete it as a hoax, but there's already been a prod attempt which the creator (whose username is User:Jackfoot, raising the possibility of WP:COI here, too) circumvented by way of WP:OTRS instead of through normal prod procedures. It's still a pretty clear and unequivocal delete, however. Bearcat (talk) 20:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no reliable, secondary sources at all that I can find. --j⚛e decker^talk 22:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt: given the COI and other shenanigans. I'm certainly happy to cite it as failing WP:HOAX as well as WP:NOR and WP:BULLSHIT. It's bad enough that every wannabe music blogger and garage band is claiming to have invented A New Musical Genre Which Captures Their Unique Sound.  Ravenswing  17:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 15:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitrios Kavadas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

• Delete. Subject is not basically notable. A priest. Not a bishop or anything. Not a theologian nor scholar. An honorable person with lots of religious service, just not notable. Student7 (talk) 20:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC) Student7 (talk) 20:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• DoNotDelete Subjct is indeed Notable, was above a Priest. Was a Protopresbyter and he was a scholar also.Sublect was March of DIMES MAN OF THE YEAR, AND HONORED BY THE U.S. CONGRESS,IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phanariote (talk • contribs) 20:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC) — Phanariote (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• http://www.orthodoxnews.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=usnews.one&content_id=15869&CFID=72092943&CFTOKEN=53644936&tp_preview=true —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phanariote (talk • contribs) 21:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• http://www.chiosbroadwireless.gr/dromoi.asp?letter=%CA In Greek road names with Stefanos Kavadas road —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phanariote (talk • contribs) 21:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• 'http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OrthodoxNews/message/1469'(Phanariote (talk) 21:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]
• 'http://www.marchofdimes.com/michigan/5237_16527.asp'(Phanariote (talk) 21:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]
• 'http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?r108:@BAND(@OD3+(Mr+Levin)+@OR(@FIELD(FLD003+h)+@FIELD(FLD003+e)))'(Phanariote (talk) 21:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]
• 'http://www.theologic.com/oflweb/inchurch/attend1.htm'(Phanariote (talk) 21:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]
• 'http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2003-09-23/pdf/CREC-2003-09-23-extensions.pdf'(Phanariote (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I'm unpersuaded by Phanariote's links, three of which are broken, one of which is in Greek, one which is a rather bland obituary posted to a website, one which is a forum post. The particular Congressional Record page cited in the remaining link also honors the Royal Oak Lions Club, the Switalski Family, the chancellor of a local community college, "Hoot" MacInerney and the Central Macomb County Chamber of Commerce, among other no-doubt-sterling citizens and institutions that fail of notability per WP:ORG or WP:BIO. A glance at the remarks concerning the subject reveal that the "Alexander Macomb Citizens of the Year" award is in fact the man-of-the-year award that the local Detroit March of Dimes chapter gives out.  Ravenswing  18:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - although the awards and recognition indicate he was a fine person, they do not represent the level that would be needed to establish notability without additional significant coverage in independent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW. This is not a wikipedia article and it's unlikely that it could be turned into one. It's possible that an NPOV article could be written on the subject but that would be an entirely different article. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gender stereotypes in Television Commercials (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is an essay structured and written to present an argument, not a WP:NPOV encyclopedia article. Previously prodded, but creator removed the prod notice without providing a rationale or improving the article to any significant degree. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Essay gets 2/10. An article may be possible with this title and scope but this ain't it. Delete. pablo 23:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Very poorly written, but it can be improved to match wikipedia standards, although it would still remain irrelevant. --Ultrablastic123 (talk) 23:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC) - User was just blocked for being a sock puppet. Mathewignash (talk) 10:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, obvious violation of WP:NOTESSAY. There needs to be a "A11 - Blatantly an essay" WP:CSD criterion. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 02:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I put the prod 2 on it, and haven't changed my mind. "The purpose of this work is to study gender stereotypes in advertising" says ESSAY in capitals. If it were an overview of other researches into the subject (all referenced neatly), there might be a case. This appears to be a direct study of a limited range of confectionery. (I was puzzled at first by the inclusion of Alpen Gold, as in the UK Alpen is a Weetabix muesli type cereal product. Alpen Gold is a Kraft chocolate product and a high seller in Russia, whence it would seem this article originates.) Peridon (talk) 11:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete poorly written essay page. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 13:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd give it a B+ as an essay, and then delete it. Bearian (talk) 23:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, OR/essay. Roscelese (talk) 05:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One of the best-written and researched pieces I have read on the internets. My only concern is that this article appears to be a word-for-word duplicate of an article I read last month in "Foreign Affairs," or was it the "Atlantic Monthly"? Tonyeason (talk) 13:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)This user is a sockpuppet of User:Wiki brah[reply]

The above user has only edited one other article and that one is rather unexpected for a new account. Peridon (talk) 19:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC) [reply]

• Delete. Essay. Not well-written. Tonyeason needs more variety in their reading habits if they think this is good. Drmies (talk) 13:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, do we have a WP:SNOWBALL yet? WuhWuzDat 18:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing but original research. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, slam-dunk unencyclopedic essay. Daniel Case (talk) 03:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 15:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Crosland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails to meet WP:CREATIVE. I made some search and could find a few local exhibitions [5] or [6], but no press coverage nor any evidence of the artist being represented in museums. Anneyh (talk) 20:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: His general notability, both as an artist and former musician, is very doubtful. Actually, the same seems to apply to his band, Le Neon. Derek R Bullamore (talk) 20:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Spam with no real notability shown. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 17:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 15:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

King Par (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article has lacked any references since 2007, and has received less than 25 edits in its entire history to date. A first AFD in 2009 was closed as no consensus, with one editor claiming there were sources but failing to add them. Steven Walling 19:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not notable. Coverage is limited to press releases, adverts and incidental coverage. There seems to be none in which the store is the subject of the coverage, as required by GNG, and there is no reason to suspect that any exists. _wjemather^bigissue 22:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per above. Reading over that previous AfD disappointed me. Of the three Keep proponents, one based his opposition on what apparently was a string of attacks on the nom's AfDs, one opined that sources existed without proffering any, while the third blatantly admitted that the sources he found were not about the subject, but about people affiliated with the subject. What I want to see are - as the GNG requires - multiple, reliable sources which discuss the subject in "significant detail." It is explicitly, per deletion policy, not the duty of Delete proponents to prove that such sources do not exist, but the duty of Keep proponents to prove that they do. Not surmise, not speculate, not extrapolate: prove.  Ravenswing  18:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the "sources" provided in the first AFD do not establish that the subject actually passes WP:GNG. I grew up near this store and it was generally known by local golfers but by no means a major landmark and the subject fails WP:CORP as well. -Drdisque (talk) 05:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 15:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Basset by MYC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not notable due to insufficient coverage in reliable sources. Evil saltine (talk) 18:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom jsfouche ☽☾Talk 18:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or possibly have some sort of redirect to National Theatre Connections#2011. Wikipedia is not a blog for work-in-progress productions, be it youth theatre of large-scale professional productions. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 15:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Morning Parade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

They may make it one day, but as of yet they do not come close to matching the requirements at WP:BAND Nuttah (talk) 17:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I have added several references that prove coverage in reliable, independent sources. They have also been played on national radio stations, including being on the playlist on XFM. - mspete93 20:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep They may 'make it one day'? They've already made it. RADIO ONE COVERAGE!30,000 hits on Youtube! About to start a headline tour! Played at several major festivals last summer!

  Morning Parade have been together for two years now. They have many popular songs including Marble Attic and A&E which have received lots of praise from sites such as Gigwise. They have also released their debut single 'Under the Stars' which has got air time of major British radio stations, including BBC Radio 1. This clearly shows that they have indeed 'made it'. Their eagerly awaited album is due to be released shortly.

  Furthermore, they have played at many major festivals, including Latitude, Newquay and Underage. The Maccabees have also played at these festivals. Would you propose the deletion of The Maccabees page?

  Finally the sources provided by mspete are very reliable and clearly show that Morning Parade are a notable band.Fryertuk (talk) 14:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC) — Fryertuk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep. Coverage is easily enough for notability.--Michig (talk) 17:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- Firstly, as other people have already said, there is sufficient evidence here to show that they are notable. Secondly, Wikipedia is supposed to be a free source of information that anyone can add to and share on in order to learn new things. Seeing as Morning Parade are a real and now reasonably established band, doesn't it contradict the point of Wikipedia to delete their page? Hujfuj (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC) — Hujfuj (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep- The idea that this page should be deleted is laughable. I turned on Absolute Radio and guess who should be playing- the very band in question!They were played by Geoff Lloyd who even said that they ahd been played on the station many times before. Clearly a significant band. Oppqu (talk) 19:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC) — Oppqu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Currently the only in depth coverage in a reliable source is the MTV interview, other than that it is gig listings and blogs (or the BBC reference that does not mention the band). I'm still not seeing the coverage WP:GNG or WP:BAND expects. Nuttah (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep- I believe that this article on Morning Parade should not be deleted. Firstly Wikipedia isn't just about producing pages for the well known acts/people that everyone has heard of, its about letting everyone know and learn about new acts, such as Morning parade. This page deserves to stay on the internet for all to see. They have been praised for their achievements on the likes of the BBC/MTV, and have played at many well known British festivals. If Morning Parade shouldn't be allowed to have an article about them, then who can?

I understand that this page is simple and not yet finished, but soon it will have more references and be written in more depth. Morning Parade is a popular band by many and deserve to stay on Wikipedia. I see no reason why it should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oppqu (talk • contribs) 19:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Coverage reflects notability.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 15:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

António Roseiro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Perhaps I'm not looking in the right places, but I can't find reliable sources to verify this unreferenced biography. I'd expect someone with this number of awards and academic positions to leave some kind of web trace, so I'm surprised I'm drawing a blank. If anyone can do better than I did, I'll happily withdraw the nomination. Fences&Windows 17:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 17:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 17:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 17:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• This same person have been deleted in native language. No reliable sources also in Portuguese and no notability references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.240.10.10 (talk) 01:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. After a bit of googlesearching, I also could not verify any of the info in the article and could not find any other sources that would indicate notability. I don't know if this is a hoax, but in any event fails WP:V, not to mention WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 07:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I found some interesting reading in an attempt to track down exactly who is behind the supposed University Pro-Deo that gave him a supposed honorary doctorate. The University of Coimbra, certainly, is a respected and legitimate institution, but granting him a doctorate in dentistry (if it can be documented that they did) is not exactly a signifier of notability. Fails WP:V and WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 15:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Arrow Post (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Delete A paper written by school students. Very probably a commendable enterprise and probably deserving every success, but unfortunately there is no reason to think that it is notable enough to warrant an article in an encyclopaedia. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Elementary school newspaper, has no implicit notability, and no sources to attest to any specific notability. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable...the school doesn't even have a page. CTJF83 chat 18:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agreed with above. If this one is allowed than why not the thousands of other non-notable school newsletters? --BurtAlert (talk) 18:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this school newspaper isn't very notable. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 13:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not appear to meet the general notability guidelines required for inclusion as a standalone article. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 01:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 15:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2013 MLS SuperDraft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Per WP:CRYSTAL Not notable yet JDDJS (talk) 16:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Crystal CTJF83 chat 18:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now, as there is just not enough information for the article available yet. Consider recreation when at least half a dozen of trades and/or the location of the draft are known. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 11:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In the meantime, why not collect any trades which are not listed in any articles yet within one's userspace? In order to save time, the respective references for the trades should also be stored. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 11:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the world's meant to end in 2012, so there probably won't be a 21013 MLS! But seriously, violates WP:CRYSTAL. GiantSnowman 14:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL. This event is too far into the future to merit an article yet. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by User:HJ Mitchell. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Smith (footballer born 1983) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article's subject is a footballer who has never played in a fully-professional league, thus failing WP:NSPORT#Association football, and not enough media coverage to pass the general notability guideline. Prod removed without explanation. Struway2 (talk) 16:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Struway2 (talk) 16:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 16:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 22:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Henri Anier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contested PROD. No reason given for contesting. Concern was "Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league." Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for similar reasons. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stanislav Pedõk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nikolai Mašitšev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Joonas Tamm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Rait Hansen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Roland Kütt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all fail WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 16:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep some - Pedõk was called up to Estonia national team. Hansen and Kütt are members of Saaremaa national/official football team. Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pedõk was called up to the team, but did not play which is the requirement for notability. Appearances Saaremaa, as a non-FIFA team, do not confer notability either. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably they are deleted anyway, it doesn't matter what I say. Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Sorry, but the burden of proof is on your side and I would like to see some actual evidence that Virsliga was not a fully-pro league in 2009. BanRay 23:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is a necessary criteria for inclusion, which means it must be established for an article to be created, or kept, not disproven to be deleted. That being said, I'm going to assume you mean the Meistriliiga, since none of these players have played in the Virsliga. Meistriliiga is clearly listed with a source as a top league that is not fully professional at WP:FPL. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No, I meant exactly what I said, so please take another look. Mind you, this is not the first time you are nomminating an article without making any prior research. I don't want to come across as being rude, but if someone took time to create this content, then sure we could expect you to do some research before nominating it for deletion, especially if you happen to go beyond your area of expertise, as it clearly happened in this case. BanRay 10:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused, which of these players have played in the Virsliga? As far as I can tell, the only other league that any of these players have been part of is the A Lyga, which is also considered non-notable. From what I can see the nominator hasn't done anything wrong, but I'd be happy for you to prove otherwise. J Mo 101 (talk) 14:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@BanRay: I fail to see how any of what you said is of any relevance to this AfD. As stated before, none of these players played in the Virsliga, making its professionality status completely irrelevant. As for the research that goes into the creation of articles, there are plenty of people who create articles in good faith, but are simply unaware of the notability criteria. I did that myself, when I first started editing. With all due respect, none of what you have said justifies a keep vote. If you can provide clear sources that indicate that any or all of these players are notable I'm more than willing to withdraw the appropriate nominations. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, my bad, I was obviously thinking about A Lyga, nonetheless, my point stands. Even more so, A Lyga was a pro league until 2008, at least, as far as I know. I'm not sure about 2009 and 2010 though. It should have never been included in WP:FPL in the first place. The current source only says that the league regulations allow registration of semi-pro footballers and says nothing about the current status of the league. But then this brings us right back to the beginning. Which criteria does the league need to fulfill, in order to be deemed fully professional? Many leagues do not allow registering semi pro players. The link that currently justifies the inclusion of League 2 as a fully professional league, actually suggests that it also allows registering semi professional players, moreover, it even proves that the league had at least one semi professional player in 2008. Should this mean that League 2 and, possibly, League 1 are not fully professional (at elast according to WP:FOOTY? I'd appreciate some feedback. Thanks. BanRay 19:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest you take this up at WT:FOOTY. Since most of this has little direct impact on this AfD, this isn't entirely the right forum for discussing it. As for the professionality status of A Lyga, do you have a source to support your claim? As you said it is listed on FPL, but the source for it is a dead link. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I you are not sure, then there should be no question. Keep the article. Pelmeen10 (talk) 20:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be missing the point that notability is necessary. Unless you, or someone else, can demonstrate using reliable sources that these players do meet WP:GNG or WP:ATHLETE, we must assume that they don't. This is called verifiability and is one of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry Sputnik, but you are the one missing the point here. WP:V says nothing about notability. The player's playing record is perfectly verifiable. The only question here is whether this record justifies player's inclusion or not. As long as there is no reliable source that would clarify the professional status of A Lyga, there is no way this article can be deleted under the rationale you provided. So far you have done very little to support your claim. BanRay 20:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, let me make it explicitly clear that this entire discussion is relevant only to Nikolai Mašitšev, since he is the only one these players to have played in the A Lyga. You (BanRay) probably know that, but it didn't seem sufficiently clear to the outside reader for my liking. Second, WP:V may not say anything about notability, but WP:N does mention verifiability. It says "Notability requires verifiable evidence". I cannot verify that Nikolai Mašitšev meets WP:ATHLETE, because I cannot verify that the A Lyga is fully-pro. Since notability requires verifiable evidence and there is none, or at least none yet, he is non-notable. As for the rest of them, they have only played in Estonia. The semi-pro status of the the Meistriiliga has been verified per sources at WP:FPL, meaning they all fail WP:ATHLETE. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Flora is apparently in the UEFA Chapions League Second Qualifying Round for 11–12. Would this be enough to make them notable then? Now? - Wmcduff (talk) 18:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. The qualifying rounds of the early qualifying rounds of UEFA club compettions generally don't confer notability precisely because of the presence of teams from semi-pro leagues. Besides this is a future competition and speculation is never grounds for notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete All: Flora and Levadia are 8 and 7 time champions respectively of and 18 year old league which is the top Estonian one, and while neither have made the Group Stages of the Europa League or Champions League, both have been in qualifying multiple times. They may not meet WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, but if not, they're getting awfully close, I think. However, this is a can of worms to open up at WP:NFOOTY's talk page, not here. - Wmcduff (talk) 19:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete none of the articles show they meet the WP:GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 19:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nom (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 19:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert E. Jackson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unreferenced BLP, declined speedy, I believe the subject is non-notable as a politician, having served two terms as mayor in a small town in florida. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep he has been a politician for 32 years, to me that meets GNG....a WP:BLPPROD would be good though. CTJF83 chat 18:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, article is not suitable for BLPPROD since it was written prior to march of 2010. Length of service does not appear to be a criterion at WP:POLITICIAN or GNG. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Meets significant coverage CTJF83 chat 18:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Plus I think it meets number 2 on WP:POLITICIAN CTJF83 chat 18:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn, fair enough. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 15:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Abdel Haye Kira (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A search for references found no published (gBooks) references for this subject, fails WP:N and WP:V. Prod removed with comment "rm prod. i suspect sources can be found with alternative spellings, so afd might be more useful". Article is about one of the most wanted underground fighters during the British occupation of Egypt Jeepday (talk) 14:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Also unable to find any sources, odd for such a notorious fellow.Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - given that no reliable sources can be found to verify the content in the article. Anotherclown (talk) 08:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because it lacks reliable sources. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 13:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources as set out in the WP:GNG. Happy to change my opinion if appropriate sources can be found. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice per AR: just no evidence of notability (yet). bahamut0013^words_deeds 00:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 15:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Per Wikipedia:Notability (books), article has not established notability - only 1 primary source. Pervious delete debate Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith had no consensus. Since then, no significant changes to article, no reliable secondary sources added.     Eclipsed   (talk)   (code of ethics)     14:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Notability not established. Basileias (talk) 04:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No secondary sources; wikipedia is being used here as a promotional tool for the book.ArchieOof (talk) 21:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Looks promotional. Looks to be a self-published book (listed at our old friend lulu dot com). No attempt to show notability - which is harder to do with self-publication anyway. His books are listed at Rob Bell - probably that's all that's needed for them. Peridon (talk) 22:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The consensus is to keep, especially as the nominator withdrew their nomination -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hertford Cricket Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Amateur cricket club which appears to fail Wikipedia:CRIN#CRIN. Note this is apparently not the same club as Hertfordshire County Cricket Club -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as no notability asserted; will be blocking author for username violation. Daniel Case (talk) 14:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It should meet Wikipedia:CRIN#CRIN as they are in one of the ECB Premier Leagues (the Home Counties Premier Cricket League) having been promoted there at the end of last season and should therefore now be listed on List of English cricket clubs.--Pontificalibus (talk) 15:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Amateur club with no particular notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Here's what has happened so far. A person has come to Wikipedia to create an article on a topic close to their heart. The article is not terribly spammy, is definitely not a CSD candidate and is at least sourced, even if the source is not ideal. Our response to this as a project is to immediately nominate the article for deletion and as a double whammy, block the creator on a technical (and esoteric to the newbie editor) breach of the username policy - preventing him/her from contributing to the AfD or fixing the article! The editor proposes a new name and even though it meets WP:UNAME, we decline to accept it in good faith and so allow the editor to contribute to discussion here. What a welcome to the project for a new editor! The subject may indeed be non-notable (If it does play in the Home Counties Premier Cricket League however, it would meet WP:CRIN) but does anyone actually think what has happened here is a good outcome? -- Mattinbgn (talk) 01:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I disagree with the way the user's block has been handled, I don't think it can be regarded as inappropriate for someone unfamiliar with cricket to have started this AfD. The article was unsourced when nominated and technically does not meet WP:CRIN as Hertford has not been added to List of English cricket clubs yet as the ECB have not updated their website with the league entrants for next season. --Pontificalibus (talk) 23:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify, I don't think anyone has acted in bad faith. Everyone has acted in accordance with policy. It is just unfortunate that no one seemed to give any consideration to how this all looks from the new editor's point of view. My criticism is more of the process than the editors here. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 02:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator, I may well have misread this - but it did look to me as if a purely recreational club was creating an article about itself. I do regret the way circumstances have come together to result in an overall response that does appear a bit bitey. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Hertford Cricket Club meets WP:CRIN criteria as it is an ECB Premier League club. This therefore makes it a notable recreational club within the remit of WP:CRIC. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I completely agree with Mattinbgn on the conduct in which this AfD has been carried out. I would say it is not in good faith and certainly the opposite of WP:DONTBITE. To block a newbie editor on a technicality for which it is obvious they would not be aware really doesn't show this project in good faith. The whole conduct in which this has been carried out seems in bad faith: nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Associate Affiliate. The assertion by the nominator here is clearly false as, the club does meet WP:CRIN by playing in one of the ECB Premier Leagues in this case the Home Counties Premier Cricket League. It appears that good faith has not really been shown here, over what, in reality, amounts to a very inconsequential article in the grands scheme of things.—User:MDCollins (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't find this club mentioned on the Home Counties League website although my unfamiliarity with the structure of English cricket means I may be looking in the wrong spot. That is why I haven't given my opinion as "keep" just yet. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 02:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I think they have been promoted to compete in the 2011 season. The League site hasn't been updated yet.—User:MDCollins (talk) 11:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• When I nominated the article (and I have to say I'm somewhat disappointed to be accused of bad faith, especially after the 27,000+ contributions I've made to this project), I could not find evidence to support notability under WP:CRIN - and the article itself provided none at the time. As a source has now been added, I shall change my position to "Keep/Withdraw". -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Another comment Whilst I largely agree with the 'keep' comments so far, I haven't thrown my hat into the ring yet as I haven't been able to find significant coverage in any sources. Does anyone have further sources to add? Meeting WP:CRIN in the absence of any significant coverage in secondary sources might not be sufficient. --Pontificalibus (talk) 23:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Aaroncrick ^TALK 09:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/Withdraw, now that a source has been added to attest to notability (Only a self-published source exists so far - I can still see no third party confirmation - but I think it's probably reliable enough to keep the article). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Boing! said Zebedee, I think the issue here is more of the treatment of the newbie, who has been blocked for a technicality they would not be aware of, when they provided an alternative name this was ignored and ban upheld. I CSD and AfD things, which is to be expected of the project in regards to notability, that is not the issue. The manner in which the newbie appears to have been bashed is. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 18:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a fair point, and I think declining the unblock was a mistake (and I do feel quite bad about having started the whole thing). But I honestly think it's a combination of misjudgments (including mine) rather than bad faith on anyone's part. Best regards -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 22:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Sattar (Taliban commander) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. It is unclear that the two sources of the article talk about the same person and one source with little information on the individual is based on unreliable classified intelligence. IQinn (talk) 10:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - BLP violations including scuttlebut, rumor, gossip, hearsay, and allegations. Bearian (talk) 23:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 15:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Charlton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

One of those articles that you hate finding/love nominating for AFD. Tagged since April 2010 as spam and orphan, it has so few Ghits on the term "(David Charlton) hairdresser" (554) the result is that the wikipedia article is the main "claim to notability." Resultantly fails WP:BIO and WP:CORP. Would have gone speedy, but its been there for far too long Trident13 (talk) 10:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete NN person/salon...and clearly written by someone who works there "Although we are in the process of turning David’s Salon’s Inc. into a holding company", "Although each of the managers is ready and able to help out in any salon as needed", "Our accounting department", etc, etc. CTJF83 chat 18:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per CT. --MelanieN (talk) 01:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was to keep the article. I was impressed with the amount of work put into this article in a short time and closed as promised. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 21:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A. M. M. Naoshad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Poorly sourced BLP. Was PRODed, and quoted for unsourced BLP, and one source was added that does not answer WP:BIO or WP:POLITICIAN. A check myself did not reveal any more sources. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 10:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sorry but being a comfirmed Member of a national parliament instantly passes both WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BIO. They contribute to governing countries so are clearly notable. But you are correct in that they need multiple sources. For some reason though google is not finding much at all on this chap, maybe somebody could find his name in the native Sinhala language?. I am certain he had a government profile like Parliament profile this when he represented parliament in Sri Lanka for the 13th term but as it is now the 14th I suspect this is the reason why that link is now dead on my PC, that its no longer accessible, unless sombody else can access it. It seems that Naoshad is an incorrect spelling, Naushad I think is correct. But for some reason its not picking up many hits I need to expand this.. I have managed to scrap together some info. I strongly suggest you now withdraw this nomination as in all honesty the chances of it being deleted is zilch...♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Obviously meets WP:POLITICIAN. Kudos to Dr. Blofeld on finding sources. Location (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - with the major expansion and improvement in sourcing since this AfD was started, I don't think there is any further doubt the article meets our requirements. I know AfD is not supposed to be for "cleanup", but in this case it has resulted in a much better article than we had before. Full disclosure: I took a look at this at the request of Wolfstorm000. LadyofShalott 20:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 15:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Parkinson's Doncaster Butterscotch Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Mostly a copyvio of www.doncasterbutterscotch.com/. Advertisement-like. No secondary sources, especially for the possibly controversial claim of the first use of certain word (butterscotch). Very few non-bot edits in three years. hydrox (talk) 10:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —hydrox (talk) 10:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete The original Parkinson's company would be worth an article, but this is not the original company, just a small 7yr old outfit using its name and its notability. Most of the article could be deleted anyway, as off-topic. (Incidentally, I think the claim about "butterscotch" first being used in Doncaster is correct, but can't supply a reference.) 17:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete without necessary prejudice to re-creation. Much of the text on the page is identical in substance to the text at http://www.doncasterbutterscotch.com/ and as such should be deleted as copyright violation. The remainder is unverified claims. I found nothing with news or books searches. If the 19th century firm is notable, and I'm open to being convinced that it is, it needs a different article than this. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The consensus is to keep; I note that the article has been moved to the correct title with a capital "O" for Oregon -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heart in oregon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

Per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day Winner 42 Talk to me! 17:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I found articles in The Oregonian and The Portland Upside that discuss this campaign in a fair amount of detail. It would be good to have some input from those familiar with Oregon newspapers as to whether the second is a reliable source. This is not a slam dunk delete. Cullen328 (talk) 18:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you share the articles? They aren't listed on the talk page nor in the article. tedder (talk) 20:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep The Oregonian article definitely seems have been published, but the archived version has succumbed to the usual O-vanish. We need a little more time to do digging, but the topic is most definitely a key part of modern Oregon cultural pride. It's become a symbol for the state. In other words, this was not just made up one day. Steven Walling 00:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to firm Keep after having seen the references added. Verifiably a part of the Oregon cultural firmament, not just a thing made up one day. Steven Walling 09:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not made up in a day, but I couldn't find any reliable sources discussing this other than the ones Steven Walling found. Searches for it were much more likely to turn up "Keep Portland Weird" as being notable- I found zero sites, other than those selling the stickers, that mention this. The two articles at the O (one that we can see, one that we can guess existed) are just a blip in time, the proverbial fluff piece. tedder (talk) 02:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Possible reference The Portland Upside, Stick to your dreams, Nicole Morales, January, 2010. This is a volunteer written newspaper, but seems to have professional editing. I am not sure if it should be considered a reliable source for Oregon news. Cullen328 (talk) 05:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I've added references from two newspaper blog posts by The Oregonian, as well as the reference mentioned just above, and another about a corn maze in the shape of the emblem. I've added other information and an external link. The Democratic Party in Oregon adopted the emblem in 2008. In my opinion, this just passes notability now. Cullen328 (talk) 06:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Request to closing administrator If the decision is to keep, please capitalize "Oregon" in the title. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 07:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Done already. Steven Walling 10:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 10:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Not sure that Local coverage (and its pretyy limited for somethin 'popular' really is that stroing. But it does appear to have recvied some coverage. More sources would be usefull..Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Has multiple RS, meets GNG. I can also personally attest that these stickers are relatively common (~0.2-1% penetration?) in the greater Portland area. Jclemens (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 15:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fltplan.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

Delete. Makes some claims of notability but still not sufficient to meet WP:WEB. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Apparently a website for pilots to create flight plans on. References are to Internet directories and trade publications. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a problem with listing trade publications? The^FSAviator • T 04:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep has a couple of hits on gnews. Some of these are in passing, but it suggests this could be notable. (I'm not sure if all flight trade publications are on gnews, if they aren't this could be more notable.) OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 19:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Article creator is a probable SPA: Mrswrite (talk · contribs) OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 19:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Appears to meet WP:N currently has secondary sources and gets good hit and a Google search. May require some re-write to meet WP:NPOV. Pol430 (talk) 17:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 09:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets WP:N as noted above. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 02:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Has been sourced and seems to be well-written. The^FSAviator • T 22:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. Concerns addressed, appears he did exist! Thanks Lugnuts Nancy ^talk 12:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Hale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Bio of a film actor. Something not quite right but can't confidently nail it as a complete hoax. List of awards is clearly fantasy and the dates for his parents don't stack up but some of the career stuff is plausible. Nancy ^talk 09:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment and keep The original text had the "hilarious" text of "Hale won over ten Academy Awards, over thirty Oscar Awards..." Over 10? So 11? If that was true, then his article would have been created years ago and every single person would know who Richard Hale is. I've removed all the unsourced and hoax parts, and cleaned up the rest. I believe this person is notable per WP:ENT and having 130+ credits to his name too. Good work on spotting this in the first place - I'll add it to my watchlist for future monitoring. Would also be a good idea to check the article on Max Ryan, created by the same user. Lugnuts (talk) 10:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. As per the suggestion given in this AfD, the article will be moved to S K Venkataranga Iyengar -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

S K Venkatrangiengar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

Unreferenced biography fails to meet WP:N guidelines, cited external links not reliable sources to establish notability in and of themselves, web searches turn up no notable articles about this person. Article is a longstanding orphan that has received little attention. ⌘macwhiz (talk) 22:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This seems to be the usual spelling of the subject's name in English: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete- If he was a member of Mysore's constituent assembly, he meets WP:POLITICIAN. But i am not able to find any sources for that (though it is likely). If i can find the sources, will change my vote.--Sodabottle (talk) 06:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's hard to find sources - I added a few minor ones to the article - but it's clear from Google and Google Books [7] that he was a very active lawyer and pled many prominent cases. There may even be a street named for him in Bangalore, but it's possible it was named for an ancestor. It's really hard to find reliable sources because of the timeframe in which he was active, but I think he was notable. If kept, the article should be renamed S K Venkataranga Iyengar as per Phil Bridger. Iyengar seems to be a common surname or clan name among the Hebbar Iyengars. --MelanieN (talk) 22:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 09:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that the page was recently moved from S K Venkatrangiengar to S. K. Venkatrangiengar. However, I still think the page should be moved again (if kept) to the name he was most commonly known by, namely S. K. Venkataranga Iyengar. --MelanieN (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment based on the weak previews available on Gbooks, he appears to be a notable lawyer, including entries in a couple of notable yearbooks (from the Times of India). However, I can't get sufficient content from the previews to add anything to show notability. He wasn't a member of the first assembly of the Mysore State, per this, he contested as an independent candidate but did not win the election. If kept, the article should be moved to S. K. Venkataranga Iyengar. —SpacemanSpiff 18:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 22:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aurore Mudiayi Bukassa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unreferenced biography (already around here for 5 years). I tried, but couldn't find any reliable third-party sources on the internet that would help to establish notability. The book this person wrote is not listed anywhere, so the article is about a non-notable author. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 08:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Difficult even to verify. Bearian (talk) 23:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Google search finds only social media and other self-referential sources - plus of course this article. --MelanieN (talk) 01:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Can't fine independent sources to verify or demonstrate the notability of this author. --j⚛e decker^talk 16:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matched betting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

No reliable sources can be found for this term. Don't redirect to betting exchange because they're not that strongly related. Maybe needs salting afterwards because it keeps being recreated. Christopher Connor (talk) 17:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy redirect to betting exchange per previous AfD result, and it would seem to be a more common usage of the term. Indef protection maybe required to prevent recreation, since temporary protection was obviously ineffective. _wjemather^bigissue 18:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to arbitrage betting. Concept seems to be covered there. _wjemather^bigissue 14:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would strongly object to the deletion of this article. Please do your research thoroughly first, before suggesting that there are no reliable sources for this term.

Matched betting is a well-known term which is commonly used in by professionals. There are reliable sources, including:

The Guardian, a UK National Newspaper http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2010/jun/05/free-world-cup-bets-bookmakers http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2010/jul/24/free-bets-bookies

MoneySavingExpert.com, the most popular personal finance website in the UK http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=325861

Other sources which use this term include: http://www.money-for-nothing.info/2009/03/ive-discovered-matched-betting.html http://www.stoozing.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1207161554/150 http://www.freebetoffers.co.uk/online-betting/matched-betting.htm http://www.betgem.com/Matched_Betting.html http://www.beatbookie.net/betting-guides/risk-free-matched-betting-guide/ http://winningbetfair.com/matched-betting-the-safest-way-to-make-money-from-betting http://www.offthepost.info/2010/11/beat-the-bookies-with-matched-bets-and-freebets4all/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonyhamster (talk • contribs) 11:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only the Guardian sources qualify as reliable sources. The second of those though isn't so bad even if it is a bit spammy and simple. There isn't much there to construct an article without going into OR territory--like many of the gambling articles. It may well be used by people but the intricacies of betting isn't really well-covered by RS's and that is supposed to be reflected here. Less inclined to delete now though. Christopher Connor (talk) 13:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Christopher, the Guardian is a very reliable source. I wouldn't immediately knock Moneysavingexpert as it is a collective effort that requires individual judgement, like with all collaborative works or threads. It is worth noting that the term 'matched betting' is widely used amongst individuals - whether they are gamblers or not. Since there is no other term that is used for matched betting, and indeed nor does this significantly relate to anything else, I would strongly recommend that this is not deleted for benefit or reference to others. 20:31, 1 December 2010 (GMT)

Firstly, the forums on moneysavingexpert.com are in no way a reliable source. Secondly, the first line of the article states "also referred in the United States as double betting", so evidently there is another term for it. Thirdly, the term "matched betting" also refers to the way betting exchanges match backers to layers. Finally, while the concept is described almost entirely in forums, blogs and promotional websites, there is no way this will pass verifiability requirements on its own. One brief mention in The Guardian and an equally short follow-up article just isn't going to do it. _wjemather^bigissue 20:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This topic is already covered by the article with the more common name (at least in the UK), arbitrage betting. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was not aware of that article's existance. Perhaps an improved/expanded section and a redirect to there may be a better option. _wjemather^bigissue 20:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Response. Many thanks for your comment. I'm afraid I will have to disagree with you, as matched betting is strictly not arbitrage betting and must not be confused. The two are completely different methodologies. Matched betting in this context refers to taking advantage of free bookmaker offers, by qualifying for them and turning them into cash by hedging against any loss so that there is a guaranteed profit. It is based on the concept that you use a betting exchange to hedge losses and as the free bet is not your own money, you can make a profit.

• Arbitrage is the practice where individuals would take advantage of a price differential between two or more markets. By doing this, individuals can profit on the imbalance. It is a simple case of supply and demand - individuals identify a market which is prepared to pay a higher price for a utility (economics term) and identifies a market that offers that at a lower price. They then simply buy lower and sell high, making the percentage margin.

• Thus in arbitrage, the profit comes from the difference in margin. However in matched betting, the profit comes from turning the free bet into with-drawable cash by hedging any losses - so that if the bet at the bookmaker loses, the betting exchange pays out, and vice versa.

• If you look at the example given in the article, the mathematics and methodologies of matched betting is different to that of arbitrage. However, given this comment, I would suggest adding a line in noting that this should not be confused with arbitrage betting.

• Sorry, but what is described in this article is a form of arbing with the effective price in one of the markets involved being influenced by a free bet offer. It is described at Arbitrage betting#Bonus sports arbitrage. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, that's the section I was thinking about. Still desparately short of reliable sources though. _wjemather^bigissue 19:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  08:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Response. Although the description in [[Arbitrage betting#Bonus sports arbitrage] describes what is on this article, I would argue that it is incorrect. Arbitrage, as Wikipedia clearly states on its opening sentence, is "Betting arbitrage, miraclebets, surebets, sports arbitraging is a particular case of arbitrage on betting markets due to either bookmakers' different opinions on event outcomes or plain errors."

• However, free offer Matched betting, as described in this article, does not rely on bookmakers different opinions (quite the opposite in fact as it seeks consensus on similar odds - the closer, the better), nor does it rely on errors. Ergo Matched betting cannot be arbitrage of any kind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonyhamster (talk • contribs) 10:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Update. I would also like to bring to the attention of everyone contributing within this discussion, an article published today in the Daily Telegraph, which references 'Matched Betting' as a term used to describe this method of converting offers into cash. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/8185280/Is-this-a-bet-you-cant-lose.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonyhamster (talk • contribs) 10:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with the above comment. The article referenced is recent and from a credible source and it would appear that matched betting is clearly a commonly used term. Given the recent addition regarding 'industry reactions' which gives this contribution sufficient depth, I would suggest that this contribution is remains. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.42.98 (talk) 22:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That articledoes not go into depth (just a general overview), borders on being an advert for Carl Scott-Brown's website, and barely touches on industry reactions (a WilHill spokesperson intimates they couldn't care less). We are still no where near the significant coverage required by the general notability guideline. _wjemather^bigissue 20:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Whilst it's a general overview, it is one of the more informative pieces you will ever find within the mainstream media along with the Guardian piece. Also, it is not an advert for Scott-Brown's website, rather as it is an editorial piece about it. We should disregard references to the website and extract the research that the journalist has done - for example, the risks of matched betting, the fact that it is legal and that bookmakers don't have a problem with it. The user suggests 'a WilHil spokesperson intimates they couldn't care less', when the article clearly says 'the industry does not have a problem with [matched betting]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonyhamster (talk • contribs) 09:41, 10 December 2010

• Comment. Having done some more research, "matched betting" follows generally the same process as arbitrage betting with one difference – the use of free bets, which negates the requirement to find mis-matched odds. As such I further ensorse my !vote above and say again that this can be adequately covered in an expanded section in the arbitrage betting article. _wjemather^bigissue 20:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, please sign any comments appropriately. The reference arbitrage betting does not correspond with the definition on the page as "Betting arbitrage, miraclebets, surebets, sports arbitraging is a particular case of arbitrage on betting markets due to either bookmakers' different opinions on event outcomes or plain errors.". Whilst the existing reference can be developed, the size of the page would become significant and not cover the concept (with an example) in the depth it has here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonyhamster (talk • contribs) 09:41, 10 December 2010

• You're right, this article as it stands contains far too much instructional content. I have added the appropriate tag. _wjemather^bigissue 15:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your comment. I take your point and I will see how this could be edited, although the 'how to' content is merely an example to present the concept of matched betting as simple as possible. Any thoughts or comments would of course, be appreciated. Sonyhamster (talk) 22:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 22:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lines of equal latitude and longitude (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

User:Skookum1 is on record as considering this article to be sh*t, I dont, but as a courtesy to the the user I feel this should be opened up for discussion Crusoe8181 (talk) 07:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, the exact quote is No sources are provided as to why this is even a field of study that any reliable source gives a s**t about. (Crusoe8181 (talk) 08:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

Comment and Strong Delete I don't need you speaking for me, Crusoe8181. This article is a specious abstraction, geo-sophistry and nothing else, with cites only supporting factoids which string together the WP:SYNTH and WP:OR and WP:Undue weight nature of the piece; no actual cites of actual papers discussing this topic by any reputable/reliable academic sources. There's way too much weight placed on the contents as if they meant anything real and were somehow something more than the equation of (latlong) = -(latlong) and tracing a calculus equation on the earth's surface as if it were a topic for intellectual discussion. It's a fabrication, an abstraction, a petty notion given far too much weight and dressed up with fancy language. This is not an encyclopedic topic, it's a speculation/conjecturation only, and not a field of study (except, apparently, for you).Skookum1 (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as a "courtesy to the user" you should not have quoted him before he actually made his own appearance here, and shouldn't have quoted him in such a biased fashion. "Courtesy" is not speaking about someone until they've spoken themselves....Skookum1 (talk) 21:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Utterly trivial and (unsurprisingly) unreferenced. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Arbitrary and meaningless concept bordering on numerology, on which nothing has been written. EEng (talk) 23:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article is based on the structure of Category:Lines of latitude and Category:Lines of longitude articles e.g. 85th_meridian_west, the vast majority of which are unreferenced and do not need references as they are self-referencing via the coordinate links. That a Canadian professional geographer should choose to base his own article here on our article and describe the subject as two imaginary lines that are incredibly fascinating so shortly after the article was written would seem to be a powerful validation of notability and interest. It is heartening when our work is picked up so quickly by the wider professional community, when sometimes we feel that that our flowers may be doomed to bloom in darkness (Crusoe8181 (talk)).

A single eference to the article under consideration for deletion, against a background of no other references to the idea beyond those by the idea's originator, merely underscores the lack of attention outside Wikipedia -- as well as our responsibility to not become inadvertant vehicles for publicity for things which otherwise would go unnoticed. EEng (talk) 15:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Extremely unlikely, useless topic and, as one would expect, no reliable source or other claim to notability. Hans Adler 15:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• This line has no special properties (unlike, say, Rectangles of equal length and width) so it is unsurprising that the academic community are uninterested in it. We should be too. pablo 16:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Skookum. Kmusser (talk) 18:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The consensus is that this is not an arbitrary or trivial intersection -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of British Jewish entertainers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Per recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish American entertainers‎‎. If anything, this intersection is even less notable and more arbitrary than "Jewish American entertainers". Jayjg ^(talk) 07:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Pretty much for the same exact reasons stated in the AfD for List of Jewish American entertainers ...with one thing to add. The "British Jewish" connection seems much more synthesized than the "Jewish American" one. Jewish American is well-defined -- a distinct ethnic & cultural group that many consider themselves part of. British Jews appears to be drafted on a minimal amount of sources and a lot of OR - making the "entertainer" intersection even worse. Bulldog123 09:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator, please also note WP:LISTCRUFT. IZAK (talk) 09:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the result of the recent AfD for American Jewish entertainers, and per WP:NOTDIR as a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. SnottyWong ^verbalize 14:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as non-trivial intersection per here, here, here, and here, among many others. (I'm aware of the Jewish-American entertainers AfD, I didn't comment in that because of self-imposed abstinence over the canvassing issue, and if it's relevant to anyone I believe that was wrongly decided, on the basis that there a huge number of books covering the topic of Jewish-American entertainers in detail - for Heaven's sake, it was the subject of an Emmy-nominated Simpsons episode, is how ingrained in the popular consciousness it is - and it's immensely disappointing that no one bothered to look.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, let's go one by one. Your first link is to this book Jewish Theatre. I used the google search-inside method and couldn't find any explicit references to British Jewish entertainers/actors/etc - so I don't know why you provided that link. This is not a List of people associated with Jewish theatre. Your second link is this book on Jewish centers & peripheries: Europe between America and Israel fifty years ... By Selwyn Ilan Troen. The phrase "Jewish entertainers" or "Jewish actors" shows up exactly once, providing no information whatsoever on this intersection. Your third link Hollywood V. Hard Core: How the Struggle Over Censorship Created the Modern ... By Jon Lewis again mentions Jewish entertainers or actors once... and only to mention that they changed their name to fit in. Your fourth link is to a documentary about "Jewish entertainers" [8]. Of course, neither you nor I have seen it so there's not a lot to say. However, the synopsis suggests it focuses heavily on Yiddish theatre. This is not a List of British actors in Yiddish theatre. Bulldog123 06:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —JJ98 (Talk | Contribs ) 10:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Same as the already deleted entry. Non-notable intersection.Griswaldo (talk) 13:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment—I'm a little stunned to find that the List of Jewish American entertainers article has been deleted. Jewish immigrants have had a long and successful association with the entertainment business in the United States, particularly in the film industry. Why wouldn't we want to cover that?—RJH (talk) 19:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that list, with 556 refs? See the discussion at the AfD referenced above, for views on both sides.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep And restore the List of Jewish American entertainers. Why was it deleted and not the List of Italian American entertainers? or the List of Muslim writers and poets? or British Jews or List of Irish American actors? Note that the Irish American actors list includes many actors whose ancestors immigrated to the U.S. before Ireland became a country. What about List of British Bangladeshis, and List of black Britons, and List of British Indians and British Kurds and British Arabs??? How odd of Wikipedia to choose the Jews and only the Jews to delete. Grow up and come to grips with the fact that Jews are members of a religion and of a people that achieved statehood in ancient times and again in 1948. Treating Jews differently than other peoples (Arabs, Irish) and other religions is called anti-Semitism.Wm.Pittman (talk) 01:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Irish American entertainers, List of British Arab entertainers, List of British American entertainers? Anti-semitism you say? Bulldog123 21:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Wm.Pittman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Two days old. See: [9]. Bulldog123 06:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable intersection. No identification criteria (never will be, as it is subjective, unlike citizenship).--Therexbanner (talk) 17:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• For reference, Wikipedia doesn't necessarily have a problem with subjective criteria. Much like issues of religion and names, we resolve issues like this by reference to how the person self-identifies and how they are described in reliable sources. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You still haven't stated what criteria you want for this list (if it were to be kept). And why do you assume you can get a consensus on that criteria? Bulldog123 00:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It's no business of mine to define the criteria; that's a job for the talk page, rather than the AfD. But clearly the list is CAPABLE of having clearly defined criteria, as there's no serious debate anywhere that we're capable of defining the terms "British", "Jewish" and "entertainer" separately. I'd suggest it be handled in the same way as any other page where these issues come up - by reference to the way the individual self-identifies, and how they are described in the reliable sources. If you've got reliable sources calling them "British", "Jewish" and "an entertainer", then bingo, they're on the list, if necessary with a printed caveat detailing other sources that disagree. The ability to add that caveat, and the sources, is a strong reason why this should be dealt with as a list rather than as a category. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• When you get a chance, scroll through TALK:List of British Jews, and you'll see just how contentious users can be regarding the criteria. It's been a virtual stalemate for years, and that's what Jayjg is trying to point out here. That this article is an ever-repeating magnet for WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and (in some ways) WP:V violations. I know that you have faith in people's ability to reach a consensus... but it's blind faith. The article (British Jews) has been around for almost four years (maybe more?) and we have yet to agree on a criteria. It's simply not going to happen. Look, we couldn't even reach a consensus on List of Jewish Nobel laureates. Why on earth do you expect us to reach an agreed-upon criteria for this? Bulldog123 01:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That an article is on a contentious issue and attracts strongly divergent views is not reason for deletion. Otherwise, we would delete the articles on abortion, Israel, and everyone named George Bush. If anything, Wikipedia readers benefit from such articles existing, especially when those editing them edit honestly and in good faith.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That an article is incapable of finding a unifying criteria by which to include its listified entries, leading to numerous WP:BLP and WP:V violations... that is a legitimate reason. Bulldog123 02:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it's not. There is no difference between the difficulty in determining inclusion criteria for "British Jew" and determining the inclusion criteria for either "British" or "Jew" separately. There are any number of things on Wikipedia that editors have different opinions or, or definitions of. If we were to avoid providing content wherever there are fundamental disputes about core aspects of the content, the result would be the removal of almost every article on race, religion, war, politics and evolution. If you can't sway others to your viewpoint as to what should and shouldn't be in the article, it may be that you're wrong, or at least that you're not sufficiently right that there's a public interest in the debate continuing. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• List of British Jews is not under consideration here, so any difficulty with determining who is a British Jew is not a problem specific to this list, and there is no reason to delete it in isolation. If you really think who is a British Jew is unverifiable, then list the whole structure for deletion rather than picking a sublist at random. postdlf (talk) 05:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The non-triviality of the intersection is obvious. A wp:before search would have shown it, Dust provides some examples, and the intro now provides additional examples of its non-triviality for over a century. More is reflected in any of numerous google searches one could undertake, but which--given the above--seems redundant and unnecessary. In addition, the fact that the list is accessed typically 150-300 times per day suggests that it is indeed notable in the eyes of wikipedia readers. Agree with Pitman that someone should undertake to have the close of the List of Jewish American entertainers overturned.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That should probably wait on the outcome of the List of Jewish Actors deletion review. Also, page hits are not evidence of notability. I used to run a blog that got about 1,000 hits a day, and I can assure you it still wasn't notable. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A relevant intersection backed by ample reliable and verifiable sources demonstrating notability. Alansohn (talk) 01:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Where? Bulldog123 23:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If you can't be bothered to scroll up, the diff is here. And I'm quite willing to provide another half-dozen once you provide any cogent explanation of what's wrong with those. Or, y'know, even read them. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If you're going to be snide, I advise you pay closer attention. It's beginning to look like trolling. As you well know, I could find left-handed-actor refs stronger than those. Bulldog123 00:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You've made no effort to read the sources, as your statements about their contents are just plain wrong, and you spend some time excoriating a "documentary" which I'm not sure where you got it from but was certainly not something I linked. You also seem to be suffering from a difficulty with the term "entertainer", which Wikipedia handily defines as anyone engaged in "activity which provides a diversion or permits people to amuse themselves in their leisure time", thus including by definition anyone engaged in the craft of theatre whether an actor or otherwise. The sources detail roles for British Jewish entertainers on stage, the building of specific Jewish theatres specifically to provide venues for British Jewish entertainers. "Jewish Theatre" spends a whole book just defining exactly who British Jewish entertainers are and what, exactly, makes a distinctly recognisable cultural group. Yiddish Theatre is a book length examination of an entire style of theatre by and for the Jewish, with substantial discussion of its history in Britain and the entertainers who have engaged with it. "Destination London" looks (in part) at how Jewish emigres fleeing World War II assimilated in Britain through a contribution to the British film industry. "Beyond marginality: Anglo-Jewish literature after the Holocaust" contains discussion of British Jewish writers, screenwriters, playwrights, performance poets, and comedians in the context of them being "Anglo-Jewish". Do you really have problems with these sources?- DustFormsWords (talk) 00:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• ...you spend some time excoriating a "documentary" which I'm not sure where you got it from but was certainly not something I linked. With that comment, you just proved how disingenuous your "source finding" efforts are. The documentary was the very first link you provided. Presumably, you just typed "British Jewish entertainers" into google, pulled that up and linked to it without noticing that the entire article is about the documentary. We can all type "British Jewish entertainers" into Google Books and claim whatever shows up as evidence of a universally known intersection, but it's not going to convince anybody who actually looks into it. Also "excoriating" means to "censure or criticize severely." I'd love to see where I "severely criticized" the documentary. I just said I haven't seen it, so I can't comment on it. You've seen it?
• You've made no effort to read the sources I can only read up to what the limited view allows me, as can you (though, judging by your comments above - all you did was read the provided synopsis and synthesized the words "British Jewish" in).
• The sources detail roles for British Jewish entertainers on stage, the building of specific Jewish theatres specifically to provide venues for British Jewish entertainers. Page # link of said content please, including explicit references to British Jewish entertainers (using the wiki definition). If it's as thorough as you claim, that's great content for British Jewish theatre - though, since you're getting it from one source, it's pretty weighty. However, I'd like to know what any of this has to do with George Michael, Sharon Osbourne, Stephen Fry, Ludwig Karl Koch, Peter Sellers, Stephen Frears, Mark Ronson, Peter Green, Amy Winehouse, Rachel Weisz, Mike MendozaSophie Okonedo, and the other hundred people on that list. This is not a list of people having "some connection to British Jewish/Yiddish theatre." If you want to make it into that list, you're going to need to find consensus on it's take page, and from all the !keep voters here. I feel like a broken record, since I distinctly remember saying this already. Right now, the current list we have under AfD is an indiscriminate list of people who are Jewish and who are - by the definition you gave - "entertainers." That's the list under consideration now. That's the list that has been edited and maintained for years now. That's the list that most !keep voters are going to be fighting for... not your as-of-yet-to-exist list. If you want another list, under the criteria you specified, nobody is preventing you from creating it... but it's going to need a less ambiguous title that List of British Jewish entertainers. Bulldog123 04:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I guess some of us just rely on skimming Google Books, and some of us find sources on Google Books, and then research the books on bookseller websites, review sites, and ring their friends at the National Library and get them to check what they're actually about. I don't apologise for being in the second category. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, notable and not arbitrary. The intro to the list goes a long way towards establishing that there is a distinct cultural history here. In any event, this is an encyclopedic indexing of article subjects: a list of notable people of a particular notable ethnic group, subdivided by occupation. And that's enough. Many of the deletion arguments I see in this, and similar list AFDs, are proper ones for the deletion of categories given the limitations of that system and the problem of burdening articles with too many categories (see WP:OCAT), but there is no good reason or pragmatic need to apply the same standards to lists. Nor do we in practice; in most cases that categories are deleted on the basis of being an encyclopedic but non-notable intersection, the CFD usually results in a consensus for conversion to a list ("listifying"). I have some concern about the vagueness of "entertainer", but that's fixable, and I'm not going to bother with that now if none of the deletion comments are concerned with that nuance. postdlf (talk) 05:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable, encyclopeadic, and better sourced than the American Jewish one. per Dustformswords, Epeefleche and Postdlf. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 10:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep certainly not arbitrary, & it is probably correct that in the UK the demarcation is even sharper. There is not really a consensus about ethnic-occupation lists of this sort, but I think the balance is now towards accepting them. Obviously not indiscriminate, as it includes only those with a Wikipedia article. I adhere very strongly to the concept of notability as important for Wikipedia articles, & if we have articles on those who are not, we should deal with them. But while they stand, that's how we discriminate. "Jewish" can be a little more complicate than some ethnic categories, but ithis can be dealt with by using the broadest definition possible, and accepting any RS unjless its a living person, & they object to it. DGG ( talk ) 04:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The nomination's assertion that British Jews are an arbitrary and non-notable selection of people is absurdly counterfactual. One can immediately find sources such as The Jews of Britain which prove the falsity of this assertion. The nomination makes no policy-based argument and seems directly contrary to core policies such as WP:NPOV and WP:IMPROVE. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You must be at the wrong AfD. However, Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion/British Jews doesn't seem to exist. Bulldog123 09:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• In your own contribution above, you state, "The "British Jewish" connection seems much more synthesized than the "Jewish American" one.". You don't even mention the entertainer aspect. It seems clear that this nonsensical crusade is directed against the concept of Jewry - attempting to expurgate it from Wikipedia. I have therefore addressed this as it is the substantive point. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, my crusade - despite 4 of the 6 recent Jewish AfDs being nominated by different people - is to "wipe out Jewry from Wikipedia." Judging from this Two indef blocks already?, you're clearly not mature enough to be editing this encyclopedia, much less have your opinions be taken seriously. Bulldog123 18:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Please note the group notice for AFD edits, "Be aware ... that comments on people rather than the article is considered disruptive." Hmm, must fix the grammar of that. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep All the information here is highly sourced, and those who have worked on this page have put forth such an effort to source this information that it clearly belongs. Linda Olive (talk) 16:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "Unsourced" is not the reason for deletion. Bulldog123 18:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The nomination claims that the topic is "less notable...". Notability turns on sourcing and so the sources are indeed material and relevant. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 22:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neurophysiology of Movement Lab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A small laboratory within a single department at a university. The article does not give its web page, but it is [10]. What it seems to be, judging also from the department web site [11], is the laboratory of a single professor, Roger M. Enoka--who is notable, but hardly the suite he works in. (the article on him is a copyvio from http://physed.otago.ac.nz/alumni/wof/inductees/2010RogerMaroEnoka.html, and I have so marked it). The department as a whole is unlikely to be notable, and certainly not the subdivisions of it. There's nothing worth even redirecting. The author is an SPA, whose other contributions are an article on another member of the department which I have not yet checked for copyvio, and an article on the just possibly notable building it is located in, Carlson Gymnasium--but the contents of that article seems to be mainly a directory of the occupants of the building. DGG ( talk ) 07:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:N. Even individual university departments are generally not sufficiently notable to have separate article about them, and this one is a small lab within a department. Nsk92 (talk) 08:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom jsfouche ☽☾Talk 14:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: no independent coverage. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 15:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Predator technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This entire article consists of fictional world trivia. The main article, Predator (alien), has the type of short summary of the topic that is appropriate for wikipedia. This entire article is fictional topic with no real-world notability. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 06:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Transwiki to annex.wikia.com 65.94.47.218 (talk) 06:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC) Here's the link: [12][reply]

  Good call. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 07:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikia isn't a sister project of Wikipedia though (even though it was also founded by Jimmy Wales), so I don't think you can transwiki Wikipedia articles to it. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Dondegroovily's rationale is pretty spot-on: The thing is almost entirely sourced only to the primary source material (the films & comics themselves). What little real-world info there is (as far as design & prop creation) is already present in the main article about the creatures & in the articles about the films. I nominated this for merging a couple years ago but never got around to actually merging it, & looking at it now I don't really think there's anything of value to merge (the real-world info already being present in the target articles). Having an article on the fictional creatures is fine; having a separate article devoted entirely to their weapons & gizmos is superfluous. As for transwikiing, we only transwiki to other Wikimedia Foundation projects, to which Wikia does not belong (as Erpert points out, though it was also founded by Jimmy Wales, Wikia is operated by Wikia, Inc., not by the WMF, the major diffeerence being that Wikia, Inc. is for-profit while the WMF is non-profit). If Wikia wants this content, they can quite easily copy it for themselves under the terms of the GFDL. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Is there a way for them to also copy the page history, since that is a major issue with GDFL here. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 17:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't know, and frankly I'm not concerned about whether Wikia wants or is able to get this content. As mentioned, Wikia isn't a Wikimedia Foundation project, it's a totally separate entity, and we only transwiki to other WMF projects. If Wikia wants this content, they can request it from Wikipedia under the terms of the GFDL. The issue at play here is whether this content is appropriate for Wikipedia, not whether other, unrelated websites might want it. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- two words: Excessive Fancruft. This article is nothing but an indiscriminate collection of fictional trivia. Reyk _YO! 08:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as fancruft that's impossible to WP:verify notability due to a lack of third party sources.

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

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

The result was keep. The consensus is that as Stevenson was recognised as the world's oldest person for a short time, they meet the notability criteria and should remain in Wikipedia -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Stevenson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Continuing nominations of nonnotable supercentenarians with no more than one reliable source per WT:WOP#Common deletion outcomes. I intend that, during discussion, any article supporters either find sources or merge sourced material to deal with the indisputable WP:GNG failure (the requirement of multiple reliable sources); without either of these actions, bare "keep" votes will not address that failure. I also intend that any who disagree with the WT:WOP proposal, which affirms GNG for deletion of these articles, should comment at that link. Article-specific details with my !vote below. JJB 05:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• Delete as nom 5-sentence article completely about unverifiable longevity OR/SYN. Sources are unreliable GRG (2) and OHB, and one unlinked Guardian article not likely to support most of the WP article. WP:BIO failure alluded in 2007 at article talk. JJB 05:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The sources used are from the GRG and Rejuvenation Research, a peer-reviewed journal (reliable source). The GRG itself is also a reliable source on longevity issues since its data is used by Guinness World Records. The article also has a reliable source from The Guardian. Therefore I do not know what you allude to when you say there is "no more than one reliable source". You appear to have set up dozens of AFDs on similar articles and have addressed them with the same statement. The statement that you opened this AFD up with does not match the article that you are nominating for deletion. Please highlight where the WP:OR and the WP:SYN are. As with many other articles, the reasons you give do not stand because they are not relevant to the article. Crusading your way through longevity-related articles is not a way to solve any personal issues that you may or may not have with editors involved in these sorts of articles. SiameseTurtle (talk) 13:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Welcome Siamese; your points need separate rebuttals.

• First, please thread comments, rather than replying earlier in threads than notes that preceded you (now corrected).
• It appears your statement is the one that doesn't match the article, because the article doesn't cite Rej Res in any place.
• Please see RSN: GRG spreadsheet lines are unreliable primary coredumps.
  • Your concern that GWR employs GRG was also proposed and rejected at that link.
• You did not answer my concern that the Guardian is unlinked contrary to WP:V.
  • Incidentally, Guardian is also 1985 and thus probably primarily about Williams rather than Stevenson.
• For "reliable sources" perhaps you would prefer "independent, nonconflicted reliable sources", as it usually means.
• I have only begun 19 carefully chosen AFDs so far (yes I assisted recent deletions begun by 3 other editors).
• I abandoned total boilerplating in this salvo in favor of providing article-specific reasons in each case.
• All 5 sentences are OR/SYN because unreliably sourced:
  • Birth and death dates may appear in Guardian, but unlinked article is probably not about Stevenson.
  • "Oldest recognised living person after death of Mateo".
  • "Record broken by Williams in 1985" may be in Guardian in some form, but who is their primary?
  • "Succeeded in title by Watkins", as if "oldest recognised living" is a "title" in any reliable source.
  • "Last person born before 1863" is IMHO an Ryoung122 special.
• As already stated, my reasons are relevant to the article, and, as rebutted, yours are not.
• Please do not paint my attempts to conform a sorely-neglected topic area to basic (NPOV) policy as "crusading".
• Personal issues are not in play here, nor should they be brought in by guessing at my motives beyond policy compliance.

I generally respect your independent views. Please don't make so many errors at once. JJB 16:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• The GRG discussion seems to me to be a case of flipping a coin 20 times until it comes up heads. Wikipedia is about to and fro between opposite sides to reach a suitable medium. This 'discussion' seems to be an undiplomatic one-sided argument against the GRG, and as a tangent from your disputes with User:RYoung122, who you interestingly make a personal remark about in this discussion - a user that you are currently in Arbitration against. Please remember that you should not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point.
• Having unlinked articles is in no way contrary to WP:V. Wikipedia relies on sources that are available both online and offline. To solely rely on online sources would be recentism. As notability is not temporary and since the internet was not available in the 1970s, it is unsurprising that few citations are available online. Many other articles rely on offline material, such as books.
• Birth and date deaths are given by the GRG (as is that she succeeded Mateo), and other such journals as Rejuvenation Research and Population: An English Selection[13]. If the word "title" is not suitable, then you are free to edit the article to improve it. Generally the first step of any Wikipedian should be to help improve articles than nominate batches for deletion. SiameseTurtle (talk) 19:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article's only reliable source is an unlinked article, which does not establish notability. Inclusion in lists is sufficient. Neptune5000 (talk) 06:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom and Neptune. The footnotes to GRG web pages and the external link to the OHB page are now-familiar hallmarks of longevity-cruftstubs. Neither is a reliable source. Charitably, they are primary sources, prohibited as the sole source for any information in an article, per WP:NOR and WP:SYN. Less charitably, they are not reliable sources because they are the self-published work of a cadre of niche enthusiasts. The pages display few, if any, of the attributes defined in WP:RS. The World's Oldest People wikiproject talk page is now host to an effort to prune back the worst of what's become a dreadfully dense WP:WALLEDGARDEN. Please review the table of proposed and resolved afds there for recent similar discussions to this one. There's a reassuring sameness to the results. The gears grind slowly, but the system works. David in DC (talk) 19:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The GRG is considered reliable by Guinness World Records, the New York Times, the BBC, the Tokyo Times, the Wall Street Journal, etc. Comments about "cruftstubs" and "neither is a reliable source" are little more than opinionated defamation contrary to established fact. If you are unable to process this information correctly, then you are little more than a monkeywrench in the system...not only opposed to the established international system that determines notability for "world's oldest persons" but also against Wiki policy which grants the task of determining notability to "outside sources," NOT your personal opinion. As we saw on the Margaret Skeete AFD page, you offered personal opinions to denigrate the article. Is it too difficult for you to realize that this is similar to a "witch hunt," where for you or JJ or even those in 2007, all they can do is heap false accusations. In time, the 2007 cabal turned back when they realized they were wrong. How long will it take for you to do the same?76.17.118.157 (talk) 00:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Was the recognised oldest living person in the world and oldest Briton ever. A notable person. Amply documented. — Cam46136 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cam46136 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to the first and last of these nine AFDs, applicable to all and intended to be read by all closers. I am too angry at WP's systemic failure, as shown in these AFDs, for me to provide the full analysis necessary. The short form is that there is significant evidence of canvassing, and that I will need to present it to a different forum than to the AFD closer(s). The majority of these AFDs have had not a single keep comment provide a reliable source, and in the remainder there has been no evidence that a new source or two confers notability (except for David in DC's judgment in one case). Those who have commented at the WikiProject have all agreed with the formulation of GNG that makes all of these articles still deletes, or potential merges in a couple cases. Any appearance of consensus, if it still remains after the evidence of canvassing, SPAs, arguments to avoid, and distractions ad nauseam is accounted for, is the result of an endemic, years-long infiltration of walled-garden builders into WP, as documented (in part) at the open ArbCom case that discusses this very behavior. I have manifold reasons for my conviction that these are neither consensus keeps nor nonconsensus keeps but in fact GNG failures that should be deleted or merged and will be; one reason that comes to mind is that my last salvo of 8 AFDs with exactly the same GNG failures were all deleted, in accord with the many many AFDs linked in the nom. However, I rest secure in my knowledge that WP does the right thing in the long run, even if any closer is not able to appreciate all the facts I have on hand to bear on these cases. JJB 06:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep. World's oldest person in 1973 meets the definition of notability, even if the sources were from the pre-internet age. What needs to be done is to tag the article for sourcing, and to give the article creator a courtesy month to upgrade it.

As for JJ's comments above, there is clear evidence of HIS canvassing and recruiting (such asking Grismaldo or DavidinDC to join), bullying, intimidating others, etc. For example, comments like this:

‘thank you, but you’re in the wrong place’ and ‘you’re part of a group and that doesn’t count’.

In reality, it's the other way around: most, if not all, of these people found supercentenarians through Wikipedia first, so if they later joined a group it is irrelevant.

Those are comments directed at other Wikipedia editors, rather than to the discussion of the article notability.

Throw in mass-nominations for deletion, i-voting for his own nominations, self-quoting his own policy proposals which haven't been accepted, and you have a smoke-and-mirrors funhouse, we might as well call JJ' world.

Because JJ believes that humans live to 950, as per the Bible, therefore he's attempting to delete all articles on age-verified supercentenarians.

Ryoung122 16:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ryoung122 16:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Once the world's oldest person. Don't see why it can't be kept. DHanson317 (talk) 01:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree that, as a person who was given credit, at one time, as being the world's oldest person, albeit only for a few months in 1973, she was notable even among supercentenarians. Mandsford 02:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The main argument presented for deletion is that the AP article is unlinked - however this does not make it unverifiable - WP:RS does not say that all sources have to be available on the Internet. If someone had read the AP article and were able to confirm that the details in that do not verify the article contents, then I'd be more inclined towards deletion, but the source would appear to be a valid one which could theoretically be verified should someone be willing to make the effort to do so. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Denzo Ishizaki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Continuing nominations of nonnotable supercentenarians with no more than one reliable source per WT:WOP#Common deletion outcomes. I intend that, during discussion, any article supporters either find sources or merge sourced material to deal with the indisputable WP:GNG failure (the requirement of multiple reliable sources); without either of these actions, bare "keep" votes will not address that failure. I also intend that any who disagree with the WT:WOP proposal, which affirms GNG for deletion of these articles, should comment at that link. Article-specific details with my !vote below. JJB 05:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• Delete as nom 6-sentence article completely about unverifiable longevity OR/SYN. Sources are unreliable OHB, and one unlinked (131-word) AP article not likely to support most of the WP article. Nonnotability and citation lack already tagged in article since 11/2007. JJB 05:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article's only source is an unlinked 131-word AP article, which does not establish notability. Inclusion in lists is sufficient. Neptune5000 (talk) 05:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete One unverifiable link, which is unlikely to carry all, or even most, of the "facts" in the article. The external link to the OHB list establishes, on its face, that it is not a reliable source as that term is defined on en.wikipedia. It says, in an introductory disclaimer, "These statistics were provided by Louis Epstein. Comments and corrections are welcome." It's hosted here on a site called recordholders.org. So Louis Epstein caused statistics that may need correction to appear on some kind of "record holders" web page. C'mon. Who argues in good faith that a wikipedia article should be based on one unverifiable, unlinked 131-word AP article and an external link to an advertisedly flawed list hosted on a site that looks like this?! I mean who with a lick of sense, anyway? David in DC (talk) 22:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Was Japan’s oldest person and world’s oldest man. A notable person. Amply documented. — Cam46136 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cam46136 (talk • contribs) 13:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where? David in DC (talk) 01:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%9F%B3%E5%B4%8E%E4%BC%9D%E8%94%B5 http://spysee.jp/%E7%9F%B3%E5%B4%8E%E4%BC%9D%E8%94%B5/50481/ http://r25.yahoo.co.jp/keyword/detail/?kw=%E7%9F%B3%E5%B4%8E%E4%BC%9D%E8%94%B5 http://talent.yahoo.co.jp/pf/detail/pp246275 etc etc Cam46136 (talk) 03:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)Cam46136[reply]

• • • None of these are reliable sources. You can't cite to another language wikipedia. Spysee and Yahoo! are archetypes of what is not a reliable source. If there are reliable sources, you should rescue the article with them. But none of these qualify. David in DC (talk) 14:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As Japan's oldest person AND the world's oldest man, Denzo Ishizaki qualifies TWICE for notability.

Notability is established by outside sources, not your opinion of longevity.

As noted earlier, DavidinDC has a COI as he was recruited/canvassed to these deletion efforts by JJBulten, who also "self-voted" for his own nomination, another COI.

There is INTERNATIONAL coverage of this case. In fact, this article should have been tagged for sources first, to give people time to look for them. This is just another bad-faith edit by JJBulten. Note also that JJ nominated a lot of articles on December 5 and posted the same message on each one, another violation of WP AFD policy which suggests that each article for deletion should be judged individually.Ryoung122 05:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ryoung122 05:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Maude_Farris-Luse

in this article you can see that David in dc can change his mind sometimes and so did another editor, because of reliable sources, so you cant be too hard on David in dc, hes not totally bias, in fact hes really quite friendly when you look past his opposing views on most of these afds. Longevitydude (talk) 12:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He was the world's oldest man. Longevitydude (talk) 12:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is that the one source is not sufficient to verify the notability of Watkins. The 'keeps' do not (from what I can see) sufficiently demonstrate that RejRes is a sufficiently reliable source - and the comments at [[14]] would seem to say that it may or may not be reliable. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Watkins (supercentenarian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Continuing nominations of nonnotable supercentenarians with no more than one reliable source per WT:WOP#Common deletion outcomes. I intend that, during discussion, any article supporters either find sources or merge sourced material to deal with the indisputable WP:GNG failure (the requirement of multiple reliable sources); without either of these actions, bare "keep" votes will not address that failure. I also intend that any who disagree with the WT:WOP proposal, which affirms GNG for deletion of these articles, should comment at that link. Article-specific details with my !vote below. JJB 05:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• Delete as nom 3-sentence article completely about unverifiable longevity OR/SYN. Sources are unreliable RejRes (GRG-authored), GRG, and OHB. Nonnotability and citation lack already tagged in article since 11/2007. JJB 05:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No reliable sources to establish notability, fails WP:GNG. Neptune5000 (talk) 01:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable, there's no reliable sources. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 13:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Until and if your proposed guideline is adopted as policy, it should carry no weight in a deletion discussion. People are welcome to agree or disagree with it as they please, but anyone who disagrees with it is entitled to express their opinion in this AfD, whether or not they choose to comment on the proposal itself. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Was the recognised oldest living person in the world and oldest person in the UK at one time. A notable person. Amply documented.Cam46136 (talk) 14:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC) — Cam46136 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep. Wiki policy on WOP's generally recognizes them as notable, as there is coverage worldwide.

There is also the option to "merge" to List of UK supercentenarians until the article is expanded. Deletion is not a correct outcome. There are several flaws in the pro-deletion argument:

--notability is not established by whether the article is sourced, but by whether reliable sources exist. Therefore, the first thing to do is to tag the article and notify the article creator that more sources are needed. Usually we give the article creator about a month, before an article is nominated for deletion. This did not happen here.

--JJBulten violated Wiki policies and guidelines, including voting on his own nomination and posting the same message to several different AFD discussions. It also appears that these nominations were in violation of WP:POINT.

As Elizabeth Watkins was recognized on the world scale as the world's oldest person, and citable coverage exists, the article should be kept, even if tagged as a stub and given time for cleanup.Ryoung122 16:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This case was featured in Guinness World Records in the 1970s and kept many years as the longevity recordholder for Northern Ireland.

Also, the assertion that Rejuvenation Research is "unreliable" is little than a smear. It is a highly-qualified outside source. It is not published by the GRG, but sometimes publishes material from the GRG.Ryoung122 16:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep! More broadly,those of us who contribute to the GRG,to the IDL,to Rejuvenation Research,to the SRF and Planck-Institute meetings,etc. are the most reliable sources in the world on supercentenarians,and JJB can not credibly represent that any higher standard of scholarship on the subject exists.--Louis E./12.144.5.2 (talk) 17:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reliable is a term of art on en.wikipedia. It does not meant the same thing as all of the definitions the word can have in various dictionaries. It mean, rather, that it complies with a specific rule, WP:RS. Experts are no doubt reliable for many things. They are not reliable sources for a wikipedia article unless they are quoted in a secondary source. Their (your) work, as raw data, is not reliable in the wikipedia sense, even if it is the embodiment of truth and beauty. Only if it is quoted elsewhere. Pleae see WP:TRUTH

No one is calling your work generically unreliable. It's simply not fit to back a fact on wikipedia until it's quoted in a WP:RS.

A whole lot of drama could be avoided if you and RY could try to understand that "not reliable" is no assessment of you or your work. It's about where your work is published. A scholarly, peer-reviewed journal is a reliable source for wikipedia. A list that says its statistics are supplied by you, on a page hosted by something called recordholders.org, is not a scholarly journal, nor any other kind of wikipedia-reliable source.

I'm guessing that this is falling on deaf ears. But I have to try. David in DC (talk) 20:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, DavidinDC, it is YOU with the deaf ears. Rejuvenation Research IS a secondary source. I don't publish it, I don't decide what they publish or not. If they ask for content, I provide it. I don't always get what I want in there.76.17.118.157 (talk) 00:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't oppose relying on articles published in Rejuvenation Research. I don't know why you think I do. If I have, please show me where.

I oppose any citation or external link to the list of oldest human beings hosted at recordholders.org. It has none of the attributes of a reliable source and it falls well withing the dictates of WP:ELNO. David in DC (talk) 00:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is to delete - no reliable sources are present, and none of those recommending keeping this were able to provide any, despite stating that Thiers was notable -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Louisa Thiers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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