User:Adamtheclown/tool test

Total number of articles up for deletion review on 08NOV09 @ 07:59:19 UTC: 35

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 17:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC) How to avoid common mistakes in accounting exam? How to avoid common mistakes in accounting exam? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Wikipedia is not a collection of how-to guides. No sources, original research. So, delete per WP:NOT, WP:N and WP:OR. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 07:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Delete. How-to guide. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 07:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Delete as nominated. Crafty (talk) 09:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC) 'Delete - WP:NOTHOWTO. Bravedog (talk) 11:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Delete: Per WP:NOT#HOWTO. Joe Chill (talk) 14:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Comment There is a separate website called wikiHow that would gladly accept an article of this type. Useful information, but one of the ground rules when Wikipedia was founded was that it wasn't a place for instructions, tips, how-to guides, etc. Mandsford (talk) 16:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Delete and notify somebody on wikihow about it. Useful stuff. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 20:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Delete - Simple one, this: Wp is not a how-to guide. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Note copied to http://www.wikihow.com/Avoid-Common-Mistakes-in-Accounting-Exam Ikip (talk) 00:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOT#HOWTO. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 02:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Comment. Snow? TheWeakWilled (T * G) 02:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. How to avoid common mistakes in accounting exam? 1 of 35 Google News 0 Books 0 Scholar 0 Editor Count: 2 Creator: Saifulhc Nominator: Vyvyan Ade Basterd The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was Delete per WP:SNOW. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC) Meaning of life (in five pages) Meaning of life (in five pages) (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 was tempted to zap this invoking WP:SNOW but I will do the proper thing. Unencyclopedic. Original research. Etc. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 07:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Delete User meant well, but misinterpreted what Wikipedia is for. Delete per WP:NOT#ESSAY. Have left him a helpful message. BlazerKnight (talk) 07:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Comment Additionally, if the article is by Bill Williams then SCHolar44 probably doesn't own the copyright to it. It's possible that he gave SCHolar44 the copyright on the article or released it under a free license, but since the latter says "It was intended for publication but he died before it was published" that seems unlikely. Either way, we'd need some proof of its copyright status before we could use it. Olaf Davis (talk) 09:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Delete - the article's creator agrees that it's original research. Also the copyright issue - the presumption has to be that the copyright is owned by the author's estate so it can't be published without permission (not that WP should publish it anyway). Politeness or not, WP:SNOW clearly applies - I only prodded it in the first place because there's no suitable speedy criterion available to mere mortals like me (I missed the probable copyvio). andy (talk) 09:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Delete'. WP:OR-mania. Bravedog (talk) 11:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Delete - WP:OR, WP:NOT#ESSAY and WP:COPYVIO all seem to apply here. Jarkeld (talk) 13:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Delete: Essay. Joe Chill (talk) 14:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Snow it, Delete. Per above. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 20:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Delete - per WP:OR even if WP:COPYVIO doesn't apply. ChemGardener (talk) 00:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Delete but I would encouage Scholar44 to move it to Wikisource. Racepacket (talk) 18:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Snow Delete: Perhaps this essay deserves publication, but that's doesn't happen here. This is an original essay meant to be attributed to an author.--Milowent (talk) 21:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Snow Delete - Pretty good essay, but not for Wikipedia. WP:NOT#ESSAY. And it's Original research. And the big copyright mess too, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 14:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Delete Essay and apparent memorial page.—Ash (talk) 09:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. Meaning of life (in five pages) 2 of 35 Google News 0 Books 0 Scholar 0 Editor Count: 3 Creator: SCHolar44 Nominator: RHaworth Andyjsmith 1 (1/0) 2009-11-08 The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 17:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC) New Nazism New Nazism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Classic case of WP:NFT. No sources or anything else that would assert notability. Delete per WP:N, WP:V and most likely WP:OR. I couldn't find a speedy category that would fit. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 07:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Delete per nominator. The Four Deuces (talk) 07:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Delete Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. TNXMan 15:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Delete per WP:HOAX and/or WP:MADEUP. Speedy under G3 (for vandalism and blatant hoaxes) was declined. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 15:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Snow Delete: Per WP:MADEUP. Joe Chill (talk) 19:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Do not Delete per not made up. It really isn't made up. It's an actual religion with a website for reference if needbe. KamikazePyro13 —Preceding undated comment added 14:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC). The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. New Nazism 3 of 35 Google News 104 Books 364 Scholar 47 Editor Count: 2 Creator: KamikazePyro13 Nominator: Vyvyan Ade Basterd The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite 00:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC) Ronald "Ramsey" Ramsey AfDs for this article: Articles for deletion/Ronald "Ramsey" Ramsey Ronald "Ramsey" Ramsey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) I see one real source and a lot of advertising. One source does not satisfy multiple non-trivial reliable sources for WP:BIO. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Delete I dont see this bio meeting notability guidelines. Only a single brief mention in a magazine. All other google hits (news, etc) are trivial or primary sources RadioFan (talk) 13:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Delete per WP:BIO, specifically WP:CREATIVE. --SquidSK (1MC•log) 15:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. Ronald "Ramsey" Ramsey 4 of 35 Google News 2 Books 0 Scholar 0 Editor Count: 4 Creator: Powderquest Nominator: SchuminWeb SquidSK 1 (1/0) 2009-11-08 RadioFan 1 (0/1) 2009-11-08 The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite 00:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC) 100% Fantasy RPG 100% Fantasy RPG (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. I was not able to come up with any reliable sources for this allegedly free RPG, so I fail to see the notablity of it. ArcAngel (talk) 06:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this role-playing game system. Joe Chill (talk) 14:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Delete per nom. Fails to assert notability. Victão Lopes I hear you... 19:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. 100% Fantasy RPG 5 of 35 Google News 0 Books 0 Scholar 0 Editor Count: 3 Creator: Dragomancer Nominator: ArcAngel Srinivas 1 (1/0) 2009-11-08 The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clear consensus to keep, no !votes for deletion apart from nom. (non-admin closure) @Kate (talk) 01:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC) Cromagnon (band) AfDs for this article: Articles for deletion/Cromagnon (band) Articles for deletion/Cromagnon (band) (2nd nomination) Cromagnon (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Notability concerns-- #163/200 songs of the 60s on a low-volume music site. All references given are just to generic database pages; One link to an album review is a review for a different band. WP:MUSIC #5 is NOT met; go to the official ESP-Disk Wiki page or website and it clearly lists one album ever released on their label (requirement 2+). Even if that can be excused or avoided, #5 alone with zero other notability hints I can't accept. Guideline reads "may be notable if...", it's not automatic. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 04:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Comment: I can be convinced this can be kept, but you've got to offer more notability from a better variety of sources. Passing WP:MUSIC#5 on a technicality at best won't cut it for me in an orphaned article, sorry. The 1-week AfD period is there to allow page improvements, so by all means. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 04:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC) What exactly is a low volume music site? Also, the review was very clearly a source for the claim that Japanese band Ghost had covered Caledonia on the album which the review is reviewing. I'd also like to add that this article was previously not orphaned (there were at least two articles linking two it, though one has been redirected to another article.)(Albert Mond (talk) 11:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)) Low volume = not particularly something you grab off a newsstand? When notability says 'Major' media source, that's the goal at least. Keep in mind that notable within a community (or music genres does not mean general notability... but I'm not disqualifying that either, by any means. More is just better. Even then, it's only 1 sentence. It'd be hard to convince many people that the only thing even remotely close whatsoever toward a lean into Wikipedia notability standards is one sentence in one article. For links, it just isn't much past WP archives, user pages, talk pages, a few categories. I don't know. Blah. Even I'm getting flustered trying to look like I'm flustered. A little more searching shows they're with Tntrees Records now (as of late 2009), and that isn't exactly setting off a lot of lights. Ug. I'll keep looking later. Anyone is free to edit the article, of course. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 14:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC) can you explain what you mean about esp-disk? their wiki page lists hundreds of albums released. why are you saying only one was released? Aisha9152 (talk) 04:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC) He was referring to Cromagnon's releases on ESP, I believe. (Albert Mond (talk) 05:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)) keep - i added a reference to julian cope discussing them which anyone who cared to google could easily find. i think this band is clearly notable and don't understand why this is being renominated, as apparently in the first nomination there was only one delete vote, who was the person who nominated it. Aisha9152 (talk) 06:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Consensus can change, there weren't many opinions given, and the keeps all relied on part of the policy that was factually incorrect in the article. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 22:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC) That quote doesn't so much; just because one person notable enough to have a Wikipedia author for music content says one thing about the band still isn't at all notability. If you look at that site, said writer has 4 total reviews. That doesn't count as a reliable source of reviews. Even if an A+ known name says something in praise of a band doesn't make it notable. Sorry. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 22:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC) it looks like the original deletion thing was cross posted to a music notification thing, is there a reason you didnt do it this time? Aisha9152 (talk) 03:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC) I just noticed that both releases are listed as having been released by "ESP-Disk" on AllMusic. AllMusic, from my experience, gets label info from distribution, as opposed to editors writing it in, so it was most likely released on ESP. (Albert Mond (talk) 09:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)) Keep- They have general notability with the Pitchfork Magazine entry. Rockgenre (talk) 21:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC) Keep. Hmm, Pitchfork Media a "low volume music site"? Allmusic a "generic database"? There isn't an overabundance of coverage but there's enough to justify inclusion in my view.--Michig (talk) 08:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 17:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC) Keep. I was on the fence until I fell off I mean, I found this writeup at allmusic, I quote "this rarity does have some historic value" gotta keep it. J04n(talk page) 21:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC) Keep per Michig and Jo4n.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC) Keep. (Albert Mond (talk) 21:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)) Keep. Michig summed up my feelings quite well. There is just enough RS coverage available to meet WP:BAND.  Gongshow Talk 18:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC) Comment- I have just added another cite where they were mentioned on page 49 in a book called A History of Rock Music: 1951-2000. Rockgenre (talk) 01:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC) Keep and Speedy Close: See WP:SNOW. Pickbothmanlol 01:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. Cromagnon (band) (2nd nomination) 6 of 35 Google News 0 Books 0 Scholar 0 Editor Count: 8 Creator: Rockgenre Nominator: Wiki libs Datheisen 2 (2/0) 2009-11-08 Luminifer 1 (1/0) 2009-09-29 Ron Ritzman 1 (1/0) 2009-10-06 24.129.73.189 1 (1/0) 2009-10-17 Albert Mond 1 (1/0) 2009-10-04 Andre666 1 (1/0) 2009-10-11 The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was speedy keep. Nominator blocked as a sock. Nothing to do here. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 03:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Twice exceptional Twice exceptional (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) WP:No Original research, seems like this article is just simply promoting it without any reliable sources. I know many people whose social skills are weak and are very bright. They still are functioning in society. No special programs needed. We have enough labeling of people as it is. Begin to tolerate of people's individual differences. That's the solution, not labeling their quirks. Xqe (talk) 04:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. Twice exceptional 7 of 35 Google News 168 Books 334 Scholar 554 Editor Count: 13 Creator: DWSwriter Nominator: Xqe SandyGeorgia 1 (1/0) 2009-04-01 Erik9bot 1 (1/0) 2009-05-30 Whatever404 1 (1/0) 2009-07-24 Graham87 1 (1/0) 2009-08-12 Esthertaffet 1 (1/0) 2009-09-29 99.6.85.135 1 (1/0) 2009-03-06 SmackBot (bot) 1 (0/1) 2009-04-02 BD2412 1 (0/1) 2009-07-04 Malcolma 1 (0/1) 2009-08-12 92.232.161.68 1 (1/0) 2009-09-06 12.41.117.254 1 (1/0) 2009-11-06 The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Please note that the only thing that matters when keeping an article or not is whether the article meets the notability criteria (for most cases). Notability is not temporary, nor is it dependent on the number of hits per day the article gets or the how many internal links the article has. NW (Talk) 17:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC) Magibon AfDs for this article: Articles for deletion/Magibon Articles for deletion/Magibon (2nd nomination) Articles for deletion/Magibon (3rd nomination) Articles for deletion/Magibon (4th nomination) Articles for deletion/Magibon (5th nomination) Magibon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Procedural nomination, to assist user who was unable to complete nomination,for which they gave the following reasons in the edit summary: "Not a notable subject. Not even her name can be confirmed." UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Note: That user (the nominator of this AFD) is User:Pisomojado. —Lowellian (reply) 00:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Speedy Keep per last AFD. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 04:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Keep- sources in the article show enough notability for me. Umbralcorax (talk) 05:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Speedy Keep per last AFD. --Epeefleche (talk) 07:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Speedy Keep. As demonstrated in the previous AfD discussion, reference sources already provided show ample coverage in the mainstream media in Japan (including the English-language press), which satisfies the basic notability criteria. The current absence of reliable published information regarding the person's real name is not a viable reason for deletion. --DAJF (talk) 08:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Speedy Keep. Plenty of media coverage by Japanese-language press. That the article should be deleted because her real name cannot be confirmed is a silly argument; Jack the Ripper's real name is unknown and cannot be confirmed, but that does not mean we should be deleting his article. —Lowellian (reply) 01:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Speedy keep per last AFD. Badagnani (talk) 15:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Strong Delete When I first came across the Magibon article, I attempted to add her name (Margaret Lilian Adams) to the article. DAJF reverted my edits, stating that my sources were not notable and maintaining his stated position of guarding Magibon's Wikipedia page against disclosing personal information, which she would rather the world not know. While I don't care about protecting a 23 year old attention seeker from her own self perpetuated meme-dom, I do respect the need for significant sources. I scoured the internet for more reliable sources with biographical information about the girl, and failed. I came to agree with DAJF-- that those sources don't exist. I landed on the conclusion which he is ironically resisting: that she is NOT NOTABLE. Not even her name can be reliably verified. Jimbo himself, in introducing notability criterion, said the goal of the policy is an “attempt to make some sort of judgment about the long term historical notability of something.” Though the Magibon article is admittedly sourced, very little is “'Significant coverage”' --none of which is in English. English sources only briefly comment on her existence AS TRIVIAL, as a flash-in-the-pan Youtube meme, a flavor of the day. The article, for example cites Encyclopedia Dramatica (a site on Wikipedia's Arbcom blacklist) as a source! There is no indication that she has any historical significance whatsoever, and, in fact, is already slipping back into obscurity.Pisomojado (talk) 06:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC) She is a notable celebrity in Japan. Your argument for deletion includes uncomfortably/distastefully Anglocentric bias — that most sources are not in English is not a valid argument as to whether she is innately notable. This is precisely the type of systemic bias we want to avoid. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that aims to provide coverage of human knowledge, not merely Anglophone knowledge. Wikipedia has many articles on historical figures from other cultures not well known in Anglosphere, for whom the majority of sources are in the language of that culture. —Lowellian (reply) 07:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Lowellian, you misunderstand me. I'm not saying that sources in Japanese are worthless because Japanese people are worthless, or some such garbage thinking. I'm saying that Japanese sources are hard for most of us to verify or determine the notability of, and therefore not preferable. Although, I will say that I find it peculiar that Magibon's Japanese wikipedia page is both shorter, and (as seen through google translator) more content rich with biography (including her real name) than the English version, while citing much fewer sources! Nevertheless, I stand by the assertion that her youtube success is a blip of pop culture not worthy of a Wikipedia article in any language.Pisomojado (talk) 08:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Pisomojado: The article, for example cites Encyclopedia Dramatica (a site on Wikipedia's Arbcom blacklist) as a source! Hardly. Instead, it says There's more information in this juvenile wiki article. (Incidentally, the article, at something called "Encyclopedia Dramatica", is interminable and what little I read of it seems to have been composed by an logorrhaeic dimwit while drunk.) The Wikipedia article repeats this sentence, for no apparent reason. (I'm about to cut this bit.) The Gawker article is cited as an example of a kind of criticism. Notably so or otherwise, it is an example of this. The fact that it links to inanity is irrelevant. -- Hoary (talk) 11:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Speedy Keep per last AfD. Per closing admin: "Though this is a biography of a living person, the information in the article is cited to reliable sources, and insofar as that information is in the public sphere, then the article itself passes all requirements for Wikipedia articles," which I heartily endorse. The inability to verify her name says nothing for or against the notability of the recognisable entertainer identifiable as Magibon. ("Prince" and "Madonna" wouldn't be any less notable if we didn't know their birth names.) Plenty of reliable sources attest to her notability, including Japanese Weekly Playboy and multiple Japanese TV and radio outlets. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Note: re canvassing - contributors may wish to take note of this series of edits by the article nominator: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Possibly others. It appears User:Pisomojado is only notifying editors who have previously expressed a "delete" argument in prior AfDs of this debate, which is contrary to the vote canvassing policy at WP:Canvassing. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC) I don't know why he notified me, but anyway he did -- and I said "keep" the last time around. -- Hoary (talk) 07:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC) I've just got one too so either I was mistaken about canvassing or Pisomojado is fixing it. Either way I've struck out the comment above. I'm not having an on-the-ball day today it seems.  :-( - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Thankyou, DustFormsWords, for your retraction. Anyone can check my contribution history and make sure that I've invited everyone to the party. I believe I have.Pisomojado (talk) 07:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Speedy Keep Per everyone else. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 07:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Oh, I'd also like to point out that Magibon is still an orphan.Pisomojado (talk) 08:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC) That's not an argument for deletion. Moreover, it's a borderline orphan with two incoming links; WP:Orphan recommends three or more, but also says "One or two incoming links may be sufficient as long as they're relevant". --Chris Johnson (talk) 11:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Her article has been around for over a year and is still an orphan. It's another red flag that despite having small number of fans, she has no encyclopedic interest or value.Pisomojado (talk) 20:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC) Weak keep Blame the stupid attention on the tabloids, but the subject appears to fulfill the criteria in WP:BIO Ohconfucius ¡digame! 10:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC) *Comment. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magibon (3rd nomination) was closed in good faith as keep less than two weeks ago by an admin in good standing. I looked at his talkpage and no one has asked him to take a second look and no one has brought this up at WP:DELREV. I haven't yet looked at the article or the arguments for and against so I have no !vote at this time but I do move to close this argument on procedural grounds, you can't keep nominating an article until you get the decision that you are looking for. J04n(talk page) 13:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Oh? The last closing was closer to 54 than to 2 weeks ago, by my count. -- Hoary (talk) 14:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC) oops, wrong year (he says with a red face), nevermind. J04n(talk page) 14:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Speedy delete clearly Internet nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.206.197 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC) — 78.144.206.197 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Do you mean that the subject is "Internet nonsense", or that this article is "Internet nonsense"? -- Hoary (talk) 14:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC) An article can't be speedily deleted if it has a ton of Speedy Keeps on it. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 20:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Strong DeleteJust delete it already! It's going to keep getting nominated, so why not just f**ing delete it already to save people from the trouble? An internet celebrity released a whole DVD, featured in men's magazines in Japan, but I can't find a single thing about her in here, so why does this far less notable someone get a whole article to herself? So I ask myself, after 4(yes,FOUR!) nominations for deletion, "Why is this thing still here?" There's a reason this "article" keeps getting nominated!It's a s**ty,s**ty article with no way for improvement(which isn't helped by the insignificance of the person it is about), it doesn't meet the criteria, so why the hell are you keeping it? There's obviously something wrong with it.Ariana-hime (talk) 14:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC) If you had more asterisks, I'd think you were coyly attempting to say "fucking" and "shitty"; but as it is, you've lost me. ¶ Why the hell it has been kept so far has been explained by the person who closed the AfDs so far. ¶ When you say "it doesn't meet the criteria", which criteria do you have in mind? ¶ On the non-existence of an article on some other sleb, see this. -- Hoary (talk) 15:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Sigh. Keep, the article, when nominated, had sufficient proof of notabity from reliable sources to defeat this attempt. Yes, the subject is irritating, but yes, she's notable. Move along, nothing to see here :) Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 01:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC) Strong Delete This person isn't exactly notable. The notability requirements should be changed to prevent pages like this and others from wasting space. This is the 4th nomination. There shouldn't have to be a 5th. Justin Herbert (talk) 13:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC) Strong Delete Not notable. CorpITGuy (talk) 15:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC) Strong Keep and a strong reprimand against those who cannot accept "no" as an answer, and "no" as the second answer, and "no" as the third answer. Meowy 17:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC) A reprimand? Really? Look, this page will be deleted eventually, inevitably. If not today, then maybe six months or a year from now. Do you really think that in ten years(or even five!) this page will be be here? Even her strident supporters can not argue that she is an historical figure of any kind whatsoever. Going by the most basic purpose of notability, going by the clear spirit of the criterion as a system to judge historical significance, she fails, fails, fails. I'm not blind, I see that I have the minority opinion on this page. But none of Magibon's Keepers have addressed my basic premise. The sources listed do NOT establish her as a notable historical person, or even a minor pop icon. They don't even address her by name! They only mention her as a mild and very temporary curiosity who managed to get a lot of youtube hits because she stares at a webcam in a peculiar fashion and needs a good dental plan. This is not what Wikipedia is for. Pisomojado (talk) 20:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC) I think you've confused actual notability and Wikipedia notability. Wikipedia is, to a large extent, a microcosm of wider obsessions, in particular the obsessions of the anglophone, the young, the male, and the north American -- most (with exceptions such as the overtly pornographic) profusely exhibited at Youtube, of course. These have combined to produce what (just about) count as "reliable sources" for the entirely trivial achievements of this apparently uninteresting person. Though at least she did something, rather than (as others avidly written up in Wikipedia) wore clothes in front of a camera or didn't wear clothes in front of a camera. (And if we were in a moralizing mood, we could say that -- unlike creeps who hawk bogus therapies, pseudoscience or historical lies -- she hasn't done any harm.) Now, if you think that far too small a percentage of Wikipedia is devoted to people of real achievement, I'd agree with you. Feel free to write some good articles. (Just last night I realized that, in dramatic contrast to many more or less promotional articles/autobiographies of the living, Takehisa Yumeji doesn't mention his work for currently redlinked Hechima Cologne.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC) ... PS Plus of course internet fads, such as other fads, may have a minor sociological interest. The article on pet rock doesn't merely appeal to lovers of pet rocks; no, pet rocks are a small part of the history of our dumb world. -- Hoary (talk) 13:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC) Keep (disclaimer - I am the article creator) - the subject meets our notability criteria, there are sufficient sources (while english sources are preferred, japanese ones are acceptable instead) We're not paper so we're not wasting space by including her. It's not necessary to source and include her real name to prove her notability either (cf Star Wars Kid) and it's not appropiate for people to repeatedly renominate the article for deletion when they don't get the result they want. Exxolon (talk) 22:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC) Disgusted keep, with comment - in this pathetic, "celebrity"-obsessed world of ours, she is more notable than many people who have actually accomplished something, and thus passes our notability check (you have no idea how much it depresses me to say that). HOWEVER: there is no justification for the continued censorship of her real name, date of birth and birthplace, properly sourced, but removed by somebody who has ownership problems and forgets that Wikipedia is not censored! --165.189.32.7 (talk) 16:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC) Keep Article meet sufficient criteria for inclusion. There's plenty of reliable sources in both English & Japanese. Subject is notable. -- GateKeeper (talk) @ 06:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Keep Subject isn't notable in any normal sense of the word as it's used out in the real world, but Wikipedia isn't the real world and has its own idiolect and vocabulary, notably a skewed "notability" (let's call this "notabilityWP"), which she seems to have. Her name, birthdate, etc, whose absence seems to infuriate some people above, don't seem to have any obvious relevance to her notabilityWP. People may for all I know be right in insisting that biographical stuff should be added to any article that survives this thrilling AfD process, but that's something to be discussed then or elsewhere, not now and here. -- Hoary (talk) 07:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. Magibon (4th nomination) 8 of 35 Google News 21 Books 3 Scholar 3 Editor Count: 100 Creator: Exxolon Nominator: X! DAJF 117 (77/40) 2009-11-06 Firithfenion 60 (52/8) 2008-09-28 Ariana-hime 45 (45/0) 2009-06-01 AuricBlofeld 37 (29/8) 2009-02-09 Seramagi 24 (24/0) 2008-12-04 Harmonic gear 22 (22/0) 2009-01-15 91.132.215.222 20 (20/0) 2008-12-15 Yariau neko 20 (7/13) 2009-01-20 Fugu Alienking 18 (15/3) 2008-12-15 Hetelllies 18 (16/2) 2008-09-29 Lowellian 15 (15/0) 2008-06-21 Arguecat4 15 (15/0) 2008-06-19 Gwynand 13 (12/1) 2008-06-26 Arguecat3 10 (10/0) 2008-06-18 159.213.47.125 8 (8/0) 2009-06-22 Xoxomabel 8 (8/0) 2008-08-21 Badagnani 8 (8/0) 2009-01-20 Skomorokh 7 (2/5) 2009-09-26 Fistgerald 7 (7/0) 2008-12-05 Gail 7 (1/6) 2008-12-22 69.231.31.213 6 (6/0) 2008-09-30 77.235.12.9 6 (6/0) 2009-02-24 68.100.149.206 6 (6/0) 2009-01-26 Mike Rosoft 6 (5/1) 2008-06-18 ClueBot (bot) 5 (0/5) 2009-05-22 SmackBot (bot) 5 (0/5) 2009-09-15 24.255.153.204 5 (5/0) 2008-09-28 GateKeeper 5 (5/0) 2009-05-27 Gefiltefisheater 5 (5/0) 2008-06-18 66.123.186.82 4 (4/0) 2009-04-03 UKER 4 (4/0) 2009-10-19 210.198.92.196 4 (4/0) 2009-10-19 Victor Lopes 4 (3/1) 2008-05-25 76.102.240.220 4 (4/0) 2008-12-22 75.22.75.119 4 (4/0) 2009-01-08 SchuminWeb 4 (4/0) 2008-11-30 Famous Mortimer 4 (2/2) 2009-03-16 Pedofenion 4 (4/0) 2008-10-27 Forryga 4 (4/0) 2008-10-29 Moonriddengirl 4 (1/3) 2008-06-20 130.113.38.113 3 (3/0) 2008-11-13 Pisomojado 3 (3/0) 2009-11-08 76.199.72.228 3 (3/0) 2008-05-20 Michaelcrawford4009 3 (3/0) 2009-06-11 CHRISLEGEND4 3 (3/0) 2008-11-17 Seresin 3 (0/3) 2009-02-03 66.27.120.11 2 (2/0) 2009-02-03 Ryulong 2 (2/0) 2008-08-10 Oxymoron83 2 (1/1) 2008-09-11 Marek69 2 (0/2) 2009-02-24 190.42.226.247 2 (2/0) 2009-03-08 76.206.192.244 2 (2/0) 2009-03-09 81.141.72.43 2 (2/0) 2009-03-16 Woohookitty 2 (2/0) 2008-10-29 Flewis 2 (1/1) 2008-10-15 Dekisugi 2 (0/2) 2008-10-20 DroEsperanto 2 (2/0) 2009-08-23 Pohta ce-am pohtit 2 (2/0) 2008-11-01 J Readings 2 (0/2) 2008-11-01 Da Vynci 2 (2/0) 2009-03-22 Chrismaster1 2 (2/0) 2008-11-29 Gwen Gale 2 (2/0) 2008-06-20 118.19.102.136 2 (2/0) 2009-01-05 Extraordinary 2 (1/1) 2008-06-21 Mackblack 2 (2/0) 2009-01-21 Section8pidgeon 2 (2/0) 2008-07-20 118.136.109.25 2 (2/0) 2009-02-08 Babybabyxxx 2 (2/0) 2009-02-13 76.102.183.50 2 (2/0) 2008-09-11 Chick Bowen 2 (2/0) 2008-09-21 Meankookoo 2 (2/0) 2009-02-24 Odie5533 2 (0/2) 2009-03-09 124.181.137.58 2 (2/0) 2009-09-03 Robofish 2 (0/2) 2009-06-22 80.72.152.157 2 (2/0) 2009-09-26 65.102.140.90 2 (2/0) 2009-11-07 74.132.75.100 2 (2/0) 2008-11-29 70.51.9.216 2 (2/0) 2008-05-25 72.90.169.241 2 (2/0) 2008-05-26 Vary 2 (0/2) 2009-01-05 91.92.176.154 2 (2/0) 2009-01-10 Baboo 2 (0/2) 2008-07-06 Theevileone 2 (2/0) 2009-01-15 80.139.106.54 1 (1/0) 2009-02-11 76.83.203.171 1 (1/0) 2008-08-20 Joannamusic19 1 (1/0) 2009-02-13 Redtable01 1 (1/0) 2008-08-22 Kbdank71 1 (0/1) 2009-02-13 58.170.84.22 1 (1/0) 2009-02-16 203.221.86.242 1 (1/0) 2008-09-25 89.15.109.183 1 (1/0) 2009-02-17 70.94.230.245 1 (1/0) 2009-02-24 Nagy 1 (0/1) 2008-09-28 IW.HG 1 (0/1) 2008-09-28 72.130.43.20 1 (1/0) 2009-02-24 JGHowes 1 (1/0) 2008-09-29 24.222.194.156 1 (1/0) 2008-09-30 76.183.178.61 1 (1/0) 2008-10-03 24.54.236.20 1 (1/0) 2009-03-16 The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 History of China. Black Kite 00:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC) Dragon Court AfDs for this article: Articles for deletion/Dragon Court Articles for deletion/Dragon Court (0th nomination) Articles for deletion/Dragon Court (2nd nomination) Dragon Court (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Previously deleted via AFD in 2006 and prodded in June 2007 with the concern: "Article does not explain how this game might be notable (WP:N), or provide any independent references (WP:V), and is almost entirely game guide material (WP:NOT)". Concerns raised in prod and previous AFD discussion are still valid: the article still consists of game guide and promotional material with no independent sources to establish notability. The only coverage I can find in reliable sources is a mention in a Press of Atlantic City article (link), but it's debatable whether this is sufficient to satisfy WP:N. Muchness (talk) 03:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Delete. A mere mention in PoAC does not connote notability, and the sources don't convey anything. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Delete and redirect per the PROD reasoning, it was redirected to History of China, so it should be deleted to remove the current content, and a redirect be created and fully protected to History of China as a reasonable alternate term for the Court of the Dragon Throne. 65.94.252.195 (talk) 07:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Redirect to History of China. The subject is not notable, and so the redirect should remain in place. Protection is too extreme at this point; if editors continue to remove the redirect, it can be discussed then. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 22:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. Dragon Court (2nd nomination) 9 of 35 Google News 295 Books 663 Scholar 171 Editor Count: 57 Creator: Aeroknight Nominator: Rossami Divine Auror 15 (15/0) 2009-02-22 24.168.16.12 5 (5/0) 2006-05-17 130.71.51.190 4 (4/0) 2006-05-21 70.160.123.110 4 (4/0) 2006-06-14 24.19.246.23 3 (3/0) 2006-08-28 67.49.11.26 3 (3/0) 2006-09-15 SmackBot (bot) 3 (0/3) 2009-05-26 Enmoku 2 (0/2) 2009-05-26 97.120.215.220 2 (2/0) 2009-11-06 130.71.51.216 2 (2/0) 2006-05-21 Verrai 2 (1/1) 2006-05-21 24.55.159.161 2 (2/0) 2006-06-04 Sbluen 2 (2/0) 2006-08-07 60.230.96.89 2 (2/0) 2006-12-31 71.189.52.67 2 (2/0) 2007-06-16 Snarius 2 (2/0) 2006-04-12 212.9.9.53 2 (2/0) 2006-06-07 192.154.129.30 2 (2/0) 2007-04-22 Marasmusine 1 (1/0) 2007-06-25 Arf! 1 (1/0) 2007-06-28 Thehelpfulbot (bot) 1 (0/1) 2009-02-10 81.149.221.123 1 (1/0) 2009-03-20 Rjwilmsi 1 (0/1) 2009-04-10 Billinghurst 1 (0/1) 2009-07-19 65.94.252.195 1 (1/0) 2009-11-08 64.123.132.16 1 (1/0) 2006-04-13 24.18.217.22 1 (1/0) 2006-05-22 72.136.158.52 1 (1/0) 2006-06-14 Exander 1 (1/0) 2006-06-26 Aelfthrytha 1 (1/0) 2006-08-14 209.180.130.29 1 (1/0) 2006-08-29 Ayavaron 1 (1/0) 2006-09-16 Mcamorran 1 (0/1) 2006-11-20 ChrisCork 1 (0/1) 2006-12-07 -Majestic- 1 (0/1) 2007-01-22 Betacommand 1 (0/1) 2007-03-21 128.208.36.155 1 (1/0) 2007-04-13 140.211.72.241 1 (1/0) 2007-05-03 132.205.44.5 1 (1/0) 2007-06-27 UnCatBot (bot) 1 (0/1) 2009-02-21 CmdrObot (bot) 1 (0/1) 2009-04-06 Technocratx 1 (1/0) 2009-05-14 Garion96 1 (0/1) 2009-05-31 Cydebot (bot) 1 (0/1) 2009-07-22 Muchness 1 (1/0) 2009-11-08 Pearle (bot) 1 (0/1) 2006-04-13 Bluebot 1 (1/0) 2006-05-20 24.16.50.104 1 (1/0) 2006-05-21 68.42.1.210 1 (1/0) 2006-05-25 68.14.31.161 1 (1/0) 2006-07-03 Draicone 1 (0/1) 2006-08-13 Hibana 1 (1/0) 2006-09-18 Joshman8 1 (1/0) 2006-11-25 Zarggg 1 (0/1) 2007-01-09 198.60.195.11 1 (1/0) 2007-02-16 24.4.36.99 1 (1/0) 2007-03-28 The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite 00:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC) Pentecostal Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Pentecostal Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Is not notable as per WP:CORP. The first source in the article is a dead link to the (no longer existent) website of the organization. The second (adherents.com) cites a paper written by the group's founder. This certainly doesn't constitute "significant coverage in secondary sources" as required by WP:CORP. Ferris37 (talk) 03:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Delete. First link provided doesn't exist, second only shows a rough gauge of adherency to this flavor of Mormonism. Google search turns up absolutely nothing relevant - the first link available was for the WP article, others were not related to this particular sect. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC) delete per notability concerns outlined above. It basically started as a scripture-reading club; whether it's gone beyond that (apart from in the mind of the founder) is impossible to know based on the sources currently available. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Delete. I've tried to find reliable sources on this group, and can't find anything other than the adherent.com website. There used to be a website for the denomination, but it is now defunct. These denominations come and go, and I haven't seen anything written on this one for several years. COGDEN 03:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. Pentecostal Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints 10 of 35 Google News 0 Books 4 Scholar 0 Editor Count: 32 Creator: COGDEN Nominator: Ferris37 Good Olfactory 4 (2/2) 2009-06-22 12.210.199.204 3 (3/0) 2009-04-08 Umcjeff 3 (3/0) 2009-10-10 71.35.41.92 2 (2/0) 2006-11-11 Nyttend 2 (2/0) 2009-05-29 SmackBot (bot) 2 (0/2) 2007-10-15 Snocrates 2 (2/0) 2007-11-21 Jonathunder 1 (1/0) 2005-01-03 Tijuana Brass 1 (1/0) 2005-09-28 Paul foord 1 (0/1) 2006-02-07 Dangerous-Boy 1 (1/0) 2006-11-26 BrownHairedGirl 1 (1/0) 2006-12-17 Argon233 1 (1/0) 2007-02-12 71.35.45.107 1 (1/0) 2007-04-28 71.92.157.26 1 (1/0) 2007-10-11 Europe22 1 (0/1) 2008-01-22 Bytebear 1 (1/0) 2009-05-15 Surv1v4l1st 1 (1/0) 2009-06-23 Thane Eichenauer 1 (1/0) 2009-10-27 WOT 1 (1/0) 2004-08-07 208.187.180.214 1 (1/0) 2005-04-10 Fischersc 1 (0/1) 2005-12-21 Lethargy 1 (1/0) 2006-10-20 MisfitToys 1 (0/1) 2006-11-20 84.201.219.2 1 (1/0) 2006-12-30 RIH-V 1 (1/0) 2007-02-26 HarrivBOT (bot) 1 (0/1) 2007-12-20 XLinkBot 1 (1/0) 2009-04-08 24.184.90.220 1 (1/0) 2009-05-15 Ninja247 1 (1/0) 2009-06-15 The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. article already exists at Melody of Rhythm JForget 00:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC) Rhythm of Melody Rhythm of Melody (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. Might be better off to merge with artist.  Btilm  03:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Keep: Fleck is notable. This could be a work-in-progress of someone fleshing out Fleck articles. Give it time. - BalthCat (talk) 19:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC) *Keep both fleck and zakir hussain are highly notable. its just not well done at this point. needs refs, links, etc. whoops, temporary dyslexia, i see the error, delete or redirect to correct article.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC) Delete. Hoax/misnaming. Melody of Rhythm is the correct name. Bela Fleck is the shit however. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 01:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC) Delete per TheWeakWilled. There is an article with the album's correct title, Melody of Rhythm.  Gongshow Talk 05:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 18:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. Rhythm of Melody 11 of 35 Google News 5 Books 361 Scholar 36 Editor Count: 2 Creator: Tomiwoj Nominator: Btilm The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC) Tales From The Acoustic Planet, Vol. 3: Africa Sessions Tales From The Acoustic Planet, Vol. 3: Africa Sessions (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 no signs of notability. Should it be merged with the author? It doesn't even have a track listing.  Btilm  02:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Keep: It could be a work-in-progress of someone fleshing out Bela Fleck albums. Give it time. (Fleck himself is notable.) - BalthCat (talk) 18:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC) Keep satisfies WP:NALBUM. AFD message re-added to article. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 01:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC) Thanks - I didn't notice that. Tim Song (talk) 18:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC) Note: As the AfD template on the article was removed almost immediately after it was first added, this should be considered the first week of discussion for relisting purposes. Tim Song (talk) 18:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 18:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. Tales From The Acoustic Planet, Vol. 3: Africa Sessions 12 of 35 Google News 9 Books 0 Scholar 0 Editor Count: 0 Creator: Tomiwoj Nominator: Btilm The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Even if it was originally an autobiography, that doesn't necessarily make it deletion worthy. Since nomination, this article now has a neutral POV, and is within Wikipedia guidelines so consensus proves this one is a keeper. Tavix |  Talk  22:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC) Jeremy Parzen Jeremy Parzen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Parzen wrote this article about himself, in violation of WP:AUTO, WP:COI, and WP:SPA. He then went around the project inserting links to his article in a variety of other articles [5]. When he was confronted with his behavior, he did apologize, and requested that the article be deleted [6]. Qworty (talk) 02:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Keep I told Parzen I'd support retaining this article, and asked him not to delete it. He wrote the article on himself without realizing it was contrary to our guidelines. He did so in a thoroughly neutral tone. I believe the article and refs meet our criteria for notability, for his writing work. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Comment He is a blogger and translator whose work fails the notability standards of WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 02:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Comment He is a respected and widely published food and wine writer who meets WP:AUTHOR. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Keep Parzen looks like he is wiki notable to me and the page can and will be improved, Parzen has been quite open about who he is and imo has done nothing wrong, I think in a heated moment he asked how to delete the article but I have discussed with him and he is for keeping and improving the article. Off2riorob (talk) 14:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Let's see how it goes here. If it's clear consensus is against keeping he may change his mind, in which case we can db-author it at any time. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Comment: Technically it would not qualify for {{db-author}} as he is not the sole contributor to the article. True. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC) keep it seems notable, i see no reason to delete it Aisha9152 (talk) 20:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Weak Keep: scrapes by per WP:BIO. – ukexpat (talk) 15:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 02:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC) Keep. Meets WP:GNG with this and this, he's WP:N. J04n(talk page) 03:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC) The subject seems to meet wikipedia notability to me. Off2riorob (talk) 04:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC) Off2riorob, although this AfD has been relisted, you cannot vote twice. Please strike through the above vote. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC) Keep Neutrally written on notable person. -- WP:COI is not a fatal flaw for initiating an article. "Conflict of interest is not a reason to delete an article, though other problems with the article arising from a conflict of interest may be valid criteria for deletion." Abent a reason for deletion, default to Keep. Collect (talk) 12:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. Jeremy Parzen 13 of 35 Google News 25 Books 188 Scholar 73 Editor Count: 5 Creator: Jparzen Nominator: Qworty Shawn in Montreal 17 (2/15) 2009-11-08 Off2riorob 8 (7/1) 2009-11-07 Spartaz 1 (1/0) 2009-11-07 The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite 00:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC) Morphyre Morphyre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) NN internet related tool, fails WP:WEB, no reliable sources, prod removed Delete Secret account 02:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Delete per Secret. -- ISLANDERS27 05:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Secret, since I have not received a reply to my comments on the talk page, I am posting here. A note about the proposed deletion: Note that other music visualizations such as Neon (light synthesizer), Milkdrop and NoiseCradle have their own wiki pages which contain a lot less information and do not have valid references, but these have not been suggested for deletion. I would be interested to know why the Morphyre page was singled out in particular rather than these. Of course it may not contain a huge mass of information at the moment that you would expect from a page that has been around for 5 years, but isn't that the idea of a wiki? That others add information to help make an article more complete? (Not that the article gets deleted within a week before anyone is given a chance to add to it). I have contributed anonymously to several mathematics and engineering related articles and think that it is the opportunity for others to help build an article that makes wikipedia so valuable. Morphyre represents an important development in the evolution of music visualizations because of its 3D stereoscopic output and because of the multiplicity of different 3D scenes. It is also being developed separately with the hope of being involved in a project which tries to bring an experience of music to deaf children in schools. It is also one of the few visualizers capable of being run on Macs, Windows, and all the main media players. I have added some references, which as I'm sure you know, is difficult for a purely web-based product. The statistics about the downloads are verified on the Winamp website and the use of TinyJS is also referenced. Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 19:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. Morphyre 14 of 35 Google News 3 Books 6 Scholar 0 Editor Count: 7 Creator: MariannebPark Nominator: Secret Rabidhamster5 13 (13/0) 2009-11-07 86.1.32.116 5 (5/0) 2009-10-10 The very model of a minor general 1 (1/0) 2009-10-10 SmackBot (bot) 1 (0/1) 2009-10-11 82.3.46.26 1 (1/0) 2009-10-11 The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was speedy keep. Nominator blocked as a sock per CU. No outstanding delete !votes. Nothing to do here. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 03:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Variety Child Learning Center Variety Child Learning Center (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 long standing consensus has been that pre-secondary schools (i.e., primary schools and middle schools) are not notable enough to have their own article. There is no Blue Ribbon for this school. Xqe (talk) 01:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Keep No, the consensus is that such schools are not automatically or inherently notable, but that they may be if they pass the general notability guideline. This Google News archive search and a Google Books search both suggest that notability is a possibility. But lack of notability is never a valid reason to delete a school. If such a school is operated by a school district, it can be merged into the school district's article. Otherwise, it can become a paragraph in the locality's article. Neither outcome requires an AfD. -- Eastmain (talk) 22:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. Variety Child Learning Center 15 of 35 Google News 75 Books 9 Scholar 7 Editor Count: 3 Creator: 198.38.10.1 Nominator: Xqe Leonard^Bloom 2 (0/2) 2009-11-07 The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ignoring multivotes from one user, consensus is either 'keep' or 'no consensus'. tedder (talk) 16:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC) Frank K. Wheaton Frank K. Wheaton (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:ENTERTAINER. As for the rest of this, it is mind-numbingly non-notable, including the genealogy and the mundane life history. It's hard to see how anybody could think this meets WP notability standards, despite the references. It's important to remember that verifiability is not the same thing as notability. Qworty (talk) 01:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Are you kidding? Mr. Wheaton is a leading entertainment attorney in his field. His company has represented some of the top people in entertainment. He's also produced many regional and international events and is a former board member of BESLA. Mr. Wheaton is also listed in "Who's Who Among African Americans." You'd be hard pressed to find an entertainment executive that has had the depth of experience and recognition that he has. He is clearly notable.Igbo (talk) 18:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC) Neutral. I don't understand why the subject would be judged by the standards of WP:ENTERTAINER when his primary activity is being a lawyer/agent. There are a fair number of Google News Archive hits for his name, but most of them involve his representation of the woman who was revealed to be Strom Thurmond's daughter rather than being primarily about Wheaton himself. In order to establish him as notable, it would be helpful if sources could be presented to show that he meets the general notability guidelines. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC) Keep I'll agree that his notability is more in the sports area. His sports accomplishments are very significant. Very few sports agents have represented so many top athletes and produced major sporting events for them. He's worked with Michael Jordan, James Worthy and Flo-Jo among others. He's also worked with major entertainment figures such as Marla Gibbs and Milton Berle. Igbo (talk) 02:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC) Delete He has been a bit player in a couple of controversies but doesn't seem to have done anything notable on his own. Mangoe (talk) 22:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC) Keep One need only see his listing in Who's Who Among African Americans to see just some of his many accomplishments. For many years he was one of the top African American Sports Agents/Attorneys in the field. He's a former board member of the Black Entertainment and Sports Lawyers Association (BESLA). He has represented James Worthy and numerous Olympic medalists such as Flo-Jo, Al Joyner and Bob Beamon. He's also produced several sport-related events with Michael Jordan, Milton Berle and Worthy. He has also produced several sports-related television programs including an ESPN special Sports Greats: One on One with David Hartman and The World's Fastest Athlete for ABC's Wide World of Sports. These are just some of sport-related accomplishments. He's also represented many entertainers as well such as Marla Gibbs, Will Wheaton, Norman Connors, Norman Brown and internationally known artists. Of course everyone knows that he represented Strom Thurmond's daughter Essie Mae Washington and her book deal.Igbo (talk) 02:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. Frank K. Wheaton 16 of 35 Google News 67 Books 9 Scholar 1 Editor Count: 7 Creator: Igbo Nominator: Qworty Aboutmovies 1 (0/1) 2008-04-13 DefaultsortBot (bot) 1 (1/0) 2009-06-18 Novasource 1 (1/0) 2008-01-12 AxG 1 (1/0) 2008-11-22 Malcolma 1 (0/1) 2009-10-14 The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was delete. Wizardman 17:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC) Key West High School Alternative Energy Program Key West High School Alternative Energy Program (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Program that doesn't have significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Trivial coverage. The only Google News Result ends up to be a 404. No school article to redirect to. User:Heindrekallen seems to be a WP:SPA. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 01:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Delete - turbines have not yet been built. The suggestion that the turbines would be named after Stephen Colbert suggests that this is perhaps a hoax. Racepacket (talk) 01:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC) sorting/Organizations|list of Organizations-related deletion discussions]]. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 02:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 02:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Delete: It did win an award, but it is a local award. Joe Chill (talk) 20:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Delete Non-notable school project. Warrah (talk) 21:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Keep The article needs references, but the program is mentioned in an EPA report: http://www.epa.gov/Region4/clean_energy/Biodiesel%20Primer%20Final.pdf (starting on page 11). Being the "first public high school 'green' energy program in the state of Florida" would make it notable. The claim needs a source, of course, but I think that it is reasonable to assume that this might be true. Being created by a WP:SPA is not a reason to delete an article. However, WP:COI might be an issue. The article needs cleanup to remove all WP:OR. « D. Trebbien (talk) 21:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC) I'm leaning on a slight keep/withdrawal because of that, but it would be nice if we had more than that one source. Also, I was just pointing out the SPA, not using it against the article. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 22:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC) Keep - Wind turbines are in use at Key West High School. The first one when up Thursday November 12, 2009. I along with about 200 other band, football, soccer, cheerleader, and cross country students were witness to it. It is not a hoax. Since when do local awards not count? And WHEN is it ever non-notable for students to raise wind turbine at their school? Are you guys crazy? Keep this page. I'm certain the page will develop more as time goes on and the situation develops. The above was written by a WP:SPA User:KWBandConch. Most likely a conflict of interest as well. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 20:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC) And to answer your questions, just saying that you witnessed it doesn't mean anything. I could say that I along with 200 of my bffs witnessed the apocalypse yesterday, but that doesn't mean anything. Local awards don't count on wikipedia per WP:N. And yes, I may be a little psychotic. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 20:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC) Was the part about naming it after Colbert a hoax? Racepacket (talk) 16:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC) Delete per Warrah and Joe Chill. GlassCobra 18:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Delete. If any of this is notable, merge into the school article. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. Key West High School Alternative Energy Program 17 of 35 Google News 0 Books 0 Scholar 0 Editor Count: 2 Creator: Heindrekallen Nominator: TheWeakWilled The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite 00:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC) Steve Murdoch Steve Murdoch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Unfortunately, the notability of the subject has not been demonstrated. There are many historians and scholars out there and this article says nothing of how its subject stands apart from the countless mass of past or present "scholars." I would suggest that the author of this article do a bit more research on his topics before starting articles of dubious value. Torkmann (talk) 01:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 02:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Delete per nom. Qworty (talk) 03:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Provisional keep because of presumption of likely satisfaction of WP:PROF, borderline "speedy keep" because of its inference of lack of good faith in nomination, such lack which can be inferred by the obvious (by the wording of the nomination) lack of the nominator's doing any WP:BEFORE. Request someone with access to citation databases review the subject's full publication list for references. Bongomatic 10:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC) A Google Scholar search doesn't bring up many citations. 15, 9, 8, 7, 7 are the top items. CronopioFlotante (talk) 12:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Keep I have placed a stub tag on the article. The article describes the subject as a "reader": this is a senior academic post in a UK university. The award of this status by his university ought to be sufficient to demonstate his notability. WE are not talking about a school teacher who writes a couple of books! The (open access) Royal Historical Society bibliography lists 37 works by him from 1996 to 2008: this should be ample tp prove notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Comment - A reading of the article Reader (academic rank) suggests it does not satisfy WP:ACADEMIC criterion 5, to which I assume you were referring. Barring some specific evidence of the University of St Andrews being a contra-example, "reader" is generally a position below "Chair" or "Distinguished Professor". - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Keep: As per Bongo. Maybe his page at the U St. Andrews will help. - BalthCat (talk) 17:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Delete. The low citation count suggests that WP:PROF#1 is not satisfied. There is no evidence of notability under any other item in WP:PROF. Searching for "Steve Murdoch" + "Scotland" (here) or + "history" (here) at Google News doesn't turn up much that would point towards notability as an expert on the history of Scotland who is frequently cited in the media. CronopioFlotante (talk) 19:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Weak Keep. LP works in an obscure subject that may be not be expected to garner many cites. Info about library holdings would be useful. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC). Delete - There's no evidence of Murdoch passing WP:N through multiple significant independent reliable sources, and the article does not make any claim against any criterion of WP:ACADEMIC. (Specifically, his position of reader appears to fall short of criterion 5, there's no sufficent mass of citation provided to suggest he meets criterion 1, and no suggestion that he'd meet any other criterion.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Weak Keep (vote changed) - per arguments of DGG below, he appears to narrowly pass either or both of WP:N or WP:ACADEMIC criterion 1. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Keep Meets all requirements for notability and verifiability. I have a sneaking feeling that Torkmann and Drawn Some are the same person. Both are wikistalking me and nominating my articles for deletion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Comment - Richard, I note you are the creator of the article and as such could possibly have valuable insight. How do you say this article meets "all requirements for notability and verifiability"? - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Delete only limited coverage. gnews, don't see evidence how it meets specific criteria of WP:PROF. LibStar (talk) 02:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Keep I do not accept Reader as necessarily notable, though I would accept Senior Reader in a major research university. But this p[articular Reader is notable, since he has written three academic books, and co-edited another. That many published books would make him notable either as an academic or as an author, especially since at least one of them has 4 reviews. . Scotland and the Thirty Years' War, 1618-1648 108 WirldCat locations, & WorldCat shows his book has been reviewed in The Sixteenth century journal. 35, no. 1, (2004): 199; Journal of Military History, 67, no. 1 (2003): 226-227, Scottish historical review. 83, no. 216, (2004): 244; Scottish Economic & social History,no. 22, Part 1 (2002): 88-89. Britain, Denmark-Norway and the House of Stuart, 1603-1660 : a diplomatic and military analysis, about 40 holdings. Network north : Scottish kin, commercial and covert associations in Northern Europe, 1603-1746 54 WorldCat locations. ; co editorship of another Scottish communities abroad in the early modern period. His principal publisher, Brill, is a major academic publisher for this sort of topic. Considering the specialized of the overall subject I would consider this certainly enough to show expert status is his subject. (And I have not checked comprehensively for US or European holdings, which is more difficult, nor for reviews of the other books.) In addition there is the joint work on Scotland, Scandinavia and Northern European Biographical Database [7] ; the copyright is in his name. BTW, G News archive is sometimes helpful in finding book reviews for US books, but otherwise is useless in dealing with WP:PROF, as contrasted with WP:BIO, for which it is invaluable. DGG ( talk ) 03:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Request for clarification - sorry, DGG, just to clarify the above, are you saying he's written one book "Scotland and the Thirty Years' War", with reviews in Journal of Military history, etc; or that he's written a selection of books and articles including "Journal of Military History", "Scottish Economic & Social History", etc? (The latter would pass the broad definition for WP:ACADEMIC and possibly also criterion 1, the former may or may not.) Also, when you say "expert status", are you referring to any particular policy? I'm not aware of it being a criterion under WP:ACADEMIC or elsewhere but I stand to be corrected. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC) He was written 3 books and co-edited another. Of these books, I have found multiple reviews for one of them--I have not looked comprehensively for find reviews for the other ones, partly because what I found already is I think sufficient in that direction. The four journals mentioned are journals that reviewed his book, not articles he has published. "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." is what I summarize as being an expert in his subject. The independent reliable sources are: 1/ the peer reviewers and editors who accepted and published the 4 books--academic books these days normally need 3 or 4 positive reviews to be accepted for publication. 2/The book reviewers writing in significant academic journals 3/the people who have cited the books--very difficult to find in this subject comprehensively, but the GScholar results are indicative. 4/the hundreds of librarians and faculty advisors in academic libraries who have selected the books for purchase--how libraries do this varies, but at least one person in each must have positively selected the book for each of them. (as a guide, at the most academically stringent universities , the basic criterion for permanent tenure is 2 books; at most universities it can be fewer. From the way the article was written, I carelessly assumed at first there was 1 book with 1 significant review only, in which case i would have said delete. Fortunately I actually looked at the sources before giving my first assumptions. DGG ( talk ) 03:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Thankyou for the clarification. I've changed my opinion above accordingly to "weak keep" on the basis of your arguments. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Week Keep per Dust and DGG.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Keep I believe we now have sufficient evidence of his academic notability, which was not present at the time Torkmann nominated. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Comment, Remember it is the topic that is, or, is not notable, not the state of the article at any given time. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Response. But also remember that the article must at least demonstrate some prima facie evidence of notability. Many of your articles do not. No offense. Torkmann (talk) 03:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC) It looks like a combination of ignorance and harassment to me: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard H. Sylvester Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W. L. Shurtleff Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hiram Boardman Conibear Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia Chiefs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suffrage Hike. Where you wrote: "How is this notable or memorable? I say that is it no different than any of the other myriad women's rights caterwauling that's been going on for the last several hundred years. No different than an article on 'Molly's bra burning at the Bush second inauguration party, 2004, Salem, Mass.' Sourcing seems a bit suspect as well. Rubbish." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Keep DGG convinced me. Reader in this case does indicated a notable person, all requirements are thus met. Dream Focus 10:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. Steve Murdoch 18 of 35 Google News 168 Books 255 Scholar 188 Editor Count: 3 Creator: Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) Nominator: Torkmann Shawn in Montreal 9 (1/8) 2009-11-08 The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite 00:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC) W. L. Shurtleff W. L. Shurtleff (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 one sentence article with a photograph of dubious provenance is all this article is. I understand the defendant this man represented was notorious back in 1906, but that does not make his lawyer notable enough for this encyclopaedia. Unless this attorney was known for anything other than this one trial he did, I would regrettfully have to recommend deletion of this fine article. Torkmann (talk) 01:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Comment The Library of Congress is dubious? Have you ever used The Google on The Internets before you nominate. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Delete. Notability neither asserted nor demonstrated. Qworty (talk) 03:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Keep. I expanded the article significantly. He wasn't just a lawyer. He was also a newspaper owner, a political organizer and a member of the government committee which oversaw the Protestant school system in Quebec. (While he was alive, Quebec had two separate publicly-funded school systems, one Catholic, the other Protestant.) -- Eastmain (talk) 08:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk) 08:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Comment for what it's worth, the New York Times described him merely, in one case, as "one of the lawyers retained by Harry Thaw". Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Keep Meets all requirements for notability and verifiability. I have a sneaking feeling that Torkmann and Drawn Some are the same person. Both are wikistalking me and nominating my articles for deletion, and not doing much else. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Keep - per Eastmain's expansions (article now passes general criteria of WP:N through significant independent reliable sources). Another fine rescue, good work. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. W. L. Shurtleff 19 of 35 Google News 10 Books 252 Scholar 34 Editor Count: 3 Creator: Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) Nominator: Torkmann Eastmain 1 (1/0) 2009-11-08 The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 22:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC) Colleen Cassady St. Clair Colleen Cassady St. Clair (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:PROF notability criteria. From what I can tell, she's no more notable than an average university professor. Bueller 007 (talk) 01:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Delete on WP:PROF. Qworty (talk) 03:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Keep. Top GS cites 61, 61, 36, 27, 23... h index = 12. Respectable indication of scholarly impact. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC). Comment. FTA, "Hirsch suggested that, for physicists, a value for h of about 10–12 might be a useful guideline for tenure decisions..." Now, from what I can see, she's actually not yet tenured and her h-index does not (yet) indicate that she should be included. It's not even particularly high by the standards of that university. Taking an example of a professor I know there, **** ****** is tenured, has an h-index of 20, and has top citations of 143, 130, 98, 71, 46. No one would argue that he needs to be included in Wikipedia. He's not notable. There's nothing particularly meaningful about the numbers you cite. Bueller 007 (talk) 17:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC) FWIW Bueller, Colleen is a she not a he, and is most definitely tenured. FYI: Associate Professor == tenured, Assistant Professor == not (yet) tenured. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Note also looking at the Chemistry Prof that Bueller argues does not need to be included in Wikipedia, while he might not "need to be in Wikipedia" would be an obvious AfD keep as he clearly passes WP:PROF. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC) Delete Change to neutral, per below. While she is published, I can find no reviews of her work indicating notability for her at this stage in her career. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Keep. I created the stub as an extension of seeing her name linked in red on Ethology (which has since been removed by Bueller 007 immediately before suggesting it for deletion). It will likely remain a stub and not significantly notable for some time as wildlife behaviour is a considerably "closed" and eclectic field compared to more media or internet-exposed topics like physics, medical, pop culture and politics, and thus receives significantly less attention or consideration of importance in general communities such as wikipedia. That said, despite having fewer publications to her name than most professors with greater experience, as an individual expert in her area, she is a member of various committees for professional organizations within the field of animal behaviour and is consulted by regional and metropolitan councils and media on topics of wildlife movement and behaviour in the south-central region of Alberta, especially regarding her focus topic of human-animal conflict involving fauna in urban areas and national parks. I would like to comment that even other regionally notable researchers in the field of wildlife, however, still do not have articles and this may form, and be formed from, a potential bias in recognition or interest. It is an interesting dichotomy that even obscure cartoon characters and bands are included as content. While the possibility that such encyclopedic content is too niche to be in regular usefulness on wikipedia - and I have no problems with it being dropped - "average university professor" is a poor, subjective and over-general reason to dismiss a person as non-notable. Cite-count is also unreliable as citations are inherently biased on the time since publication and the popularity and size of a field. Exzakin (talk) 17:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC) FWIW, here is popular press coverage of one of Cassidy St. Clair's projects in Telegraph.co.uk and nytimes.com (full disclosure, I'm on the supervisory committee of the student doing this work) Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC) It seems to be the same article by Frey reprinted, and she is not the focus of the article. That said, a Telegraph/NYT cite is a pretty significant mention. I also have a real problem with the nominator removing the link to her from the Ethology article as "non-notable" before the community has had a chance to decide. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 02:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC) Delete. What is she known for? If the article cannot tie a topic into a wider context, what is the point? This is an encyclopedia, not a repository for articles on associate professors who have some citations. Abductive (reasoning) 03:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC) Weak Delete on the ground of WP:PROF, because I cannot find significant contributions in her field that would meet this requirement. This is tentative as I'll easily sway towards keeping if such evidence can be shown to me. Tavix |  Talk  22:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC) Weak delete. While the Google scholar results are not bad, they're not strong enough to convince me that she passes WP:PROF #1 — I agree with Exzakin's "Cite-count is also unreliable" but to me that means we shouldn't rely on it to argue for a pass in cases like this where it's not clear-cut. I don't think the Telegraph/NYT piece's coverage (of her specifically) is nontrivial enough for WP:GNG, and it's only one piece (the wording is the same despite being in two different major papers). And I don't see any other reason to keep. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC) Delete per David Eppstein. To insert my more general 2 cents, "not more notable than the average professor." RayTalk 16:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. Colleen Cassady St. Clair 20 of 35 Google News 10 Books 15 Scholar 121 Editor Count: 3 Creator: Exzakin Nominator: Bueller 007 AlexandrDmitri 1 (1/0) 2009-09-20 The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 11:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC) Youville Drive Youville Drive (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 a neighbourhood street in Edmonton. It is not all that notable. Rufus843 (talk) 01:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Delete unless you can find the Beatles crossing it on an album cover. Wikipedia is not a directory. Qworty (talk) 03:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Hard to see how such a street is notable, though I see it's in the Edmonton street template. I'll raise this on the talk page. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Delete The street template is simply a list of streets in Edmonton that have articles. I never understood why this small street had an article. 117Avenue (talk) 03:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Delete per above. When a guy whose usename is an Edmonton street says it's non-notable, you know you've got problems. 117 when the link goes red, let's pull it from the template. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Thanks, I like your name too, saying who you are and where you are. I was planning on deleting this article when I got back to working on Edmonton streets. 117Avenue (talk) 06:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Delete per above. Actually a number of streets in the template are needed to be pulled too. SYSS Mouse (talk) 04:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC) What articles to you have a problem with? When I joined Wikipedia the list was incomplete, I figured that the criteria for making a city street notable was that it was an artery. 117Avenue (talk) 06:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC) People have tried to hash out what constitutes a notable street, most recently here Wikipedia:Notability (streets, roads, and highways). The general, although unapproved, consensus is that a street has to have a "hook", or to just pass the WP:GNG. Abductive (reasoning) 03:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Delete Just another one of the world's millions of short residential streets. Nothing to indicate notability. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 01:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Delete. No claim of notability. No sources about the street. Abductive (reasoning) 03:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Delete. Very clearly doesn't meet notability standards for a street, even if its 1.7 km of asphalt is quite pleasant to drive.--Milowent (talk) 21:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. Youville Drive 21 of 35 Google News 18 Books 47 Scholar 103 Editor Count: 7 Creator: Johntwrl Nominator: Rufus843 Kyle1278 1 (1/0) 2009-04-06 Abductive 1 (1/0) 2009-06-18 The Anomebot2 (bot) 1 (1/0) 2009-03-20 Signalhead 1 (0/1) 2009-05-25 SmackBot (bot) 1 (0/1) 2009-06-19 The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Both sides made valid points, and it would be hard to call this anything else. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 12:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC) Mass killings under Communist regimes AfDs for this article (as Communist genocide): Articles for deletion/Communist genocide Articles for deletion/Communist genocide (2nd nomination) Mass killings under Communist regimes (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 is entirely original research that synthesizes unconnected theories about Communist government in different countries not substantiated in any academic literature. It was originally created by banned editor Joklolk. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC) The Four Deuces (talk) 01:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC) I am not going to vote on this AfD this time around (though I feel I have every right to do so) but I do regard Four Deuces characterization of my self as "far right anti-Russian" as complete bullshit meant to influence the outcome of this AfD, and a direct personal attack (particularly since I consider "far right" to be a despicable political position).radek (talk) 01:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC) I will also stay out of this one - no point in voting, since the result is given from the start (no consensus). I just want to note that if the nominator truly wants to build consensus around some kind of constructive improvement, s/he is going about it in a really bad way - nominating the article for deletion every other month is not likely to get people out of their entrenched positions. --Anderssl (talk) 02:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC) It's not "every other month". Last nomination was a month and a half ago [8] (Sept 24). This is just tendentious and disruptive forum shopping, and should be rejected on those grounds alone.radek (talk) 02:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Delete I have been following this in the background since it was called Communist Genocide (see box above). Every AfD ended in no consensus with an attached promise to improve the article. As the comments by this AfD's nominator show, that hasn't happened apparently. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 01:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Keep pr. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Communist genocide and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Communist genocide (2nd nomination). + considering the sources provided in the article the claim of original research has no basis to it.Regarding the arguments given about "far right" and "Eastern European mailing list", I suggest to The Four Deuces remove such inappropriate speculations from this discussion page. As someone who has contributed to the article in good faith and by considering myself a liberal, and have never been part of any mailing lists, I find such suggestions that the contributors to this article are part of some kind "far right Eastern European mailing list" conspiracy not offensive but flat out ridiculous.--Termer (talk) 01:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Keep lots of good sources for this article - and there seems to be some sort of campaign to delete the sources in the article: some folks are trying to politicize the article. I too, consider myself a liberal, and am not on any mailing list. The claims of synthesis are ridiculous, even 1 source could be good enough for notability here - see the Black Book of Communism, published by Harvard University Press. And yes, there will be claims that this source, and many similar sources are not good enough, but frankly I don't buy that nonsense. Finally, there must be some limit to nominations such as this one, and subsidiary deletion nominations such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, before it looks like simple denialism combined with harassment. Smallbones (talk) 02:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Delete: COATRACK, SYNTHESIS => NON NOTABLE, no such research object. I have tried my damned hardest to find multiple society (ie: comparative) studies of genocide/mass-killing/etc that actually claim that there is a unique feature to Communism that causes these. The Black Book on Communism only conducts a multi-societal analysis of genocide in its deeply flawed foreword and introduction, where it claims Communism is Criminal and Not Christian (hard to believe, but true). This does not meet the academic standards of comparative sociology. (From reading Conquest's chapter on the Soviet Union, Conquest looks great, but its a single society study without any generalised claims about the causes across societies for communist mass killing). On close analysis Valentino produces a thematic catagory, linking Communist mass killings by the fact they were... Communist... as a subset of politically motivated mass killing in order to strengthen social control by a small elite. (ie: Valentino's type is "politically motivated mass killing"). Anton Weiss-Wendt's analysis of Lemkin shows Lemkin to be devoid of scholarly contribution on the topic, again, like Valentino, Lemkin's category is a superset, and Communism is not a cause. George Watson's catagory is "socialism" which is, on inspection, "Anything other than British Liberalism of the Type Especially Favoured by George Watson." There is no academic object of study to support this article; but merely a political interest in claiming a generalised condition of communist criminality. The individual instances of criminality are supportable, and should exist, as "Mass killing / Genocide / Whatever in the Soviet Union" "Mass killing / Genocide / Whatever in China" "Mass killing / Genocide / Whatever in [State x]". Fifelfoo (talk) 01:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC) From above "The Black Book on Communism only conducts a multi-societal analysis of genocide in its deeply flawed foreword and introduction, where it claims Communism is Criminal and Not Christian (hard to believe, but true). This does not meet the academic standards of comparative sociology." Does this really have anything to do with WP:RS? Or are you just saying you don't like what the sources say, and even if they are published by the Harvard University Press and deal explicitly with Mass killings under Communist regimes that they are irrelevant - just because you don't like them? Smallbones (talk) 01:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC) While the Black Book presents a number of chapters on single country studies, it presents no cross-cultural comparison, there is no discussion of "Mass killing[/Any other bad thing] in Communism." The foreword contains one statement on generalised causes, Criminality, xvii-xviii, which is "they were criminal enterprises in their very essence." While I only quote a clause, this argument of cross cultural genocide studies is one sentence long. The introduction contains three paragraphs advocating a general cause, which comes down the violating a rights principle concept of social good as advocated by the Catholic Church. No mention of societies are made in this paragraph. The Afterword is worse, its a reprisal of the history of the soviet union with three paragraphs on China, with no analysis. Hard as it is to swallow, The Black Book on Communism is a miscellany, not an analysis. "The Soviet and Chinese killings were similar because...a Pope listed a series of human rights." is not an answer. "The Soviet and Chinese killings were similar because...here are unrelated and uncontextualised single country studies let down by a really poor introduction." is not an answer. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Keep - notable subject and already reasonably referenced. The article still needs a lot of work including NPOVing but it is already useful Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Keep That a banned editor was involved is not a valid reason for deletion. There is a lot if "IDONTLIKEIT" above, but that also is not a valid reason for deltion. Lastly there is a "I don't like a source used" which is a valid reason for editing a topic, perhaps, but not a valid reason for deletion. Unless a WP valid reason for deletion is given, the article should be kept. Collect (talk) 01:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Keep, well-source, notable article. Looks like it was nominated strictly for political reasons. --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Keep, anti-Russian? Russia is not the USSR. Peltimikko (talk) 07:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Weak keep. Do I need to join a mailing list to see the problem? The Black Book of Communism (Harvard University Press) together with the more specialised sources on specific killings seems to establish notability. Fifelfoo's synthesis complaint makes sense, but the article also cites a chapter "Communist mass killings: The Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia" from a Cornell University Press book. Hans Adler 08:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Valentino? His argument is that there is no specifically communist feature except that this particular group in his actual category are communist. In his schema they're part of a category of politically motivated killings of outgroups by elites. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Another good point, thanks. In this case perhaps the article should reflect this. I am changing to weak keep because it's less clear to me now that we need this article. But I do think that it makes sense, not least per WP:SUMMARY, as it covers a common subtopic of Mass murder, Communism and Stalinism. Hans Adler 09:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Another good point? Contrary to Fifelfoo's opinions the source actually says exact opposite (p.91) "Communist regimes have been responsible for this century's most deadly episodes of mass killing, Estimates of the total number of people killed by communist regimes range as high as 110 million. In this chapter I focus primarily on mass killings in the Soviet Union, China and Cambodia- history's most murderous communist states. Communist violence in these three states alone may account for between 21 million and 70 million deaths. etc.". So from where exactly those Fifelfoo's interpretations come from, I have no idea. And do I need to mention that the facts from the source keep disappearing from the article.--Termer (talk) 04:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Care to quote his theoretical category describing the commonality? You haven't quoted a causal claim or category, you've quoted a list. His category isn't "communist mass killing," those three cases are communist examples of his real category. You won't find it in that subheading of the chapter, you'll find it in the broader chapter. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC) category describing the commonality? No problem: (p.97) : "The strategic approach suggests that communist mass killings result from the effort to implement policies of radical social or economic transformation and to protect that transformation from real and perceived enemies."--Termer (talk) 06:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC) So is your suggestion to rename the article Mass killings and social transformation? csloat (talk) 07:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Actually csloat, I've let this sit for a couple of days while involved elsewhere, and will reply to Termer shortly, but your response is question begging and not really appropriate behaviour towards another editor. You should do what I shall do: quote from the Valentino sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC) Keep as it's a very informative, and well-sourced article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Comment This now sets a rate of one nomonation to delete every six weeks for this one article. I anticipate finding it for its 9th nomination with a year of the first - as this time it looks like a clear "keep', I suggest it be be precluded for relisting for six months at a minimum. Collect (talk) 11:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Keep, since the subject is definitelty found in scholarly sources. However the article must be carefilly cleaned of original research and unnecessary massive duplication of the material. Each particular mass killing must be detailed in the corresponding wikipiedia article, and this general article must contain only brief summaries sufficient to serve as an example for the discourse. - Altenmann >t 17:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Delete simply because we already have articles where all of this information really belongs. Mass killings under Communist regimes are not any sort of single phenomenon, any more so than Mass killings under capitalist regimes / Mass killings under conservative regimes / Mass killings under Third World dictatorships are, although that various instances of mass killing of individuals under various left-wing governments have occured is established as a documented fact. Thus, delete per WP:POV Fork. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 18:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Keep I concur with William S. Saturn that this article has been selected for deletion (several times) purely on political grounds. It's interesting to note that the far inferior Anti-communist mass killings article, which includes a controversial claim that the Nazi Holocaust qualifies as such, has not been nominated, and a wikilink to it is still included in the "see also" section of this article while other significant wikilinks pertaining to the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation are removed. Very interesting indeed.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 21:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Holy crap, I just read the lead of that article Anti-communist mass killings and spit coke all over my keyboard. Hi-llarious.radek (talk) 23:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Please do nominate Anti-communist mass killings as an additional article within the scope of this AfD. I'm intensely familiar with the main theoretical source there, having added it in an attempt to encourage other authors to improve article quality (just as I've done in the last six weeks at Mass killings under Communist regimes). The source at anti-communist mass killings its cross cultural to the extent that it deals with German and Baltic white terror in the 1917-1919 revolutions and assigns a specific theoretical / sociological cause which it debates at length as the subject of the work (more impressively than Black Book's approximately four paragraphs of cross cultural theory). But Male fantasies is not sufficiently impressive to me, it isn't a general theory of white terror, its a specific theory of a historical cross cultural terror and the analysis is deeply fascinated with the Germanness of this white terror. Anti-communist mass killings should be deleted for the same reasons I mentioned above in relation to this article. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Delete Completely irrelated instances placed together to create narrative. POV fork of Red terror. Also from what times hunger is counted as "mass killing"?--Dojarca (talk) 02:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Delete. People have tried to improve it but it's still a synthesis of original research. If you're gonna keep then it has to be renamed Mass killings in the Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia, since those are the only three mass killings clearly linked in the cited literature, and the connection to "communism" is tenuous at best using the sources linked in the article. This article tells an interesting story, but it is an original essay, not an encyclopedia entry. csloat (talk) 07:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Delete, there seem to be serious problems with POV and synthesis that probably can't be resolved in the context of the subject as it is framed here. Everyking (talk) 08:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Delete this as the WP:SOAPBOX and WP:COATRACK for anti-communist propaganda that it is. Simonm223 (talk) 12:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Agree. I think this is a coatrack to include Holodomor(mass famine in Ukraine and South Russia in 1930s) as an example of "mass killings".--Dojarca (talk) 14:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Keep, judging from the polemical language used in the nomination, it seems to be a politically motivated nomination. IMO this falls within WP:IDONTLIKEIT territory because its not Soviet historiography. The article is reliably referenced and blatantly notable. What next? The equivelent would be if deniers start nominating The Holocaust for deletion. Ridiculous. - Yorkshirian (talk) 17:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Whether the nomination is political or not (I guess we have no way of judging whether it's the former without assuming bad faith) is irrelevant. The point is the arguments. Although one can find content supporting certain claims for keeping a POV fork, when other claims presenting opposite or incompatible views of the phenomenon exist – like when most scholars do not consider any separate instances of killing by communists to be part of just one big or connected thing, you end up with a POV fork by choosing to focus on just one perspective. I won't elaborate much further: please consider the arguments and responses by Fifelfoo (who's explained quite a bit) and the rationale provided by myself. Please note that to fight off this AFD by merely attacking the nominator in loaded and polemical language is to commit a fallacy – ad hominem / well-poisoning. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 20:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Not sure about poisoning wells. I think the communists killing the Polish soldiers in the Katyn forest or the Khmer Rouge slaughtering Cambodians in The Killing Fields is probably more relevent here. This is absolutely a notable and verifiable article, with reels of references. I am shocked and sickened to my stomach that some are trying to hide it away, using as rationale pantomine newspeak like claiming it is "anti-Russian" (the vast majority of Russians are not even communists). It would absolutely be like nominating The Holocaust saying the article is "anti-German". Or the article religious wars saying it is a "far-left mailing-list anti-theist" plot. Wikipedia is not censored. - Yorkshirian (talk) 19:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC) The "anti-Russian" remark by the nominator is actually a reference to the WP:EEML, in which a number of biased right-wing editors attacking left-wing and Russian editors ganged up to keep this article after it was created by a banned troll and also perform similar coordinated POV operations on various articles across the Eastern European topic space. You still have not said anything about my point, and Fifelfoo's: the fact that different communists engaged in killing people on various different occasions doesn't meant that there needs to be one article containing everything, since this amounts to a POV fork (in other words, scholarship generally sees various acts of murder by communist and non-communist governments as acts particular to different circumstances—prompted by distinct events). To accrue every isntance of killing by communists (and some instances of simply people under communist-run governments being allowed to die as a result of atrocious economic policies during some stages of collectivization), as this article does, represents something frowned upon by Wikipedia per WP:POVFORK, as we already have articles dealing with each of those separate topics. Another Wikipedia principle, of course, is WP:SYNTH, and it would be utterly POV as well to have an article called Mass killings under capitalist regimes or Mass killings under reactionary regimes. Don't be surprised if one day you stumble upon Space exploration under communist regimes or Increases in life expectancy under communist regimes if you enjoy seeing articles like this. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 22:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC) Again, this nonsense about a number of biased right-wing editors attacking left-wing and Russian editors by user PasswordUsername/Anti-Nationalist is complete bullshit which he is using to smear people he disagrees with (and yes, he does have a history of using this despicable tactic). I'm not "right wing" (unless you happen to think Obama is "right-wing", which, I mean, some people due - but per WP:Fringe...). I didn't attack anybody. And quite a number of Russian editors were just as appalled as I was by PasswordUsername/Anti-Nationalist's Neo-Stalinist and ... nationalist ... POV pushing on scores of articles by him and his tag team buddies.radek (talk) 02:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC) In my opinion Anti-Nationalist is making a whole lot of sense. But on the other hand, hasn't the article been improved significantly in the few weeks since the last AfD? Particularly considering that working on this article is extremely slow and tedious given that every little point needs to be discussed over and over. I agree that there is lots of work to be done, but as far as I can see the article seems to be moving in the right direction. --Anderssl (talk) 07:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Interesting and good point. The problem is that with the exception of Termer's quote above (which I'm yet to verify, I've got the other Valentino paper at home, but haven't managed to get the introduction of the book yet... won't until Monday) the sources quoted are either FRINGE or don't actually theorise any cause, or explicitly claim the cause is greater than, or less than, communism. I feel the article was slowly moving towards a point where it would stall and be ready for deletion of the COATRACK with a move of a rather good theoretical piece to merge into genocide. The nomination was early, and not informed by the state of debate on the article. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC) I am starting to lean towards your point of view - move the best material to genocide and delete this one. But yes I do think this AfD (as the previous one) was premature and kind of obnoxious, to be honest. --Anderssl (talk) 00:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Anyone can follow the link to WP:EEML and see if Radeksz was a member of this very peculiar group. Enough said. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 16:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Nice try at weaseling there PasswordUsername. You know very well that what is at issue is not the membership of the list but your false characterization of it and your vicious smears of some people on it. But you do have a history with making offensive and false accusations, right?radek (talk) 20:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC) McCarthyist attacks on me warrant no response on my behalf. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 21:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Quit smearing people and lying shamelessly. I am not making "McCarthyist attacks". I am pointing out that in the past you have made completely unfounded accusations against some editors, found out that these accusations were completely false, and yet continued to refuse to back down and apologize. This kind of behavior here is just par for the course for you. I'm not going to sit around and let you spread lies and falsehoods about me.radek (talk) 21:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Link to ArbCom case of interest: WP:EEML. I do encourage independent reading of it. Have a nice day and prosperous life, Radeksz. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 21:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Keep. The charges of original research are baseless. Instances of synthesis between the large number of reliable sources should be brought up on the talk page. As of now, none have been. AmateurEditor (talk) 19:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC) Keep - at least potentially a valid topic, since it has been studied as an entity. There may be bits of synthesis, but those can be edited out. - Biruitorul Talk 20:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC) Keep. The connecting concept that links these communist regimes with mass killing, as stated in the lede, is the revolutionary desire to engineer radical social transformation that inevitably leads to abrupt and almost total material and political dispossession of millions of people, leading to hardship and death on a scale unprecedented in history. Benjamin Valentino articulates this concept in his published works, as does John N. Gray, George Watson, Isaiah Berlin and others. Even the Russian President, Dmitry Medvedev, acknowledges this connection when he recently condemned communist mass killings on his video blog, stating "No development of a country, none of its successes or ambitions can be reached at the price of human losses and grief", so the notion expressed by some that this article is some how anti-Russian is nonsense. The article is well sourced, although it could do with a bit of editing to remove the wrinkles, it remains a valid and notable topic. --Martintg (talk) 09:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Keep. As per many others here, this article is not synthesis, nor OR, but rather a valid topic the study of which seems to be growing in quantity. Sources are verifiable, and although there is room for improvement, this article should remain.Horlo (talk) 10:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC) Keep I agree with Alex Bakharev, while article still needs work, its topic is enough notable and referenced. Also I would note that AfDs for this article feel quite rushed, in about every one and half month someone seems to start a new one.--Staberinde (talk) 14:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC) Questions if this is closed as Keep, can it be afd'd again for any reason, or for the same reasons? Is there a limit on the number of times, or the frequency of afding? If there is no limit, is there a historical record, and are we approaching it? Note that this article has been subject not just to afd's, but also to name changes, and extensive removal of reliable sources. In summary, is there a way to stop the nonsense regarding this article, here and elsewhere? Smallbones (talk) 15:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. Mass killings under Communist regimes 22 of 35 Google News 0 Books 0 Scholar 0 Editor Count: 74 Creator: Joklolk Nominator: The Four Deuces C.J. Griffin 94 (76/18) 2009-11-01 PasswordUsername 84 (46/38) 2009-09-06 Fifelfoo 69 (60/9) 2009-11-02 Termer 57 (51/6) 2009-10-18 Igny 47 (42/5) 2009-10-02 AmateurEditor 38 (21/17) 2009-11-02 Smallbones 34 (32/2) 2009-10-27 Martintg 33 (26/7) 2009-10-26 VsevolodKrolikov 31 (26/5) 2009-10-04 Anderssl 29 (21/8) 2009-10-18 Altenmann 26 (22/4) 2009-09-09 Johnnypd 23 (23/0) 2009-08-15 Anarchangel 16 (16/0) 2009-09-06 Radeksz 12 (11/1) 2009-09-11 Russavia 11 (11/0) 2009-08-11 Born Gay 11 (5/6) 2009-09-20 SmackBot (bot) 10 (0/10) 2009-10-19 Horlo 10 (8/2) 2009-10-18 Peltimikko 9 (7/2) 2009-09-04 Poeticbent 7 (7/0) 2009-08-13 HistoricWarrior007 7 (7/0) 2009-09-30 Simonm223 6 (6/0) 2009-09-25 Sander Säde 5 (4/1) 2009-09-30 Seb az86556 5 (4/1) 2009-09-24 Timurite 4 (3/1) 2009-11-02 Commodore Sloat 4 (3/1) 2009-09-28 Anonimu 4 (4/0) 2009-08-16 Triplestop 4 (4/0) 2009-08-11 Vecrumba 4 (4/0) 2009-10-26 PCPP 4 (4/0) 2009-08-25 Quibik 3 (0/3) 2009-10-18 LokiiT 3 (2/1) 2009-10-04 Irbisgreif 3 (1/2) 2009-11-07 Orangemike 2 (1/1) 2009-09-24 Joseph Solis in Australia 2 (0/2) 2009-09-26 Bobanni 2 (2/0) 2009-11-02 Shawn in Montreal 2 (1/1) 2009-08-06 Hmains 2 (2/0) 2009-08-14 Stephan Schulz 2 (1/1) 2009-09-29 AnomieBOT (bot) 2 (2/0) 2009-10-26 86.180.36.64 2 (2/0) 2009-11-04 Aaaronsmith 2 (2/0) 2009-08-12 WikHead 1 (0/1) 2009-09-29 128.194.199.106 1 (1/0) 2009-09-30 74.216.31.118 1 (1/0) 2009-10-03 Offliner 1 (1/0) 2009-08-06 121.243.129.182 1 (1/0) 2009-08-06 174.98.35.252 1 (1/0) 2009-08-10 Ground Zero 1 (0/1) 2009-08-13 Lyricmac 1 (0/1) 2009-08-15 81.108.143.133 1 (1/0) 2009-08-16 MessedRobot (bot) 1 (0/1) 2009-09-02 189.26.119.22 1 (1/0) 2009-09-05 Arilang1234 1 (1/0) 2009-09-05 Bandurist 1 (1/0) 2009-09-10 ThaddeusB 1 (1/0) 2009-09-10 NuclearWarfare 1 (1/0) 2009-10-02 Prezbo 1 (1/0) 2009-10-16 206.186.8.130 1 (1/0) 2009-10-26 Anti-Nationalist 1 (1/0) 2009-10-27 Shadowjams 1 (0/1) 2009-08-09 AdjustShift 1 (1/0) 2009-08-10 ClueBot (bot) 1 (0/1) 2009-08-10 166.203.229.14 1 (1/0) 2009-08-14 Jacurek 1 (1/0) 2009-08-15 74.74.101.130 1 (1/0) 2009-08-17 Cydebot (bot) 1 (0/1) 2009-08-21 Mamalujo 1 (1/0) 2009-09-04 Biophys 1 (1/0) 2009-09-10 67.182.209.89 1 (1/0) 2009-09-13 76.182.185.249 1 (1/0) 2009-09-19 1ForTheMoney 1 (0/1) 2009-09-24 The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 04:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC) Victor I. Petrik Victor I. Petrik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) An article about a self-proclaimed genius with significant WP:BLP and WP:V problems. There does not seem to be any record of his scientific publications or of citations of him that I could find by doing GoogleScholar and GoogleBooks searches, so the subject does not seem to be a traditional WP:ACADEMIC case. Russian Wikipedia does not have an article about him. There do seem to be some Russian newsmedia sources but they are very confused and contradictory and mostly local rather than national. A GoogleNews search in Russian returns two hits[9]. The first of these hits is an article[10] by a Russian academician Kruglyakov about the dangers of pseudo-science. The article lists Petrik as an example. Here is another article, in an almanach "Lebed'" (Swan):[11]. This article says that Petrik's claim to be a member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences did not check out upon verification; it also says that the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences (for which Wikipedia does not have an entry) is a kind of a vanity club and not a legitimate academy like the Russian Academy of Sciences. The article provides a lot of other critical info about Petrik such as a claim that he spent several years in prison for some sort of swingling; compares him to Trofim Lysenko, etc. On the other hand, this article [12] in a local St. Petersburg newspaper presents him as the next Einstein. I don't quite know what to make of all this, but, in view of the dearth of solid and reliable information and in view of very significant WP:BLP problems here, I think this entry should be deleted. Kinoq (talk) 00:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Also, the article was created by User:T.petrik, suggesting possible WP:AUTO/WP:COI problems. Kinoq (talk) 13:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Kinoq (talk) 13:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. —Kinoq (talk) 13:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Comment -- a difficult article to evaluate, given the apparent lack of sources in English. On the other hand, if the claims about various awards are true, then he likely meets WP:PROF. I think it's also worth noting that the nomination of this article for deletion was Kinoq's very first edit. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC) I can't agree with you: even if the claims about awards were true, none of them could substantiate the alleged notability of Petrik. He is unlikely to be a member of RAEN, but anyway RAEN is not a recognized scientific organization in Russia or anywhere else. It is doubtful that he is a doctor of engineering, but even if he were, it is of no importance: there are dozens of thousands of such doctors (кандидат технических наук) in Russia. He has not graduated from the Leningrad university in physics, but even if he had, there are several hundreds such alumni every year only in this university, not the biggest one in Russia. If he really made his inventions, why didn't he publish his result in scientific journals?Pasteurizer (talk) 10:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC) It's true that this AfD nom was the first edit from this account but it is not my first Wikipedia edit. I had a WP account which I had not used for about a year, and I lost a password to it. So I created this new one. Yes, the absence of English sources is a problem, which, in my view, is a (secondary) reason in favor of deletion of this article from en.wiki since it makes it much more difficult to verify any info provided here. Regarding awards and credentials, etc. A number of published sources (in Russian) explicitly claim that the various awards/homors/degrees listed by the subject do not check out. The "Lebed" article cited in my nom explicitly says that when the journalist tried to verify the fact that Petrik is a member of RAEN ("Russian Academy of Natural Sciences"), Petrik's name was not in fact listed there. Similarly, the author of this article[13] (again in Russian) tried to verify the fact that Petrik holds the degree of doctor of technical sciences with the official Russian governmental agency that registeres all such degrees and says that Petrik's name is not listed there. If the Russian journalists who tried to verify Petrik's awards and credentials explicitly state that they were unable to do so, I think we have to conclude that there is a major WP:V problem here. Kinoq (talk) 15:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Weak Keep the sources tend to point towards coverage that would indicate notability although the current sources are not of sufficient quality to indicate such notability. My gut feeling is that with some work this article could make it... RP459 (talk) 15:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC) I think the issue of notability is somewhat secondary here to WP:BLP and WP:V considerations. A number of Russian news-sources (citing bona fide Russian academics) explicitly characterize Petrik as a fraud and a scientific imposter. Some others praise him as a self-made genius. There are, as far as I can tell, no sources covering him or his work in traditional academic sources, such as scholarly journals. Clearly, this creates a major WP:BLP problem. In case of a highly notable subject the notability considerations would outweigh BLP and WP:V concerns. But in this case the opposite is true. The subject is not particularly notable, the available information about him is very contradictory and highly flammable, and the amount of information that could be characterized as genuinely reliable and verifiable is rather small. In such a situation, also in view of WP:AUTO concerns, I think it is better not to have an article about the subject, at least for the time being. Kinoq (talk) 16:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC) If there are reliable sources referring to him as a fraudster, then perhaps he is notable as a fraudster (and those claims would then be included in the article). Obviously going down this path requires caution. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Basically, that is a part of my point. A number of sources characterize him as a fraudster and a con artist while other say he is a genius. We here are not in a very good position to judge either way. In my view there is not enough reliable source coverage to justify notability as either a genuine academic or as a faudster. In such cases WP:BLP considerations should prevail and they imply that it is better to be on the safe side and to wait until, so to speak, the smoke clears and better and more reliable coverage is available, before having an article about him here. This is particularly true since there is so much highly negative and information about a living person that would have to be included if the article is kept. Also, WP:ACADEMIC does say that the standards of inclusion for things related to pseudo-science are supposed to be pretty strict. Kinoq (talk) 16:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC) I'm not sure these sources are reliable. One mentions him in passing, and the other looks to probably be a blog. In addition, in what seems to be a BLP, we have to take a lot of care that negative information is well-sourced. -- Atama頭 23:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Delete - There are no sources available to either satisfy WP:N or WP:BLP (the latter is especially concerning). -- Atama頭 18:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Strong Delete in absence of reliable sources to indicate notability for WP:Prof or anything else. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC). Comment There are no reliable sources at this point, & the material in the article is either false or nonverifiable--and to a considerable extent is a copyvio of reference 3. But I agree with User:Nomoskedasticity that if there were material showing a verifiable NPOV of him, he might be notable. DGG ( talk ) 05:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Delete in the absence of verifiable sources for his accomplishments. Given the existence of sources such as this I think we need to be very careful what we assert as factual about this person. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC) DeleteMove to User:T.petrik/Victor I. Petrik. Could become salvageable.--98.248.113.11 (talk) 21:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC) Comment - Since I'm not an administrator, I can't check an editor's deleted contributions, but it appears that the author has only edited for one day (to create this article) and hasn't been back to Wikipedia since (over a year and a half). I don't think userfying the article for the author will be useful. If T.petrik does return to Wikipedia and wants a copy of the article added their user space, they can request it at any time. If this article does get deleted, you might want to leave a message on their talk page suggesting that they make such a request, just in case. -- Atama頭 22:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC) Such use isn't permitted by CC-BY-SA, because of the BY. If the article isn't salvageable, then it should be deleted. Took a closer look; changing my vote.--98.248.113.11 (talk) 02:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. Victor I. Petrik 23 of 35 Google News 0 Books 0 Scholar 0 Editor Count: 19 Creator: T.petrik Nominator: Kinoq Moonriddengirl 4 (3/1) 2008-05-14 Atama 3 (2/1) 2009-06-10 Treelo 2 (1/1) 2008-05-27 SmackBot (bot) 1 (0/1) 2008-05-15 Kbdank71 1 (0/1) 2008-12-03 Gwgoldb 1 (1/0) 2009-05-29 Beltline 1 (1/0) 2009-06-05 DefaultsortBot (bot) 1 (1/0) 2009-06-15 Orlady 1 (1/0) 2009-08-29 Pasteurizer 1 (1/0) 2009-11-06 98.212.63.90 1 (1/0) 2009-11-08 Ironholds 1 (0/1) 2008-05-14 69.133.122.139 1 (1/0) 2008-12-03 Addbot (bot) 1 (0/1) 2009-02-21 Woohookitty 1 (0/1) 2009-06-10 Borgarde 1 (0/1) 2009-08-18 Anakin101 1 (0/1) 2009-10-27 Phil Bridger 1 (1/0) 2009-11-07 The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 10:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC) Cisco Network Analysis Module Cisco Network Analysis Module (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Article about a networking product which has no notability, only sources are from Cisco's own website, also the majority of content reads like an advert. QueenCake (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 18:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC) It's really frustrating to see the discussion on this issue. If you plan to delete a product that has 6000 customers and nearly $60m of annual revenue, then a lot of products listings on Wikipedia should be removed. There are a number of non Cisco originated articles on this product - here are a few: Network Computing CNET Now - as I had mentioned before, if you think there is advertising related content, I am more than happy to try to fix it. Ash1932 (talk) 15:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 13:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC) Delete. Not only is this advertising, but it makes no attempt to show historical or technical importance, and this software with "6000 customers" is only going to be of interest to a small number of people. Yes, there are many other software articles that ought to be deleted as well. In the fullness of time, we may get around to them. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC) Either the admins are not reading the article, or I am doing a real poor job in explaining the concept. First, this is *not* a software - it is a hardware based offering and has added on a virtual platform recently. Second, this is not a product that you would use in your home - it is used by large enterprises and service providers globally. Finally, your reference to "6000 customers" is in poor spirit - if you have not heard about it, is exactly why I put in the article. This product has been around since 2000 and is the only integrated service management offering by Cisco. Can you please tell me which exact statement in the article is advertising? I took great pains to make it factual. I am happy to change it further. You have a valid point on historical references - and I will dig up historical information and post that here. However, this auto-reply of "Delete" without even understanding the article reflects very poorly on the admins. Isn't that the point of Wikipedia of "Educating someone" ? Ash1932 (talk) 21:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 00:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC) i'm sure this deserves a sentence somewhere but we don't need an article on it. get rid of it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) Delete I cant find independent significant coverage of this Power.corrupts (talk) 10:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. Cisco Network Analysis Module 24 of 35 Google News 24 Books 8 Scholar 20 Editor Count: 3 Creator: Ash1932 Nominator: QueenCake 128.107.239.233 4 (4/0) 2009-10-21 The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite 00:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC) Project Analyzer Project Analyzer (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 can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 00:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Delete: I couldn't find any reviews on the software's own webpage. Did my share of searching google and found nothing.--TParis00ap (talk) 00:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Delete per WP:N. Also the user who started the article has possible COI as he/she seems to be producer of the software.  Ilyushka88  talk  15:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. Project Analyzer 25 of 35 Google News 12 Books 34 Scholar 69 Editor Count: 6 Creator: Aivosto Nominator: Joe Chill SmackBot (bot) 1 (1/0) 2007-11-17 PlankBot (bot) 1 (0/1) 2008-06-15 Jvhertum 1 (1/0) 2007-01-02 Andreas Kaufmann 1 (1/0) 2008-02-01 The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 general consensus here is that the subject is not adequately notable. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC) Dan Youra AfDs for this article: Articles for deletion/Dan Youra Articles for deletion/Dan Youra (2nd nomination) Dan Youra (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 is about a nonnotable businessman that fails WP:BIO as he hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. The original AfD closed as a keep over a year ago, although I can not see anything more than trivial coverage of this individual. Some passing mention has been made about the lawsuit related to his company, but nothing especially distinguishing regarding his biography. There also seems to be a serious conflict of interest with the creator. ThemFromSpace 23:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Keep. I think the references are sufficient. -- Eastmain (talk) 00:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC) A review of the references shows that the first covers his company, the second is a only a passing mention, the third is not independant of the subject, and the last is from a small local news organization. This is far short of the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that WP:N requires for articles. ThemFromSpace 01:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC) Delete Throwing Google at this guy and leaving out wikipedia produces page after page of directory entries and redundant links to twitter and flickr and whatever this UToons thing is (it doesn't seem to be notable either). GNews produces exactly nothing. As far as I can tell he's "notable" in any sense only for a flash-in-the-pan trademark scuffle of no especial importance. I would also note that in the year since the last AFD the article has hardly been touched. Mangoe (talk) 15:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC) Delete I looked for any mention outside his own webpage or Wikipedia mirrors and couldn't find anything either. PirateArgh!!1! 09:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC) Comment. I voted keep, above. I added some further references. I would argue that an article about his company counts the same as an article about him, since my impression is that it's a two-person business. The travel writers association reference I moved to external links, since I agree that it is not independent of the subject. I think that notability is now established. Some of these references will not show up on a Google search, but are still valid, since the links are to a scanned PDF on his site. -- Eastmain (talk) 16:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC) The issue isn't lack of references; it's that the article says nothing that is really notable. Mangoe (talk) 19:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC) KEEP: Eastmain puts forward a good case. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC) Which references do you feel establish notability? I've looked over them all again and I still fail to see significant coverage of him, or any thing that he has done which deserves mention in an encyclopedia. ThemFromSpace 17:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 00:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Delete. Verifiability is NOT the same thing as notability. There's not a single reference here that establishes notability. Even if a million references could be found, and none of them established notability, those million references would be beside the point. There are people who appear to believe that just because something or someone is mentioned a few times on the Internet, the entity is therefore notable according to WP standards. But this is not the case. This gentleman simply owns his own non-notable company. We're not here to provide WP:SPAM for him. Qworty (talk) 02:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Delete I don't see any establishment of notability here -Drdisque (talk) 16:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. Dan Youra (2nd nomination) 26 of 35 Google News 13 Books 92 Scholar 4 Editor Count: 14 Creator: Jwsnyder101 Nominator: Cordless Larry Eastmain 3 (3/0) 2009-11-01 RyanCross 2 (2/0) 2008-03-21 75.165.4.197 2 (2/0) 2008-05-01 66.235.47.145 1 (1/0) 2008-05-01 CmdrObot (bot) 1 (0/1) 2008-05-29 Funandtrvl 1 (0/1) 2008-12-29 PMDrive1061 1 (1/0) 2008-03-15 Jmlk17 1 (1/0) 2008-04-27 Phlegm Rooster 1 (1/0) 2008-04-29 Martijn Hoekstra 1 (1/0) 2008-05-08 Bradv 1 (0/1) 2008-07-08 Themfromspace 1 (1/0) 2009-10-25 The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC) Bidu Sayão International Vocal Competition Bidu Sayão International Vocal Competition (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 can't find significant coverage for this singing competition. Joe Chill (talk) 15:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Keep. Some references can be found here. -- Eastmain (talk) 20:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Delete "a competition for up-and-coming young singers" is a junior level competition, and unlikely to be important. DGG ( talk ) 05:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC) Keep. This is the official site of the competition http://www2.uol.com.br/spimagem/concurso/bidu09/regulamento_it.htm . This is not a junior level competition, but the most important INTERNATIONAL opera competition of Brazil!! --Arancam (talk) 00:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC) from that site mentioned above: article 1, "L’IX Concorso Internazionale di Canto Bidu Sayão, mira a rivelare nuovi talenti e a diffondere il canto erudito." (to reveal new talent and spread the knowledge of singing) article 3 "nati a partire dal 1º gennaio del 1974 fino a 1º gennaio del 1991." (born after Jan 21 1974 & before Jan 1 1991) to me, those two conditions mean: not yet notable. DGG ( talk ) 19:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC) Yes, sure! Important competitions are all for young artists!!! What is the difference between an importat one and a less important is if the competition is international or not, and if the competition has a relevance in the continent. The most important world level opera competition is Operalia, wich is also for young talents! This is the most important international competition of South America and should be kept in my opinion! --Arancam (talk) 13:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 00:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Delete. To respond to Arancam, the problem is not that it's an international competition. That's great, that's fantastic. But the problem we have is that, despite its international scope, even if in name, does not unto itself convey notability. We absolutely, positively need that, and we need it to be verifiable from reliable sources. You answer your own questions in importance, but importance is truly subjective, and doesn't meet our requirements. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Comment: If this becomes neutral like the same number of "keep's" and "delete's", then it should be closed. -- ISLANDERS27 05:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Thing is, though, that this isn't a vote, it's a consensus - so the number of keeps versus deletes don't matter worth anything. It's the commentary therein. Eastmain's note may have some merit, but if there aren't any reliable sources then it's not going to survive despite the number of keeps or deletes. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Here there are a lot of reliable sources, such as Correio Braziliense newspaper and Estadão newspaper, which are ones of the most important newspapers of Brasil, and also some internet sites. Something more can be found here. It's not me that is having a subjective point of view regarding the importance. It is obvious that as it is one of the most important opera event in South America, (and this is an objective point of view!!) this article should be kept. If someone else could help in reviewing the article it would be great. We can try to make it more complete... but anyway it is not just something to forget about only because it's not known by everyone here! --Arancam (talk) 03:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC) More reliable sources also on the important Brazilian Newspaper Folha de S. Paulo --Arancam (talk) 03:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC) Keep: Arancam has won me over. - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC) Thanks!! --Arancam (talk) 11:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. Bidu Sayão International Vocal Competition 27 of 35 Google News 1 Books 0 Scholar 0 Editor Count: 12 Creator: Ted Wilkes Nominator: Joe Chill Rich Farmbrough 1 (0/1) 2005-10-21 SmackBot (bot) 1 (1/0) 2007-10-09 Triquetra 1 (1/0) 2009-04-17 Katharineamy 1 (0/1) 2009-08-11 Eastmain 1 (1/0) 2009-10-25 CalJW 1 (1/0) 2005-09-07 Bluebot 1 (1/0) 2006-05-20 189.68.172.149 1 (1/0) 2008-11-11 Fabrictramp 1 (1/0) 2009-05-26 TobeBot (bot) 1 (0/1) 2009-10-25 The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 10:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC) Vienna (feed reader) Vienna (feed reader) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) All that I can find for significant coverage is this. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 22:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Delete - it is odd that the article has been around since 2005, with a notability template on it for a long time, and nobody was able to produce a secondary source. Racepacket (talk) 01:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. Vienna (feed reader) 28 of 35 Google News 0 Books 0 Scholar 0 Editor Count: 37 Creator: 60.50.152.123 Nominator: Joe Chill Sdfisher 10 (5/5) 2006-09-04 CyberSkull 7 (5/2) 2009-06-25 Kriskhaira 5 (5/0) 2005-09-26 84.113.31.232 3 (3/0) 2007-02-08 Sergeyy 2 (2/0) 2006-05-24 Jeremy Banks 2 (0/2) 2006-11-20 Patrick M. Dahl 2 (2/0) 2007-12-21 Fred Bradstadt 2 (0/2) 2008-12-04 Bluebot 1 (0/1) 2005-10-30 Altimac 1 (1/0) 2006-03-18 TheParanoidOne 1 (0/1) 2006-06-19 172.191.8.149 1 (1/0) 2006-11-07 Hamish2k 1 (1/0) 2006-12-17 AlistairMcMillan 1 (1/0) 2007-03-28 Seedbot (bot) 1 (1/0) 2007-07-16 Robb The Physicist 1 (0/1) 2007-11-25 P.M. Dahl 1 (1/0) 2007-12-21 Stevewpalmer 1 (0/1) 2008-01-17 201.19.137.221 1 (1/0) 2008-08-03 Mabdul 1 (1/0) 2008-10-23 Bongomatic 1 (0/1) 2008-11-09 MMuzammils 1 (1/0) 2008-11-23 Brianreading 1 (1/0) 2009-06-17 Deodar 1 (0/1) 2006-02-15 Boredzo 1 (0/1) 2006-08-19 Cgand 1 (1/0) 2007-02-02 172.190.253.166 1 (1/0) 2007-02-19 Cydebot (bot) 1 (0/1) 2007-06-01 Aanhorn 1 (0/1) 2007-11-15 PixelBot (bot) 1 (0/1) 2007-12-25 ImageRemovalBot (bot) 1 (1/0) 2008-03-03 Josh the Nerd 1 (1/0) 2008-10-23 Dave703 1 (1/0) 2008-11-09 Bradv 1 (0/1) 2008-11-22 Toussaint 1 (0/1) 2009-08-17 The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 04:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC) Lilian Edwards Lilian Edwards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) PROD contested. Fails WP:PROF. Self-proclaimed "keynote speaker" whose only proof is own employer webpage and amateur youtube "interview". Drdisque (talk) 22:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC) Had you bothered to check, you will see it is a university website, not a personally-produced website. Your suggestion is premature at best, ill-considered at worst. GeorgeLloyd (talk) 22:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC) Corrected, you still fail to establish any notability for subject -Drdisque (talk) 22:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC) A selection of her papers. Also, editor of "Law and the Internet", and full professor at Sheffield University.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC) Strong keep, speedy close. GNews search demonstrates that subject is regularly cited as subject matter expert by major publications like New Scientist[14] and BBC News[15]. No coherent rationale for deletion, other strong signals of notability as mentioned by others, award cited in article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC) When a google search is done for the "award" she was given, it results in only results referring to her, indicating the either the award was only given once or it is so irrelevant no other recipient claims to have received it. -Drdisque (talk) 17:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Dead wrong. [16] [17]. (Now excuse me while I dissolve in laughter after discovering that a mjor international lawfirm somehow ended up with the mofo.com domain name . . .) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC) It's not quite as cut and dried as "strong keep, speedy close", HW. But I think the point to make here is that it isn't the award that makes her notable. In fact, the award is a bit of a red herring, because in itself it would be a weak (though arguable) indicator of notability. Here, the combination of the papers she's authored, the books she's written and edited, and the position she holds, together with the award, are all contributory factors to a keep position.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC) My "speedy close" proposal was based on her being recognized as, and quoted as, as subject matter expert by significant reliable sources like New Scientist and the BBC, not so much the award. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 01:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Keep, meets WP:PROF per S Marshall and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Anna Lincoln 12:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. Lilian Edwards 29 of 35 Google News 94 Books 220 Scholar 255 Editor Count: 2 Creator: GeorgeLloyd Nominator: Drdisque The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC) Profane Genocidal Creations Profane Genocidal Creations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Non-notable album, from a band that is most likely also non-notable. Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC) Keep. I find the band to be notable, given their biography in their main article, and I would therefore argue that per WP policy the albums of a notable band are themselves notable if there is enough information present in an article. This album page could be categorized as a stub though. Doomsdayer520 (talk) 11:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC) According to WP:MUSIC, an album from a notable band may be considered notable, just by nature of it being released by that band. But this band is not highly notable, nor has this album received significant coverage in reliable sources. And the article consists almost entirely of a track listing. According to what I have seen at WP:MUSIC, articles that don't have significant mainstream coverage, and consist mostly of a track listing should just be integrated into the article for the group. Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 00:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC) Keep per Doomsdayer.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Weak keep. Tough decision on this one, I disagree with the nom that the band is non-notable in that they have released two albums on Century Media Records, and there is plenty of WP:3PARTY coverage for those two albums plus a full biography of the band at allmusic. Unfortunately this album predates the band's signing with Century Media Records and the only WP:RS I can find covering it, actually only mention it in passing when discussing the later two albums, here (translated from Italian) and here. It is listed at allmusic but not reviewed. I'm leaning towards keep because their more recent albums (deservedly) have pages so going back through their discography provides a nice historical record. If anyone can find me a nice review in German or some other language I will change to Keep and get rid of the 'weak', but I looked and couldn't find anything decent. J04n(talk page) 11:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. Profane Genocidal Creations 30 of 35 Google News 1 Books 0 Scholar 0 Editor Count: 7 Creator: Resilldoux Nominator: Jrtayloriv 95.95.131.161 2 (2/0) 2009-06-03 DragonBot (bot) 1 (0/1) 2009-01-12 Doomsdayer520 1 (1/0) 2009-11-02 Lightbot 1 (1/0) 2009-01-08 TXiKiBoT (bot) 1 (0/1) 2009-01-18 The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC) Esmaiel Jabbari Esmaiel Jabbari (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 associate professor at the University of South Carolina has an h-index around 11. Article says he won an award, but I cannot find any evidence that this award even exists. Article mentions that he is in Who's Who. Abductive (reasoning) 22:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Keep Scopus show 81 peer reviewed articles, with citation count for the highest of 65, 55, 44, 43, 37 and an h index of 14. He's a chemist working in the field of biological macromolecules, which I claim only slight familiarity with. But I recognize about half the journals as leading ones in the field. I consider the publication record sufficient to show the necessary subject importance. I personally am willing to consider tenure even as an Associate Professor at a research university the equivalent of notability--it measures exactly the same thing we do--that the person is a leader in the field, who can be counted on permanently to enhance the department's standing. I could however also see limiting that to universities of the very highest standing. USC is unquestionably a research university, though not quite at the highest level. I am not sure there is consensus for this, however, to the extent there is for full professors at the equivalent universities. More important, I really do not see the point of devoting effort to removing articles on borderline figures, when there is so much real junk to deal with, so many old unrevised articles to upgrade, and so many really important people that w do not have articles on. There are a very limited number of people here working on subject fields like this, and it is not a good use of our time. Every time I stop to do something like this, it prevents me from actually writing a needed stub, or instructing a naive beginning contributor. DGG ( talk ) 20:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC) If we collaborate on writing some needed stubs, will you let some of these COI BLP guys go? Abductive (reasoning) 21:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Keep. I endorse all the sound arguments given by DGG above. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC). Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Keep per DGG. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 17:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. Esmaiel Jabbari 31 of 35 Google News 0 Books 7 Scholar 159 Editor Count: 8 Creator: Mercadoa Nominator: Abductive Lightbot 1 (1/0) 2008-09-07 72.50.32.212 1 (1/0) 2008-12-30 UnCatBot (bot) 1 (1/0) 2008-08-11 Waacstats 1 (0/1) 2008-12-14 Locobot (bot) 1 (0/1) 2009-05-31 DGG 1 (1/0) 2009-11-02 The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC) Klíče na neděli Klíče na neděli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Has been listed at WP:PNT for more than 2 weeks with no progress Jarkeld (talk) 12:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC) Keep the plot does appear to have been (poorly) translated, and if anything it can be stubbified to just the original sentence and list of cast. No comment regarding the play's notability, as I can't read the Czech articles which mention it, but the nomination statement never contested it. ThemFromSpace 01:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Reduce to stub and keep. The untranslated text could be simply "commented out." -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Keep as stub: Until translation is done, I believe only the translator can decide if it's "worth" a PROD of AfD. I know the policy is kind of fuzzy and could probably use some adjusting, but so long as it's still listed in articles needing translation I think it's "off limits" to an extent. Either temporarily remove the English part and make note in the edit summary to check previous diff, or strike it so only the translated part is left... give it a stub tag so it doesn't get disturbed constantly anymore. Are there even any policies about deleting off PNT after a certain amount of time? It's certainly not on the page, if there is. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 22:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Reply to daTheisen: It's in this section: If an article has been listed here for two weeks and is still untranslated, it should be moved to AfD. When moving items to AfD, the boilerplate text on the article should be changed from {{notenglish}} to {{subst:afd}} and the other deletion steps should be carried out. Although most of the time it'll be PROD'ed first. Jarkeld (talk) 23:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Keep as stub as per Blanchardb: I nominated the article as per WP:PNT's standard procedure. Perhaps Blanchardb's suggestion is the best option. Jarkeld (talk) 23:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. Klíče na neděli 32 of 35 Google News 1 Books 0 Scholar 0 Editor Count: 10 Creator: MegSimpson Nominator: Jarkeld Katharineamy 3 (3/0) 2009-09-08 Grassfire 2 (1/1) 2009-08-31 Fabrictramp 1 (0/1) 2009-09-08 Bongomatic 1 (0/1) 2009-09-28 Eastmain 1 (1/0) 2009-11-01 Studerby 1 (1/0) 2009-09-08 Good Olfactory 1 (0/1) 2009-09-22 Themfromspace 1 (1/0) 2009-11-02 The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC) James F. Howard, Jr. AfDs for this article: Articles for deletion/James F. Howard, Jr. Articles for deletion/James F. Howard, Jr. (2nd nomination) James F. Howard, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Seems to me to fail WP:PROF. h-index is in the low teens, and he is not the first author on the papers with then most citations. The only possible claim under WP:PROF is #5, holding a "distinguished" chair. However, as pointed out in the previous no consensus AfD back in 2006, Dr. Howard has had cared for a Broyhill family member. The family then endowed a professorship named after Dr. Howard at UNC. "At the least, it sounds like more of a "pat on the back" from someone who can afford it (possibly a higher-up of the Broyhill furniture company, which is based in North Carolina?) than a academically-deserved-only title". I tend to agree. Abductive (reasoning) 09:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC) Comment. It's not our job to distinguish the "deservedly notable". If somebody rises to notability through fraud, favoritism or nepotism, all we have to do is ascertain the fact, not delete the article on the grounds that the notability is "undeserved". --Paularblaster (talk) 10:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC) Yes, that is generally true. But to me, the distinguished chair criterion is a shorthand for academic achievement, and I can't find anything Dr Howard has done to advance the field. So the real question is, what can be said about him encyclopedically? His article exists in a vacuum, with the only incoming links being Bellows Falls, Vermont and List of people from Vermont. This debate happened in the previous AfD, and the result was no consensus. So in this case, some people were unconvinced by this apparent passing of point 5. Abductive (reasoning) 10:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC) Keep Web of Science shows 75 papers, with citations of the 5 top ones 109, 72, 69 65, 63. He is senior author in many of them, and they are in good journals . I consider this to establish that he's an authority in the field. He seems to be the editor of a textbook [18] UNC-chapel Hill is a first-rate research university, and he has been full professor there before any question of the chair arose. UNC is reworking its site, & most glinks no longer work--I corrected the link to his home page, now [19] DGG ( talk ) 17:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC) What, exactly, do secondary sources say are his contributions to the understanding of myasthenia gravis? I realize this case is borderline, so I am arguing that instead of assuming that citation counts work, one needs to have a statement about the actual contribution(s). Abductive (reasoning) 23:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC) They say it by citing him. The authorities in a field are the people who get cited. That;s the nature of academic science, and the way notability is shown in that part of the world. We just record it. DGG ( talk ) 23:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Or, they could be citing him to say that he was wrong. Abductive (reasoning) 23:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Keep on basis of DGG's clear analysis. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC). Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Keep - while I agree with DGG's analysis, I have alternate reasons: Howard is a full professor of Medicine, who sits in an endowed chair, at a highly selective university. Bearian (talk) 01:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Keep. On reflection, questionable circumstances of the endowment notwithstanding, I think this does pass WP:PROF #5. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. James F. Howard, Jr. (2nd nomination) 33 of 35 Google News 20 Books 84 Scholar 106 Editor Count: 23 Creator: Howardj0503 Nominator: BadSeed Quarl 8 (7/1) 2006-02-07 Avraham 7 (0/7) 2006-02-07 137.164.230.17 3 (3/0) 2006-10-13 Jan.Smolik 2 (2/0) 2006-02-07 Syrcatbot 2 (0/2) 2006-04-26 Kinu 1 (1/0) 2006-02-06 Babajobu 1 (1/0) 2006-02-12 200.7.23.172 1 (1/0) 2006-03-19 Cbvt 1 (1/0) 2006-06-25 152.19.69.189 1 (1/0) 2006-10-24 SmackBot (bot) 1 (1/0) 2007-09-23 90.197.35.141 1 (1/0) 2009-10-19 DGG 1 (1/0) 2009-11-01 Monicasdude 1 (1/0) 2006-02-05 Pilatus 1 (1/0) 2006-02-07 209.42.231.159 1 (1/0) 2006-02-26 Tawkerbot2 1 (0/1) 2006-03-19 Cydebot (bot) 1 (0/1) 2006-06-19 75.177.153.76 1 (1/0) 2007-05-26 DefaultsortBot (bot) 1 (1/0) 2009-06-11 Abductive 1 (1/0) 2009-11-01 The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close and send to Redirects for discussion instead. Non-admin closure. Olaf Davis (talk) 09:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Vichy liberalism Vichy liberalism (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 term was used by a writer in an article. It does not refer to liberals in the Vichy Republic but is a sarcastic reference to American liberals. Not notable. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. Vichy liberalism 34 of 35 Google News 1 Books 1 Scholar 0 Editor Count: 2 Creator: Dundas plc Nominator: The Four Deuces The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by nominator, WP:SNOW Keep Tim Vickers (talk) 19:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC) ACS Chemical Neuroscience ACS Chemical Neuroscience (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Journal has barely started, no issue published yet. Prod removed with explanation on talk page concerning stature of authors and the fact that one published manuscript has been cited (cf. WP:NOTINHERITED). Journal misses all criteria of WP:Notability (academic journals) and a article creation is very premature (cf. WP:NOTCRYSTAL). Crusio (talk) 00:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Keep. If it is published by the American Chemical Society, it is almost certainly notable. -- Eastmain (talk) 00:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Yes, this is rather premature, but it will, as an ACS journal, clearly meet our notability guidelines early in 2010 after a few issues are out. So, week keep, as it is just wasting time, deleting something that will be rewritten in a few weeks. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Comment I removed the prod and I apologize if it was a mistake. I will not comment on the AfD since I contributed to expanding the article (though I did not create it). Thanks also for pointing out the guidelines in WP:Notability (academic journals). I was unaware since from the history it seems to be relatively new. I have two questions relavent to this AfD. Are SCI and Scopus (which are the only scientific databases mentioned in the guideleines) the only acceptable ones per guidelines? Are CAPlus and SciFinder, databases of Chemical Abstracts Service not appropriate or inadequate? I ask (as an aside) because as a chemist by training, there are a number of journals that I refer to that are not indexed in Scopus and this makes me feel a bit inferior. There is also a practical matter; List_of_scientific_journals_in_chemistry starts with a ranking based on Chem Abstracts which I will delete from the article if Chem Abstracts is an irrelevant database for scientific journals. I guess other journals might qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia if they are cited by "reliable sources" and have a "significant" history (which the journal in this AfD CLEARLY does not have). I was planning to work on other articles on journals, however, I request a bit more more clarity on what is a "reliable source" and a "significant history." Thanks so much Antorjal (talk) 03:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Chem Abstracts is certainly not an irrelevant database for scientific journals, but this is not the place to discuss that. --Bduke (Discussion) 04:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Not sure I follow as this journal is indexed by Chem Abstracts. Anyways, no further comments from me. Thanks. Antorjal (talk) 13:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Why does being a significant editor preclude you from speaking here? Doesn't it do the opposite? - BalthCat (talk) 19:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Keep For some publishers, any new journal can be assumed to be notable. The american Chemical Society is one of them. Similar to well established authors and musicians at the very top rank. in chemistry, they are the very top rank. DGG ( talk ) 20:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Comment The above votes all seem to argue either "it is published by a notable group so it is notable" or "it is published by a notable group so it will become notable". As far as I see, the first argument runs afoul of WP:NOTINHERITED and the second of WP:NOTCRYSTAL. --Crusio (talk) 12:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Keep Obvious choice. It's a peer-reviewed publication from a notable university. It's also a ground-breaking project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas (talk • contribs) 12:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Questions Which university?? And why is being peer-reviewed making it notable? And what's ground-breaking about yet another online journal of which there are already hundreds or even thousands? --Crusio (talk) 12:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Answers I read the links/references, searched it on google, and came to the conclusions I stated there. 1) Vanderbilt University 2)I didn't say that, and I guess it doesn't? 3)That's in the video--available on youtube--describing the publication. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas (talk • contribs) 12:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Sorry if I appear to be dense, but what has Vanderbilt to do with this journal? It's published by ACS, not Vanderbilt. And what YouTube video are you talking about? (BTW YouTube is not a reliable source. --Crusio (talk) 12:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC) The editor-in-chief is at Vanderbilt, but that has nothing to do with this discussion. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Comment. WP:NOTCRYSTAL can be overdone. As DGG points out, all ACS journals are immensely notable in chemistry and this one will be no different. If it has not already been noted all over the place it soon will be, so, since it is written, it should be kept. It would however have been better if the editors who wrote this article had waited until in 2010. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Keep. ACS is the most respectable publisher of chemistry journals. It is almost guaranteeed that this journal will (if not yet) be indexed by ISI and Scopus ASAP, and thus automatically qualify the WP notability criteria. By no means an ACS journal is "just another journal". Materialscientist (talk) 00:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC) Keep, as a publication of the ACS I think it is notable. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Keep: agree, as a publication of the ACS I think it is notable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC) Withdraw nomination Given the consensus that given the fact that this journal is published by the notable organization ACS and therefore may be expected in the near future to become notable, I withdraw my nomination. --Crusio (talk) 18:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. ACS Chemical Neuroscience 35 of 35 Google News 2 Books 0 Scholar 133000 Editor Count: 7 Creator: Coffeenutter Nominator: Crusio Antorjal 14 (5/9) 2009-11-07 Tarapritchett 4 (4/0) 2009-06-30 98.218.14.160 1 (1/0) 2009-09-01 Kkmurray 1 (1/0) 2009-07-01 Anna Lincoln 1 (0/1) 2009-10-05