Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 December 10

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. LFaraone 04:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Robl

Hugo Robl (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 footballer who never played a fully professional game. Prod was contested because Bayern won the European Cup while he was at the club, but I don't believe this is enough to keep an article about a player whose only achievement was warming the bench. J Mo 101 (talk) 23:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. J Mo 101 (talk) 23:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral: Whilst winning a number of medals might confer notability, he certainly never played a single minute for FC Bayern. Jared Preston (talk) 00:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 01:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Is being remembered for this particular situation [1] but that is only one article. Has also been deleted in de.wikipedia [2]. --Tikiwont (talk) 08:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I now fixed the first link to the one article I found. --Tikiwont (talk) 21:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - he was involved in at least two European Cup finals, which are major sporting events. If the players on the EC articles aren't linked to, then the articles aren't complete - this is important context. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 11:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic we should write an article for every player listed in a club's squad. Simply being part of a club has never been enough to be considered notable. J Mo 101 (talk) 20:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm wondering where he played in 1977, 1978 and 1979. Obviously, sitting on the bench of a great team from 1973-76 won't qualify under WP:ATHLETE. There's a middle ground between leaving him off of a list of players in a European Cup, and creating an article for him to be linked to-- mention him, no brackets, no blue-link, no red-link. Mandsford 15:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What he did between Bayern and Rosenheim is mentioned in above source: He became insurance merchant, because sitting on the bench of a great team from 1973-76 did not yet pay your pension either. --Tikiwont (talk) 18:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. Delete as non-notable. Mandsford 23:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not having ever actually played for Bayern, he fails WP:ATHLETE. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ángel Espada

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

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

No sources, no coverage that I can find online. The only thing I could cite was that he won the championship, and it's poorly sourced in my opinion. dmz 23:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)Nomination withdrawn, see below. dmz 21:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Surely a world champion is notable per se. And coverage certainly does exist: 163 hits at GNews archives[3] and dozens more at Google Books[4]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A world boxing champion is clearly notable. I've added another source verifying his title. Papaursa (talk) 00:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - WBA Welterweight Champion is clearly notable as competing (and winning) at the highest level of his sport, and can be easily verified with sources such as this book, which explicitly name him as WBA Welterweight Champion. -- Whpq (talk) 16:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems very clear cut. It's easy to find reliable sources that show he was a world champion boxer. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 16:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep seems a notable boxer of World Boxing Association.Vonjob944 (talk) 07:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sourced world boxing champion easily passes WP:GNG and WP:ATH. Astudent0 (talk) 14:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep: Nomination Withdrawn as it's been proven to me that I obviously didn't do enough research before nominating this article. dmz 21:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. LFaraone 04:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tai chi softball

Tai chi softball (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 found no independent coverage of this sport. Besides lacking reliable sources, this article also fails to show notability. Papaursa (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Papaursa (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a poor article without good sources. Dwanyewest (talk) 20:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article shows neither notability nor independent sources. I found nothing to show this sport is notable. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 16:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article isn't as bad as I expected from the title, but I still found no independent sources that show notability. Astudent0 (talk) 14:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Redirect at editorial decision. Courcelles 10:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Hackett

Joe Hackett (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 don't believe that the subject meets WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:SIGCOV. Prod contested. NW (Talk) 21:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Let this page stay. He played a big part in Beetleborgs. Rtkat3 (talk) 5:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't make him notable. Lots of people played a big part in Beetleborgs but most don't have their own articles. --Pontificalibus (talk) 23:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that others don't have articles is not a convincing argument... but I agree with deletion for other reasons (see below). Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 14:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete and Redirect back to Big Bad Beetleborgs. I did some research and made an honest effort to expand and source the article before coming to comment.[5] I find that even with his role as the supporting character of 'Count Fangula' in the Beetleborgs series, his career lacks the "significant roles in multiple notable productions" required to meet WP:ENT. After digging through the MANY false positives found in searches (due to his name being the same as Tim Daly's character on the NBC TV series Wings), I find that Joe lacks the coverage, even for Bettleborgs, to meet WP:GNG. This article may have been around since 2006, but it still simply WP:TOOSOON. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 14:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Michael Q. Schmidt but don't redirect — no reason to do that since he's voiced more than one character. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)}
  • Yes, he's voiced more than that one character, but the only one of any note note is 'Count Fangula'... in 33 episodes of one series, 13 episodes of the spinoff, and in 2 video film releases. A reasonable redirect to Big Bad Beetleborgs sends Wikipedia readers to the one place where he has whatever notability he might. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per MQS. A redirect is a reasonable editorial decision. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. LFaraone 04:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Monk and the Astronaut

Mr. Monk and the Astronaut (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) –(View AfD) • Afd statistics

• Reason: this episode of Monk (TV series) fails to met the GNG or the interpretation of it given in FICTION. TV plot articles like this also fail to meet the specific definition of WP:IINFO#1.

• Keep. Memorable episode. Page could be reformatted and information reorganized, but other than that, it's in a good place. It's also a memorable episode to everyone, like with Mr. Monk Goes to the Dentist. DReifGalaxyM31 (talk) 01:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I think that Mr. Monk Goes to the Dentist got saved, in part, from the same unexplained statement that it was "memorable", along with some of the old school "every episode of every TV show should have an article" arguments. This one, at first glance, suggests real world notability ("Stanley Tucci won an Emmy award for his performance as David Ruskin in the episode.") which is b.s. of the worst variety -- Tucci appeared in an episode called Mr. Monk and the Actor. There's an [Wiki for Monk episodes] that exists especially for those folks who believe that every Monk episode deserves its own article. The episode is memorable to me too, what with Monk chasing a jet fighter on foot, but that doesn't make it notable enough for its own article. Mandsford 20:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Mandsford. As an aside, article was nominated on November 24 but the AFD was never transcluded until another editor accidentally filed a second nomination. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the nomination that appears to be my original PROD. Fæ (talk) 21:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Very memorable episode. Unfortunately, can't keep just because of that due to WP:ILIKEIT. However, with the addition of a Production and Reception section (something I've said over and over on these nominations), it will be notable enough. So, for now, I say we hold off on deleting it immediately. Kevinbrogers (talk) 22:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• And again, where do you suggest we build it up? Using sources pulled out of your own butt? I'm not seeing any secondary sources anywhere to make such sections. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I tend toward Keep for episode summaries and plots, they tend to be the most read articles in Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Even if they're crappy clumps of trivia? Tell me how this episode meets WP:GNG. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Britney's boobs would be the most read article in Wikipedia if it were created, but that doesn't mean it should be kept. --Pontificalibus (talk) 23:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Britney's boobs is probably a poor example, I get some good matches in GBooks and several reliable articles in GNews about Britney's boobs. Fæ (talk) 23:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Monk (season 4), per WP:ATD and WP:BEFORE. No delete reason has been articulated above that precludes a merge or redirection. Jclemens (talk) 02:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My understanding is that merge or redirect are normal outcomes from an AfD and so do not preclude these options. BEFORE appears to have been followed and your own edit comment when you removed the PROD on this article recommended AfD; what is it about the process here you are objecting to? Thanks, Fæ (talk) 10:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to Monk (season 4), do not keep as a separate article. Article contains only plot (WP:NOT#PLOT) and (in-universe) trivia in prose form. The actor Emmy was for a different episode, but even if it was for this episode, a one sentence blurb still fits in the LoE. No evidence of WP:NOTABILITY for this episode otherwise. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn although it would help if the people who say "keep, there are sources" would, you know, actually ADD the freaking things... Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I Don't Want You to Go (Lani Hall song)

I Don't Want You to Go (Lani Hall song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Some "keep" !votes hinged on the fact that multiple artists recorded the song, but the only sources to verify that are individual directory listings on allmusic — not an example of non-trivial coverage in any sense of the word. There's clearly not "enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article" per WP:NSONGS, nor is there any sort of non-trivial third party coverage. Last AFD was "no consensus" with virtually no participation after 2 weeks. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The references appear to verify individual directory listings appear to be merely to validate with reliable sources that the article meets the last criterion from this sentence from WP:NSONGS indicating probably notability: "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable." There is no requirement for those references to provide non-trivial coverage, other than that validation of recordings by multiple notable artists. As for whether there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article, that is a judgement call as to a given editor's view of how detailed is "reasonably detailed" enough. Rlendog (talk) 22:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The article just says "X recorded the song on album Y" six times. Tell me how that's "reasonably detailed". Also, tell me how any article can get away with blatantly ignoring WP:GNG. Oh wait, THEY FREAKING CAN'T. Is today Idiot Vote Day on Wikipedia? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not convinced that the article is detailed enough; hence my "comment" rather than !vote to "keep". However, there is a lot more to the article than saying "'X recorded the song on album Y' six times." There are also brief critical comments on three of the versions, information about the personnel who recorded the Lani Hall version, information on which album (or alternative) each version was released on, the publication date of the song, and the fact that Herb Alpert modified the Lani Hall version in 1983. As for "blatantly ignoring WP:GNG," that is not the case; the issue is whether the song meets WP:NSONG (or whether perhaps there is an alternate reason to keep or delete) as you are well aware, since the deletion nomination does not even mention WP:GNG. Rlendog (talk) 19:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. You gotta be kidding me; this song was apparently recorded independently by eight – EIGHT – different artists notable enough to merit their own articles. This nomination frankly baffles me. 28bytes (talk) 02:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Tell me how you think we can stand to have an article without any non-trivial coverage. Apparently some articles get a free pass to totally ignore WP:GNG just based on the whims of individual editors. There are countless other songs that have been widely recorded but haven't gotten any secondary source coverage that amounts to more than "x recorded song Y — so what?" Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• TPH, you can Google as well as I can. You found the allmusic description of the song as an "emotive ballad", right? And the Philippine newspaper review of Mark Bautista's performance of the song? And the other Philippine newspaper that describes the song as "the best of the lot" of the songs on the Sharon Cuneta album? All three of these are from a quick Google News Archive search with artist and title; I haven't even tried the other five yet. Personally, I've never heard the song, so it might be terrible, but the fact that eight notable artists independently recorded it makes it notable, full stop. I'll agree with you that the article as it stands now is sparse, and mostly just a list of who recorded it, but that has no bearing on whether the song itself is notable. 28bytes (talk) 05:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• How about adding those sources that Google was clearly hiding from me? I could Google "google" and get no results. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 06:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Be happy to. Give me 15 minutes and they'll be in the article. 28bytes (talk) 06:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. 28bytes (talk) 06:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I know it's not a criterion of course, but it seems to be popular enough for 50 Wikipedia pages to link to it. Kudpung (talk) 06:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep didn't realize nominator and GaGaManLady are both Georgie Gibbons socks. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Girls (N-Dubz song)

Girls (N-Dubz song) (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:CRYSTAL and WP:CANVAS Starwarsforceunleashed (talk) 21:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. GaGaManLady (talk) 21:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep although the single isn't out yet, the song is notable as it has charted. MatthewWaller (talk) 21:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I see nothing that violates WP:CRYSTAL. Song is on four major charts, and the release date is close enough to give it benefit of the doubt in regards to expansion. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Secret Under the Rose

The Secret Under the Rose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A search for reliable sources about this film turned up nothing but its IMDB page. There are many hits for the book series on which this film is apparently based (Roma Sub Rosa), but I can find nothing substantial for the film. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. SnottyWong ^express 20:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sign of notability of what seems to be a short film or commisoned pilot. I don't think it is even based on the novels at all, maybe inspired or just trying to capitalize.--Tikiwont (talk) 21:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Comment - Note that sources found for "Roma Sub Rosa" will likely not be about this film, but instead about the book series with which the film is associated. SnottyWong ^squeal 21:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No reliable sources are included in the article nor could I find any via a quick google search.[6]. No evidence that this meets the requirements of WP:NOTFILM or is otherwise a notable production. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Department of EMS, City of Virginia Beach

Department of EMS, City of Virginia Beach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

steaming pile of promotional copyvio spam, created and edited by a pair of COI accounts WuhWuzDat 20:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, City agency with historical interest and verified citationsAirsealandems (talk) 20:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can't keep a blatant copyright violation. Additionally, please pick a single account to use. Gigs (talk) 20:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. LFaraone 04:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2009 alberta amateur MMA championship

2009 alberta amateur MMA championship (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 amateur regional contests. Does not meet WP:NOT or WP:MMANOT Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 19:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Papaursa (talk) 21:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is an unsourced article about a junior amateur MMA tournament. There is no indication of notability and reads more like a badly written news report. Papaursa (talk) 21:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete An unsourced article that fails WP:MMANOT. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article clearly fails WP:MMANOT and has no sources (independent or otherwise). Astudent0 (talk) 14:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Regional, amateur sporting event... fails to meet general notability requirements. --TreyGeek (talk) 16:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete = I agree with the WP:MMANOT essay, and this provincial amateur competition is not notable according to that proposed guideline. Bearian (talk) 18:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Williams (comic artist)

Simon Williams (comic artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Really this is borderline A7, since I don't see a real credible claim to notability here. But I'm taking it here for the community to assess: BLP without references that establish notability. Drmies (talk) 19:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• [copied from creator's talk page by Drmies:] Why is this page being considered for deletion then, when it is referring to an actual person in the comics industry. I think the external links included provide enough evidence of that the information included is correct? Marvel 1973 (talk) 20:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)Marvel 1973[reply]
  • For starters, the sources given are not reliable sources by our standards. Given that they aren't, they cannot really verify much; they simply aren't independent, or, in the case of the two interviews, they are not published by reliable (by our standards) websites. Moreover, such sources do not establish that the subject is notable according to our guidelines--for instance, WP:ARTIST. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 20:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tell you what, please just go ahead and delete the article. I have neither the time nor the patience to be bothered with this. Just please bear one thing in mind: there are articles on here regarding lesser known comic artists that are smaller, less detailed and with less reference that are left up.Marvel 1973 (talk) 20:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)Marvel 1973[reply]

Note Following the above edit, I have tagged the page for CSD G7, no other significant contribs. Pol430 talk to me 21:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen that you have gone ahead and done so. I personally felt that the subject of the article was credible and notable enough to warrant an page on this site, and tried to do so with the best of my ability. Instead of help and advice given to me by other users, I'm subjected to notices of deletion. I must add that I am extremely disappointed by the snobbery shown on this site. This was my first contribution to Wikipedia, I site I use very frequently... but it will most certainly be my last as well. Marvel 1973 (talk) 21:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)Marvel 1970[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. LFaraone 04:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andre Criswell

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

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

Just another ex-football player for the University of Michigan with no apparent reason for inclusion in an online encyclopedia. 90% of the article is POV fluff anyhow. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete While I appreciate that a new editor is making a first time contribution, most college football players are not notable enough for their own separate articles. This one will live on in ask.com.Mandsford 21:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NSPORT and happens to be very poorly written. Sources fail to establish notability. -Drdisque (talk) 05:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think it's poorly written. People on Wikipedia who fancy themselves to be great writers are just kidding themselves, but the point is that anyone can contribute, and they improve their writing and research skills as they write about topics of interest to them. In this case, the issue is notability of the topic, rather than what a bunch of amateurs think about another amateur. Mandsford 01:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not appear to have met the threshhold of notability. The sources I do find are "pay-per-view" so I cannot read them (because I'm cheap). Would reconsider given a reason. By the way, "poorly written" is normally a reason to improve the article, not delete the article. Try another wiki?--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 23:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Love.Live.Life.Tour

Love.Live.Life.Tour (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 removed without explanation. Was PRODded for lack of sources and notability--it's also Crystal Ballery. Drmies (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as the prodder. So "per me". — Timneu22 · talk 18:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'm not convinced myself that tours are worth individual articles. However, a Google search easily verifies this tour is taking place, or at least schedules to take place. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I do not think the tour page should be deleted as it provides information on the upcoming tour that could provide infomation to people hoping to go or people to find out about at a future time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.51.131 (talk) 18:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, well Wikipedia does not exist to advertise your tour dates. — Timneu22 · talk 19:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is not encyclopedic information DGG ( talk ) 21:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• With a DVD of the tour coming out, I'm thinking about bringing this article back, would that bee a good idea? MatthewWaller (talk) 14:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was: Speedy deleted by User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry under criteria A7. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 20:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Doppelman Trust Foundation

Gordon Doppelman Trust Foundation (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 organization. Google search finds only Wikipedia and mirror results, and not even an official website of the foundation. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 17:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• speedy delete nothing in gnews. I have nominated for speedy deletion. LibStar (talk) 13:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. LFaraone 04:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMAGINiT

IMAGINiT (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 division of a larger company that has no Wikipedia article (note that RAND is a different, unrelated company). Tagged as questionable notability since March of 2008, has no third-party references, and a google search provided only this potential third-party, reliable source within the first three pages. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 17:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This business is a global reseller and integrator of the Autodesk line of products. In other words, they sell and install products they did not create. It seems to me it would be a hard sell for such a business to get "long term historical notability", and I don't see anything that makes the grade. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 10:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

G-Spot Express

G-Spot Express (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Beyond one review by Mania.com (formerly AnimeOnDVD), the WP:ANIME custom Google search turns up with no other significant coverage by reliable third-party sources. Fails WP:NOTE and WP:NFILM. Previously prodded in June. —Farix (t | c) 17:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 17:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails notability. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails per WP:V and notability. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. LFaraone 04:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Organized crime and corruption reporting project

Organized crime and corruption reporting project (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 journalism center WuhWuzDat 17:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• What? Not true - obviously you don't follow this area closely. This is the hottest thing going in non-profit journalism -- they pioneered collaborative work and they are being copied everywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrcomet (talk • contribs) 17:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - appears to be a notable investigative journalism group with awards won; reasonable number of archived GNEWS hits from WP:Reliable sources for "Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project" and "OCCRP", in English and in other languages. I'll try to improve the references. Invitrovanitas (talk) 17:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - I've added a number of online sources indicating notability. More can probably be found: I'll flag this one for Article Rescue. Invitrovanitas (talk) 18:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —Invitrovanitas (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Invitrovanitas (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^squeal 00:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Google news archive search shows its a notable enough organization to have its reports quoted by major news organizations. They consider them to be experts on this. Dream Focus 04:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The sources are obviously there. wp:before should be followed by nom next time, I would suggest.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marcin Dawid

Marcin Dawid (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. Concern was "Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league." No reason was given for removing PROD. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 17:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep has played in a notable European club competition. Eldumpo (talk) 22:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The early qualifying rounds of the UEFA club competitions generally do not confer notability because of the presence of teams semi-pro teams like HB Tórshavn. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those early rounds still generate substantial coverage in reliable sources. Eldumpo (talk) 10:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide some? Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article already has links to a number of reliable sources which have stats for him (UEFA, 90minut, Soccerway). In addition here is a link [7] indicating he played in the Champions League as well. Eldumpo (talk) 18:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics are not significant coverage. It would take something far more detailed and in depth for this article to pass WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that he is profiled on three separate soccer statistics pages is not trivial, and if it were to be accepted that statistics websites are just trivial then a large number of player articles would be deleted. It is not necessary for player article references to be in-depth essays in order for players to be deemed notable for the purposes of Wikipedia. Eldumpo (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll quote WP:NSPORT: Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may be used to support content in an article, but it is not sufficient to establish notability. This includes listings in database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion. Granted, the UEFA database doesn't meet those criteria, but a single source, especially one with as little information as his UEFA profile, is never grounds for notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:NSPORT. Not enough significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. J Mo 101 (talk) 01:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nominator will merge instead. Jclemens-public (talk) 23:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Award for Environmental Innovation

Canadian Award for Environmental Innovation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Award of dubious notability, Merge to Royal Canadian Geographical Society WuhWuzDat 17:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Then get out your editing tool and do that. AFD and the deletion tool form no part of the article merger process. Uncle G (talk) 17:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

withdrawing nom , please close. WuhWuzDat 19:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merged by nominator. Jclemens-public (talk) 23:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Camsell Medal

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

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

Award of dubious notability, Merge to Royal Canadian Geographical Society WuhWuzDat 17:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Then get out your editing tool and do that. AFD and the deletion tool form no part of the article merger process. Uncle G (talk) 17:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

in that case, withdrawing nomination for deletion. WuhWuzDat 19:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 10:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carmen Harra

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

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

General notability. GHits is mostly trivial or social media/personal website. GNews only has a press release. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 16:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I predict... I predict... This article will never be notable. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 17:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Tried to remove the fluff, but it still lacks substance. It also lacks GHITs and and GNEWS of substance. It fails WP:BIO and WP:ENTERTAINER. ttonyb (talk) 17:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. LFaraone 04:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Supernatural Movie

Supernatural Movie (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 any sources that verify the existence of this film. It's not in IMDB, even as being "in production" (the link in the article goes to a different movie). Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 16:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nominator. Looks like a hoax to me. If such a movie was planned, surely there'd be some hits for it. That the IMDB link is for an unrelated movie is a bit of a red flag. 28bytes (talk) 02:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as far TOO SOON but not strictly a hoax, as the concept of this film has been discussed in sources, but the best that Kripke says is that if there were to be a movie, it would be "way down the line".[8][9] So there are g-hits... but nothing recent and what there is, deals in speculation. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree that this is a hoax. I cannot verify through any reliable sources that such a project exists regardless of the status of its principal photography. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Vector_triple_product. LFaraone 18:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple cross products

Multiple cross products (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 statement the cross product is not associative then a discussion of the consequences of that. But this product is already given at Cross product and Triple product, with the latter in particular already covering the product, its properties and expression using Levi-Civita symbols. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The article in its present form is weak. It has some hints that something could be said beyond what those other articles say (e.g. the comment about exterior algebra), but so far they're only hints. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Vector triple product. (I don't see how what is here now can be salvaged, but if someone else sees a way to transform the "hints" into useful non-OR material and merge it into Triple product, fine.)  --Lambiam 21:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Everything here is already amply covered by other articles. The identity involving the Kronecker delta is just Lagrange's formula for the vector triple product, made more obscure by the imposition of indices. Luckily this identity already appears in the article Levi-Civita symbol, although the relationship to Langrange's formula should probably be mentioned. (It's actually a special case of the Pfaffian identity ${\displaystyle \epsilon \otimes \epsilon ^{\sharp }=n!\operatorname {Id} _{\wedge ^{n}V}}$ which, unfortunately, is only covered in a very questionable way in our article on the epsilon tensor.) Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you have a specific objection against redirecting this?  --Lambiam 18:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  No objection to redirecting, if "multiple triple product" is a likely search term. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge to the triple product. It is a notable topic in math. Nergaal (talk) 19:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  This vote misses the point. We already have the triple product, where this is covered much better. The epsilon identities are covered in Levi-Civita symbol. Is there anything else worth keeping/merging? Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was closed (housekeeping: article was speedily deleted by User:Anthony Bradbury. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iddin

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

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

No evidence of notability. Tried PROD, but the creator removed the PROD without adding anything to the page. —Soap— 15:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete for multiple reasons. This is an article about an online community with no minimal showing of importance. It has no context to show its distinctness from the many similar entities, and no real content either. The current text: Iddin (www.iddin.com) is an anonymous online chat website similar to Omegle. Its slogan is "We keep the world connected". So tagging. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- —innotata 16:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. LFaraone 04:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Berube

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

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

Despite the article's claims, notability doesn't appear to be established here. He worked as an artist on WoW, and was involved with a film or two as a matte artist. The book he claims to have written doesn't even carry him as the author credit. The claims in the article seem to be greatly exaggerated. Gigs (talk) 15:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteThe article says he is an art director at a well known company. The references provided in the article either are his own websites, or IMDB, not considered an adequate source to establish notability, or do not talk about him (at least I could not find coverage). Also I could not find results at Google Books or Google News archive or on Google search to show that he meets Wikipedia's notability standard WP:BIO. We need to see multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage of him, not just the company he works for or the projects he worked on. Notability is not inherited by being involved with World of Warcraft or any other notable project or franchise, without reliable sources covering the individual in some depth. I do not question that he works at the company or that he worked on the projects claimed, but that is not enough. The article is also pretty full of puffery and unreferenced boasting. Editing could fix the promotional tone, but inline refs to independent and reliable sourcesare needed for the claims of prominence in the field. Edison (talk) 16:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability, or to back up the florid accomplishments asserted in the article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. LFaraone 04:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The_Arm_NYC

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

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

lack of notability, article appears to merely advertise for its subject, no citation ViniTheHat (talk) 15:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions.
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
• Delete. This article is about a building that rents studio space and similar services to artists. Such an enterprise might be notable, but I find nothing relevant, either under the title directly or with searches like ("The Arm" studio) or ("The Arm" gallery). - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Niaz Mohammad

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

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

Unsourced WP:BLP, tagged as such for more than 2 years. Calling someone a "taliban leader" is not really unproblematic without any sources, so a borderline G10 speedy candidate. Looking for sources, I could find him mentioned once in one book[10], and nothing useful in Google News archives. Fails WP:BIO. Fram (talk) 15:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- —innotata 16:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No sources. I'd expect to find a bit more about him if he was governor of Kabul, but can only find that list in the book source Fram gave above, which seems to derive from this list which appears in various places. I thought his name might be spelled wrong, and a Niaz MohammEd yields an Afghan politician "better known by his alias Haji Amir Lalai" but I don't think that's him. --Pontificalibus (talk) 21:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete Although technically the sources given above are sufficient to qualify under WP:POLITICIAN, this being Afghanistan, it seems terribly unlikely that there will be significant coverage in reliable sources at any point, assuming the subject hasn't already found an early grave. Ray^Talk 17:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced the sources we have are reliable at all. I spent a while googling various Afghan names in relation to governorships of provinces and found lots of confused US-intelligence-derived reports with varying spellings and aliases, and lots of apparently different people with similar names or aliases.--Pontificalibus (talk) 17:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. LFaraone 04:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Swan Island (band)

Swan Island (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)

I tagged this in October 2008 for possibly not meeting the GNG. At the time the only source was the bands official website. (Since gone stale) Since that time a local papers articles were added (see dif) - one for "Best new band 2006" and one for "Swan Island Calling it Quits" - but not much else. I still have the same concerns I did in 2008. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- —innotata 16:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Also received coverage from SPIN, Allmusic, PopMatters, Portland Mercury, City Pages, Leo Weekly.--Michig (talk) 20:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - In agreement with Michig. There's gotta be a better process for drawing attention to articles that need help, rather than forcing the issue via AfD. Of course, if Michig found sources online, and probably without much effort, it's surely possible for nominators to do the same thing themselves instead of waiting years for someone else to do it. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: it's surely possible for nominators to do the same thing themselves instead of waiting years for someone else to do it. Surely, if all I did was article patrol. But I don't - I mainly do image patrol. Two years to fix the issues so it's surely possible for editors voicing "keep" to do the same thing themselves instead of waiting years for someone else to do it and than commenting in deletion discussion how it should have been fixed two years ago. Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Busted! Due to lack of time when I cast my vote yesterday, I committed the sin that I accused others of committing. I was unable to improve the article yesterday and therefore had to wait nearly two years. One day, in fact. And it only took me a few minutes longer than it takes someone to start an AfD. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NB: Doomsdayer520, please avoid making personal attacks. LFaraone 04:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. LFaraone 05:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sleeze Beez

Sleeze Beez (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 tagged this in October 2008 for needing citations. However between that time and the last edit (October 2010) almost nothing of substance has been added to the article. (see dif) It is marked as a stub, which is fine, but ultimately it comes down to in two years the article was never been expanded or really sourced. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article does need citations, but the band is notable, having had a Billboard 200-charting album. I'll add a couple of allmusic sources while I'm here. 28bytes (talk) 02:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citations added. 28bytes (talk) 02:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (disclaimer - I am article creator) - lack of citations is a signal to look for them, not to nominate for AFD. This band passes WP:BAND and while low tier on the notability scale, still passes the test. I have added a couple more citations and slightly expanded the article. Exxolon (talk) 13:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It took a while for the article to get up to proper standards and it could still use some expansion. But the band achieved a little bit of notability and that should be enough for a basic stub article. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overall Comments: As I said, I am not against the stub at all. And I did not send it here because I have never heard of this band. I actually reviewed Screwed Blued & Tattooed back in the day for a national publication and liked it. Unfortunately what I like, or who I know did such and such or said such and such, is not good enough for Wikipedia. This article got sent here based on policy and was tagged/warned two years ago. Exxolon said: lack of citations is a signal to look for them ,but as this was tagged two years ago why didn't they expand it two year ago? Had that been done I would not have sent it here. With some articles it takes getting sent to an AfD before the issues can be fixed. Soundvisions1 (talk) 02:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SNOW/Speedy delete. We all know what the outcome here will be, no need to take a week. Courcelles 16:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chan Chi Yu Theory

Chan Chi Yu Theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Made up and original research Pontificalibus (talk) 14:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I think my Twinkle process to AfD this collided with pontificalibus's. I would not be opposed to an IAR speedy here. Gigs (talk) 14:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that although this doesn't strictly meet any of the speedy deletion critera, this doesn't warrant an extensive discussion.--Pontificalibus (talk) 15:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete pure original research, also seems to be WP:MADEUP. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 15:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by proposer. WWGB (talk) 13:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hendrik Coetzee

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

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

*Delete. The unfortunate Mr Coetzee was unknown until his tragic death. This article is a classic case of WP:NOTNEWS. WWGB (talk) 13:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Nomination withdrawn. Further research by Nevard (see below) has demonstrated notability, albeit under a slightly different name. WWGB (talk) 07:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Presumed death (no body) by crocodile does not an encyclopaedic article make. Concur with WWGB - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 14:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 13:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, WP:NOTNEWS. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 15:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, all said already. Ekem (talk) 17:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article easily passes the notability threshold. First, it uses 10 reliable sources from the press to demonstrate notability. Second, the press demonstrates his notability for several of his actions, including being an author and for leading expeditions that had never been accomplished previously. Third, the guideline Wikipedia:Notability (people) states,

  A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

  which this man clearly does. Note the use of British, Indian, Australian and American news sources. The reliable sources that have been cited come from no shortage of international press sources in a very non-routine, very significant way. Based on the above, it is clear that this man is notable. Basket of Puppies 17:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just as it is clear that WP:GNG provides that "Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article." WWGB (talk) 00:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If I saw any proof to the statement, made several times in 2010, that he "gained prominence in 2004 after leading the first-ever Nile River source-to-sea expedition", I'd say he was notable for more than getting eaten by a crocodile. The problem is that I don't see that he gained prominence in 2004 [11]. Mandsford 21:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I find the argument of Basket of Puppies to be thoroughly convincing. Yes, perhaps without the manner in which he died he would not be notable, but he did die that way and that has made him and his life (not just his death) notable. I mean, most people are notable for only one thing - that is, without that one thing they would not be notable (like Bill Gates founding Microsoft, Lance Armstrong being a bike racer, etc.) But being notable for those single notable things makes the rest of their lives, which would otherwise not be notable, notable. So it is in this case.

  Our job is not to decide if the topic is notable. Our job is to ascertain whether reliable secondary sources have decided the topic is notable. Clearly that is the case here. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is newsworthy as per the dozen or so sources and unusual in that not many westerners would carry out a trek like this. Richard Francis Burton springs to mind. Would we ignore him? Nasnema  Chat  00:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is my first attempt at modifying a Wikipedia page, but I am compelled to try because I feel strongly that Hendrik Coetzee was a sufficiently notable person to warrant a biographical Wikipedia page. It is unfortunate that the page did not appear until his death, because if the right people were aware of his achievements, I'm sure that he would've had a Wikipedia entry long ago. Ironically, he IS already mentioned on at least one other Wikipedia page; for becoming the first to navigate the remote source of the Nile river 1. According to a tribute on the Fluid Kayak website (one of his sponsors) 2, Hendrik did a source-to-sea kayak trip of the longest river in the world, kayaked the major part of the Congo River solo, and paddled the Murchison section of the Nile solo in two days: "a feat that is unlikely to ever be met." I believe that the main reason he was never on the wikipedia radar before, was because he was a humble and down-to-earth guy, and was not a self-promoter. --Purplesmoo 01:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— User:Purplesmoo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 01:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Google News archive searches give further results for Hendri Coetzee, a nickname. That said, coverage in the news archive is far from complete for S.A. sources- site searches for '.za' can help. Nevard (talk) 06:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The guy is notable, just because he is notable does not mean the article should be kept. Surely wikipedia should be ultimately about growth - can we not put more effort into building instead of destroying articles? It should need very hard justification to delete this article. Imagine all the articles that should exist but don't just because it was a fews opinion to get rid when others who don't would not come on here to comment but may well look for info at a later date. Rant over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.204.168.168 (talk) 13:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. LFaraone 05:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Luther King, Jr. visits Arizona - June 3, 1964

Martin Luther King, Jr. visits Arizona - June 3, 1964 (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 event in King's life. He must have made hundreds of such visits in his lifetime and there doesn't seem to be anything notable about this one. NtheP (talk) 12:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Anything remotely notable pertaining to this article can be moved to Martin Luther King Jr Tarheel95 (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete First contribution from a new editor, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although this may merit some mention in one of the many articles in Category:Martin Luther King, Jr., I agree that under WP:EVENT, it's not historically significant. Mandsford 21:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per SNOW, neologism Rodhullandemu 23:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Buttprune

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

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

Declined prod. Made-up term sourced to urbandictionary.com. 28bytes (talk) 11:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete yeah, urbandictionary is one thing that's never a reliable source. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable source. Tarheel95 (talk) 16:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Less than ten Ghits, and only five are about the subject (four of which are Urban Dictionary). Get on your winter coats, people. Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Gross. Not even worth explaining. Suffice to say that this should be wiped out. Mandsford 21:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Can we speedy this? --Pontificalibus (talk) 23:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. LFaraone 05:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Meyer (political scientist)

Thomas Meyer (political scientist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Political scientist who has written a few, reputedly controversial, books but they do not appear to have received massive attention. No independent sources about author. The German version of this article has only one independent source, and that is only a review of one of his books which does not provide significant coverage about the author. Therefore clearly failes WP:Notability. GDallimore (Talk) 11:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- —innotata 16:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Noted academic and role in SPD, also editor of the journal Neue Gesellschaft/Frankfurter Hefte (NGFH) (New Society/Frankfurt Issues Neue Gesellschaft/Frankfurter Hefte (NGFH) (Msrasnw (talk) 18:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I think via his NGFH editorship he meets Wp:Prof 8 The person is or has been an editor-in-chief of a major well-established journal in their subject area. - (Msrasnw (talk) 01:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Agreed, IF you can show that the journal is important/well-established. But I see no evidence of that either. I'm easy to persuade with good evidence. GDallimore (Talk) 14:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If one looks here Eugen_Kogon#Journalism we have brief mention of one of the two journals which were combined to make this one - there is some here [12] and at the journal itself there is a history section. [13] The information in these would seem to me evidence of the journal's importance and well established nature. Is this enough? (Msrasnw (talk) 20:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)) PS I have started a little page on the journal.[reply]

• So? And if he's a "noted academic" it should be easy to find sources noting him. GDallimore (Talk) 19:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look using basic searching on google yields the following which all seem to me indicative of notability. Does this help? "The theory of social democracy developed by Professor Thomas Meyer marks an impressive, thought-provoking advance in the broader theory of democracy." Jürgen Habermas and "Member of the Social Sciences and Humanities Advisory Group of the European Commission and is an individual expert in the EU-NESCA Project." Also at the Friedrich Ebert Foundation site and via Google translate we have "Studied political science, philosophy and German literature in Frankfurt / Main, 1973 Promotion, 1979 Habilitation, Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Dortmund, Scientific Director of the Academy of Political Education in the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (to October 2007), chief editor of the New Society / Frankfurter Hefte, Deputy Chairman of the Commission's core values of the SPD, since 1990 Chairman of the Faculty of Political Academy, and numerous publications - Basic Values Commission of the SPD, SPD-SED paper, Historical Commission of the SPD, the new party program, material collections, published by Thomas Meyer" - I have added some more refs and sources to the article. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 22:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

It's helpful, but it's pretty weak as Xxanthippe says. A review of a book doesn't give the author significant coverage. Many of the other sources seem to be self-penned biographies or are at least written by his associates/employers so aren't independent sources. My searching didn't find anything better than the weak sources you've now added so I still think it's on the delete side. GDallimore (Talk) 00:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep on above basis, but more sources (or translations of German ones) would help. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

• How is anyone supposed to provide translations of German sources without breaching copyright law? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I added the relevant WorldCat Identities link to the article to help with the above issues. Flatterworld (talk) 21:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't think WP:PROF #8 applies. Looking at the website of NGFH, it doesn't seem to be a peer-reviewed academic journal. --Crusio (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This may or may not be helpful [14]. Also, the former name of this publication, now gets some interesting Google hits [15]. I wonder why the magazine (which used to be a theory journal?) changed its name from FES, because it seems to have wide usage. And here is an Engish Wikipedia article on Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 19:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 05:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AIMS Grant and Knowledge Management Software

AIMS Grant and Knowledge Management Software (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 software. — GypsyJiver (drop me a line) 11:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.
• Delete. Software article with only an internal reference. Google News and Scholar ain't never heard of it. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Same negative search results as Smerdis. Searching for "totalaims", the name of their website, only yields self-published stuff and an exhibition listing. Favonian (talk) 22:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Following improvement deletion votes have changed Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Twelver Shi'ism

Criticism of Twelver Shi'ism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Delete - "Criticism of Twelver Shi'ism" is a article without providing sources that help readers understand from who in particular is criticism recieved for Twelver Shi'i Islam, which is a strictly followed religion of about 200 million people in the world. I think the article may qualify under G-1 Wikipedia:Patent nonsense perhaps as the article is original research, POV, in bad faith and soapbox. References given are non-verifiable and out of sync to the matter which they are tagged to. Nothing in the article can be checked for verification, except few sources which are not related to "Criticism of Twelver Shi'ism". Those only help explain that Twelver Shi'i are up to 10-15% of total Islam and are the minority and few quotes from Khomeini and his criticism (You can't criticise whole community based on single person). When I read an article in which the faith of about 200 million people is criticised I expect the article to to guide me in understanding why this is and who in particular are criticising their faith. The article even contain quotes such as "Twelver Shia themselves undermine Ali’s authority", which is a strong indication that this article is made to bash Twelver Shi'i Islam.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 10:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This article is badly sourced and references cited are through hate sites like www.islamicweb.com, www.ahlebayt.com, www.abdurahman.org. Criticism is not constructive rather its an attempt to humiliate an entire community with millions followers worldwide with the reference of propagandist websites. Wikipedia requires neutral, authentic, reliable and verifiable citations rather than propaganda contents. Humaliwalay (talk) 11:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• isn't it funny that the one who requested the speedy deletion promotes himself as a shia! that's the first thing to consider. i will be as short as possible.
  1. the one who first proposed deletion says he is shia on his userpage. conflict of interest.
  2. faizhaider propposed eletion not long after i last edited the page by deleting false shia propaganda that was added. faizhaider did not object previously to this false shia information that was added.
  3. faizhader proposed delation by informing 2 previous shia users humaliwalay and another shia user whose name i forgot. he also informed the creator atheistic irani even thouhg he has not been on for a very long rime. but he did not inform me even though i was the last to edit it before him....maybe trying to pull a back handed unfair attack.
  4. my section i wrote on fatimah recieving divine revealtions is fully sourced from respected sunni scholars who are criticising shia. these scholars criticise them in their books. what is wrong with a sunni scholar. it does not need to be only secular scholar.
  5. when i link to so called hate wbsites i only do this to highlight the views because sadly the books i used are in arabic only and not translated yet. so i do this to express better this view until the books i used are translated.
  6. just because shia are millions of people doen't mean they cannot be criticed. there articles criticising catholics, islam and more who are millions or much bigger than twelver shia. so this argument is stupid.
  7. the artcile is very fair and shia can defend themselves in it. amybe they really cannot defend themsleves so they have to resort to trying to delete it so to protoect their dignity. remeber a stwlever shia proposed deletion. very suspicious.
  8. khomeini is grand ayatollah meaning he is highest of twelevr scholars and he said the hadeeth of fatimah getting revelation is authentic. does faizhaider think khomeini is wrong in this case...if he does please provide your evidence why he is wrong and you are right!!!!
  9. all the stuff i wrote is releveant and faizhaider is lying when he says it is not related or is not clear. he is lying for sectarian reason. provide proof faizhaider!!!!! he is trying to abuse the system wikipedia has in place to provide good content and lie to use that system against a good article.
  10. atheistic irani first section is the same.
• i also hope to make the artcile bigger in the future by adding more relevant criticisms.Suenahrme (talk) 12:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• yes the other shia user is moheahlolbayt. he is shia s he defended the shia against criticism and his name strongly suggest he is shia. okay i am leaving now. so do not listen to faizhaider and speddly delete the artcile. leave it for more discussion soto prove that faizhaider is wrong and worried only for his sectarian peace of mind and not wikipedia good articles or otherwise.Suenahrme (talk) 12:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments: If a sunni user (i.e. AllahLovesYou can request csd for a sunni article i.e. Criticism of Sunni Islam, why is it funny that I a shia muslim has request csd for this article.
  1. So what I'm Shia muslim I don't hide this and my edit/talk history will show that I have never been dismissive/accusative/bad-mouthed to any one, I don't go on accusing people due to their believes, nationality, sex, etc.
  2. My objection is to article as whole, both parties are putting irrelevant, POV and orignal research data which is based on primary sources (or no relevance, connection to what is being said in article and what is being said in source).
  3. I didn't proposed deletion in some secret corner of wikipedia, I placed notice on article, created nomination page, added a sub-section on talk page, notified creator of article and put notice on talk page of recent editors; this lot more than what is required for csd, may be I missed an editor or two but there is big notice on article which calls for attention for all.
  4. Your section about Fatimah sa, contains in total 12 sources but only three of them are verifiable of the two are primary sources and materila in this article is copyvio from those primary source, third source specifiaclly cricizes Khomeini and not Shia Islam you can't ransom 200 million people for one guy.
  5. the sites which you are referring to are through hate and un reliable as per wiki policy, e.g.Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_35#Islamic_web
  6. that is the point, everybody could be critcised but ut should be criticism and not bashing. The article has been in place for more than six months (since 2010-05-11) and has been turf for editwar and in these six months forget any improvemnt, article has become more garbage than before.
  7. defend???? is this a blog? it seems really suspicious that a sunni is trying to block the deletion of the article who has been primary contributor to all of the matter which is copyvio & orignal research.
  8. Khomeini is just one of the maraji and not highest of them i.e. Maraja-e-kul, basically he was a major philospher (of political theory) and not major historian, jurist or jurisprudent. Apart from that different maraji have different opinion about different things.
  9. I also can use same words for you but throwing words of allegation is not my trait. Words used by you show your state of mind and your level.
  10. whats that about?
• I want to point out that this article defies several wikipedia policies, few of them are:
  • Copyright violations,
  • Attack page,
  • No original research,
  • Identifying reliable sources,
  • Assume good faith,
  • Conflict of interest
  • Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought
  • Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources
  • Wikipedia is not a blog
  • Wikipedia is not a crystal ball
• At last I want to say that I announce my clear identity on wikipedia because I am what I am, I don't need a comouflage, anonimity or pseudo identity to hide myslef for my acts and I am not afraid of personal attacks even if they hurt me (yes, I get lots of mail from so called sunni elitists which like their ancestors & leaders are bad-mouthed, why because as there is an urdu saying that truth is sour; they simply can't take logical & factual criticism & they resort to abusive language & allegations.)

  --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 15:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • To whoever is judging the delete issue please read the points I wote in defense of not deleting it before above and you wil see that faizhaider didm’t answer them but tried to divert attention using false arguments. I will again quickly respond to faizhaider’s false points 1 by 1. To the judges when faizhaidetr compared a sunni wanting to delete criticism of sunni islam to this all I can say is please have a look at that article compared to this shia one. The sunni one was saying very stupid false thing like it is ok to write quran with urine!!!!!!!!!!! And otjher very stupid sectarian things. So faizhaider this a stupid comparison.
    1. i will anser his point 1. You say you have good history. You also have more edits than me and nice user page. So what!!!!!!! That does not mean you are wanting deletion of this article in good faith. You are not an angel and will be judged every time on your proof and intention.
    2. I will answer point 2. The only people putting POV and original research are shia in the article. This is easy for everyone to see in the history. The criticisms are referenced very clear except in your eyes faizhaider.
    3. you missed probably the most important editor…..which is me when you put up for deletion and I was last editor before you….why????? and why you put it up for speedy deletion??????? maybe you thought you can speedily delete it before I even knew so to stop me defend leaving the article!!!!!
    4. i used 3 very good sources for a very specific criticism of Fatimah receiving divine revelation. Do you want more than that??!!! How many people you want to criticize such specific thing??????!!!! 100 people!!!!!!! I used 2 primary sources of al-kafi and khomeinis words yes and I gave them good links. I use the first alkafi because this is what the sunni scholars criticize in the books I referenced to. I used the second of khomini because he is telling everbody that the alkafi source that sunni scholars criticize is really authentic. If I did not use alkafi with Khomeini then twelve shia will defend themselves bny saying the alkafi source is not authentic. But Khomeini prove them wrong. And do not lie…nowhere do I criticize Khomeini…prove it!!!! I only mention quoting what he say. You say not to ransom shia for 1 guy. I say I will not do this if you faizhaider can prove you are right and grand ayatollah Khomeini is wrong. If Khomeini is proven and shown wrong I will remove. But for now I think Khomeini is more knowledgeable in shia hadeeth than you and I think you will have trouble finding even 1 ayatollah who agree w=ith you.
    5. if you listen faizhaider I already said the so called hate sites I did not use as my sources for criticisms. I only use them because the sunni scholars books are not translated so I can’t refer people to them so I use these to eelaborate. Please resad my earlier defense for this. They can be removed easily if the judges agree this is best.
    6. do not lie and exaggerate. This article not bashing. It is very fair for all because everone has a say and the criticism is very formal and referenced. This article is not turf for edit war. Do not lie. Anyone can see you are lying by looking at the history and it is interesting and no surprise that the only ones adding stupid garbage POV again and again are shias not criticisers and the article will only get bigger and better with time and I will build and improve it also.
    7. it seems really suspicious that shia proposed speedy deletion!!!!! No????? do not make this out like I am doing this lik on internet forum like I am a bad guy. As I say the evidence speaks for itself and it will show that you are not sincere in your delete request. I alrwady said there is no original research or copyvio and this is clear for all. And why do you pick only on my section faizhaider???????? What about atheistic irani??????? Or is it because I used sunni scholars and books and he did not or because he has not been back for along time so he is not the threat to your plan for deletion???????
    8. like I said about Khomeini…you must prove he is wrong and you are right. And do not lie about him to protect your argument. He is not just major philosopher of politics theory. He is also major historian, jurist and jurispudent as his books prove. Faizhaider I did not know you can become a grand ayatollah without being a major jurist!!!!!!!!! Don’t grand ayatollahs have to give religious verdicts???????? Don’t they have followers who seek their religious guidance??????? Was Khomeini only giving philosophical rulings??????!!!!! This is absurd and blatant lie by you faizhaider which only make you look more untrustworthy.
    9. I am not using bad words except to say you are lying and this is showing the more you pursue your agenda of deletion for false reasons. And I am in good state of mind so do n’t worry about me faizhaider but I worry for your intention.
    10. you pick on me but not atheistic irani. But I already explain this before.
  • All the things you say the article defies are false. But I like how long you made the list!!!!! Did you add every imaginable violation you could find scouring Wikipedia.!!!!!!!!!!! Very funny yes but I show thses already to be false.

    Am I hiding!!!!!!!!!!! I did not realize this. I like how you refer to sunni as if they with their ancestors are always elititist…very common shia propaganda which I can only laugh at. “they simply can't take logical & factual criticism & they resort to abusive language & allegations”…this to me mirrors a case at preseent. And no faizhaider the truth is not sour….the truth is actually very sweet and you should try tasting….it is only sour if it leaves a bad taste in your mouth and you find it hard to swallow. Maybe a bit like your current predicament. So to the judges I hoope this explains the case for keeping the article and shows the insincerity of faizhaider. If you need more input from me let me know and I will respond.Suenahrme (talk) 01:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Well again you are dammed by your own claim and its hilarious too that I and User FAIZHAIDER are allied. Please visit this Talk:Hallaur#Article_issues page and read the differences of opinions between us you will change your mind. We are all concerned about GOOD FAITH EDITING without any prejudice or malice against anyone. Thanks, I am with you if you are right. - Humaliwalay (talk) 09:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: What is being said on this page & what has been there on the article in question will be judged by Admins, best in intrest of article in specific & encyclopedia in general. But imo Suenahrme statements above are violation of comments on people rather than the article is considered disruptive and I take them as personal attack.

        Is it not amazing he thinks himself most important editor of the article it seems he has ownership dilema.

        I don't know what Suenahrme knows about Shi'i hawza system but its like genral education system where everybody has to be read everything and master its basics but that does not mean each individual is master of everything different Maraji were expert of different fields e.g. Khoei was a jurist & jurisprudent while Baqir al-Sadr was master of political philosphy. If you read Khomeini's article it clearly mentions, "but is most famous for his political role. In his writings and preachings he expanded the Shi'a Usuli theory of velayat-e faqih,... .... ...He taught political philosophy,[24] Islamic history and ethics... ... ...His seminary teaching often focused on the importance of religion to practical social and political issues of the day... ... ...Khomeini studied Greek Philosophy and was influenced by both the philosophy ... ... ...Apart from philosophy, Khomeini was also interested in literature and poetry". Also different maraji have different opinion on subject e.g. I quote from Sistani's article "Like his predecessor Khoei, Sistani does not share the definition of the doctrine of Velayat-e faqih (the authority of jurists) supported by Ayatollah Khomeini and Iran's current supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei." Being grad ayatollah does'nt mean being maraji-e-taqlid e.g. there are scores of Grand Ayatollahs at present but Sistani is Marja-e-taqleed for most of Shi'is like Koei was in his time despite Khomeini als being alive at same time (because Khoei was major jurist & juriprudent then Khomeini who was major philospher).

        Its true you used 3 sources and atleast two in which you referred regarding revelations are actually good but the problem is they are primary sources (and they don't have word of critics in them for Shi'is) then you put a third reference which is about criticsm of Khomeini (& not Shi'i muslims) and lo! you add them to have your own inference and that is called original research.

        Per se, Project:No original research, " drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position—called original synthesis, or original SYN—is prohibited by the NOR policy." & "Articles should be based largely on reliable secondary sources."

        Per se, Project:Burden of proof, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." So it is you who have to prove because you have added the material and no body else is compelled to do so (yes, anybody can do it but burden lies on you).

        As iyo, you are the most important editor of the article so Burden of proof lies on you.

        Anyways, now the article is under burden of Project:copyvio, so I think things will have to be sorted out in faster pace.

        --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 10:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

        • unbelievable!!!!!!! i feel like i am dealing with brick walls. did you and humaliwalay even read what i said??????!!!!! i said theres no copyvio anywhere and this is shown in article. the charges against this article just keep piling on by you2 just to help further your sectarian causse of deletion of article. and article is not POV or primary as i alreaaaaadyyyyy explained. stop piling on false charges to help your false cause. i did not make up what i wrote. i use the sunni scholars books and transfer accordingly translations of what they say about fatimah recieveing revelation as shia believe. this not my own words but words of highly prominent scholars who are ctricising and who happen to be sunni. then what about atheistic irani and his secular scholar sources????????!!!! why not complain against his section???????????!!!!!!!! and to humaliwalay stop trying to bring up false excuses. you say you and faizhaider disagree sometime....well i saw where you disagree and its about a indian town called hallaur. yes you may disagree about a less emotional issue like an indian town but you unite when its about defending the same religions sect because this is emotional topic and you and faizhaider are treating this with pure emotional side and it has nothing to do with upholding the wiki policy but you clothe a wolf in sheeps clothes!!!!!! to conclude i ask the judges to compare my above reasons with humaliwalay and faizhaiders reasons and hopefully they will see the truth. and also a note....this whole fiasco started with faizhaider only after i removed a shia editors adding his own unreferenced POV in the article while trying to defend his twelevr dhia at 8.40 29th november 2010. so i believe and i think the evidence will show faizhaider only started this due to his frustration and seeing that the twelevrs shia weere not able to defend themselves properly against the articles arguments.Suenahrme (talk) 11:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Suenahrme, please remember not to make personal attacks on other editors. Your arguments will hold more weight if you are able to stay cool and ground your points in Wikipedia policy as far as possible.--Korruski^Talk 11:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well I can only conclude that you are a bad faith Editor and keeps shouting all the time. I don't want to argue with you and have left this with admins. Thanks. - Humaliwalay (talk) 11:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't think it is of any use to any further argument in respond to Suenahrme as most of the things have already been said. I hope after all this bashing which has been offered on this page, admins will look into the issue and resolve the situation in best intrest of article & encyclopedia.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 12:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If only you knew my frustration korruski but yes I will from now on only strictly criticize the contributions and not contributors. I will leavfe the judges tyo criticize the contributors. Thanks.Suenahrme (talk) 03:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC) oh and i just visited khomeinis wiki article and as you said faizhaider he was indeed interested in philosophy, poetry and literature. but it also clearly say he was intrersted in hadeeth as well and he wrote a book it says about forty hadeeth. just to note.Suenahrme (talk) 03:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I urge contributors to this discussion to remember that this nomination is not intended to be an argument, nor a vote, but a discussion to establish whether or not this article is suitable for inclusion. I understand that judging by your "tone" there are almost certainly personal (cultural and/or religious) motivations for your arguments. Try to be as objective as possible and coming across as being upset (by the use of multiple exclamation marks and overly long, repetitive statements directed at individual editors) only detracts from the weight of your opinion. If you are unable to keep your own cultural/religious affiliations separate you would be wise to distance yourself from this discussion as you would have an insurmountable conflict of interest. In short, if you cannot set aside your own beliefs or affinities leave this discussion to those with no involvement in the subject matter who can objectively evaluate the article's suitability. --§Pumpmeup 10:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition do not, ever, mention another editor's cultural or religious background in order to discredit them, this is a severe personal attack. There are several blatant personal attacks present in this discussion and I would imagine this will cause the reviewing sysop to entirely discredit the attacker's arguments. --§Pumpmeup 10:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but major improvement needed. As a disinterested party, I don't find the article to fall under the "hate" umbrella, particularly as the primary editor has a done a relatively great job of phrasing the issue from an objective perspective: "XYZ commentator critices that yadda-yadda [footnote]" as opposed to "the following things are terrible about Foo". Is still lacks a solid lede, and the sourcing needs some tweaking (though not as much as implied by above opponents). I do join in cautioning the primary editor that links to hate sights aren't inappropriate because they're hate sites, but solely because drawing conclusions from primary sources falls under WP:OR (original research). It is, however, totally legitimate to cite academic sources which observe, rather than participate in, criticism of one sect or another. Plus we have plenty of articles or sections on "Criticism of X belief", so I don't see any particular reason the Shi'a should be exempted provided it can be done encyclopedically. Note also that a CV tag appears to have been maliciously added to block the text. The tag provided no URL for the alleged vio, it was not added to the CV notification page, and not even an Edit Summary was given to explain it. So I've deleted it (which would normally be an Admin issue only) do to lack of any attempt to comply with CV procedure. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I kindly ask you to have a fast look to what I wrote below about the references of this article. The whole article is just based on self-interpretation and cheating by distorting the content of sources. Thanks in advance. --Aliwiki (talk) 12:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Surely, no one discredits criticism but if you see the article does not provide clear sources which criticizes Shia Islam, it takes one chunk from here and another from there and draws conclusion (which I think is counted as Original research) in addition to it the article heavily resides on hate sites & non verifiable resources. If you'll search criticism of twelver Shi'ism you will get nothing except wiki pages. Also, editors primarily active on article keep on removing counter-criticism material and their actual feelings have been already demonstrated in their preceding comments. Just to point out article Criticism of Sunni Islam was deleted on similar pretext. Also CV discussion page exists for this article i.e., [Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2010_November_30] and it is mentioned there on article's talk page. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 20:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding CV, please refer, The position of women from the viewpoint of Imam Khomeini ... By Ruhollah Khomeini, #15 & #37.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 20:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In total in the article there are six verifiable links, they are:
    1. http://www.northill.demon.co.uk/relstud/shiislam.htm#6 - used for child Imams criticism - This source fails to address the issue of child Imam anywhere, it just gives overview of Shi'a Islam and is irrelevant to issue of child Imam.
    2. http://www.archive.org/stream/910_shia/910_shia_djvu.txt - used for child Imams criticism - the source states His youth became a cause of controversy among the Shi*a, some asking how such a boy could have the necessary knowledge to be the Imam. Shi*i writers have countered such suggestions by relating numerous stories about his extraordinary knowledge at a young age and by referring to the fact that the Qur'an states that Jesus was given his mission while still a child... ... ... Once again the Shi*is were faced with the problem of a child Imam., although the article mentions criticism but fails to mention counter criticism mentioned in second statement. Is this balanced criticism or POV? if article history is to be seen the point of counter-criticism whenever entered has been removed by few editors, is this correct approach?
    3. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=qYmxdo_vX9oC&printsec=frontcover&dq=%E2%80%9CTHE+POSITION+OF+WOMEN+FROM+THE+VIEWPOINT+OF+IMAM+KHOMEINI&source=bl&ots=c_d4hppCPY&sig=Z6sAYMlwL8QqQeY7C8YQ7THq4Jc&hl=en&ei=SJq1TOqkN42usAPE2tmQCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false - used for divine revelations criticism - This source is used for CV as shown in preceding comment.
    4. http://www.al-shia.org/html/eng/books/hadith/al-kafi/part4/part4-ch40.htm - used for divine revelations criticism - This source is primary Shi'a collection of hadith as Bukhari, etc are for Sunnis.
    5. http://abdurrahman.org/innovation/fatwaonshias.html - used for divine revelations criticism - This source is basically a hate site. This source criticizes specifically Khomeini and not Shi'a Islam hence irrelevant for the topic.
    6. http://www.ahlelbayt.com/articles/shia-texts/shia-holy-books - used for divine revelations criticism - This source is also a hate site.
    • I hope above explanation clears the air a bit regarding things on the article.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 20:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment on possible improvement. I submit that the basic concept of the article is valid, though the above concerns do need to be addressed. The "child imam" criticism from the Archive link seems useable provided the counter-criticism is also recognised. So far as other legitimate additions, note here[16] one example, likely of many, of an academic source mentioning Sunni allegations of "disrespect of the Sahaba" due to Shi'a antipathy to the earliest Caliphs. With another source or two this could easily be used as to form a totally valid NPOV observation of the history of Sunni criticism on that issue. The article definitely needs some chopping, and we need to distinguish malicious CV from over-long cites, and definitely need to watch the OR issue, but I think a couple editors could knock in some pretty valid academic commentary in a day or two. I'm just concerned that the AfD might have too much emotional basis mixed up with the legitimate objections. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Day or two? I have been watching that article for around six months and things never improved so I thought putting Afd request might do some magic but no original editor wants to admit that there is something wrong with the article. They will simply not allow the article to be cleansed. I hope some overnight magic happens. Meanwhile can you clear of the contested matter, it seems the editors on article will accept edits of a mediator.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 21:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's good this was brought to the public attention then; I just ran across it on WP:ISLAM by happenstance. I'm a little jammed later today, but I'll try to put at least an hour into it tonight, primarily to cut out some OR, and put in a really basic section on criticism of "Sahaba disrespect" (which, incidentally, is one common criticism I've seen from Sunni radical groups). Again, disinterested party and hope that the original editor will recognise this and be willing to take some neutral input. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, cut out a possible CV (more like an excessively-long quote). Removed some of what appeared to be OR/presumption/ijtihad without secondary source backing. Also combined the footnotes so it's easier to see which sources are used repeatedly, and identified one article as being a personal homepage, though it might be the case that the author is still a recognised commentator. Also moved the shielded list of possible future sections to the top so folks can check for legitimate secondary sources covering those topics. I'm quite sure we can find something on Sunni criticism of temporary marriage. EDIT: I also submit we may be able to move the article to Criticism of Shi'a Islam, for the simplest title possible, unless the criticised beliefs (or many of them) are non-applicable to other Shi'a denominations like the Ismailis, etc. I take it they also believe in the young imams, Fatima's revelation, do not support the first caliphs, etc? MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I hope so things will change for good. BTW there is entire article Shia view of the Sahaba.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 22:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The content of this article is accusations not criticism. To verify what I am saying, one need to pay attention to 2 points:

1.Most of the sources are Wahabism and Bahai' Faith sources which their animosity to Shi'ism is obvious. 2.That a child was Imam is true, but who has criticized this fact?If you again pay attention to the sources, the accusation is one behalf of Wahabis sources. W.Madelung is just reporting this, and as far as I know he hasn't criticized it. It's notable that there were thousands of other child who became kings. Or there were several Sunni child Caliphate in dynasties. Moreover, Jesus was considered a religious figure since he was born, but in Criticism of Jesus and Criticism of christianity we don't see that this fact be criticized. Fatima's devine relation is also easily comparable to Mary (mother of Jesus)'s divine relation. Taqiyya and Ashura are part of religious traditions, and in none of the other religion criticism articles, traditions are not criticized.--Aliwiki (talk) 11:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: A fast analysis of the references of this article reveals many facts:

Ref 1. It is a Shia book which explains What is Taqiyya, there is no critism!!!!!!

Ref 2. A Sunni source which I explained above. If you open the link, you'll recognize the author used the impolite word of Rafidi which is a common word that Wahabis are using against Shia.

Ref3.Again a Sunni source, and if you read, it is talking about that Shias are not agreeing on Sunni's ideas, which is a fact. Is this criticism???In non of the religious criticism articles, the poit that one religion doesn't accept the other ideology is not criticized.

Ref. 4:Bernard Lewis is reporting Rukn al-Din Khurshah was chosen as Imam while he was a child!!! Ruk al-Din Khurshah was not a Twelver-Shia Imam (See The Twelve Imams to verify)

Ref. 5: An unrelibale Bahai' website whose animosity is obvious with Shia.

Ref. 6:Just a paper from a Sunni author.

Ref. 7: Madelung is relibale, but there is distortion here: Madelung is discussing Ismaili Shia not Twelver. In page 114-115 he has just reported who is the 12th Imam and his specification including that fact that he was a child (He is not even talking about the other child Imam, 9th). You can easily verify this obvious cheating here. Just a report, but self-interpretation has changed it to criticism.

Ref8.A RS but has the problem of Ref.7. Just need to content of chapter 4: [17]. The author is only reporting what are ideas of Twelver-Shia.

Ref 9.It's not verifiable.I didn't find any book with that tile in Google books. Also Google search reflect Wikipedia's article and Just I found that this book exists, but what is the content? and if it's criticizing or just reporting? It's notable that the author is a Shia.

Ref. 10:Just reporting the Imam was child, no criticism and obvious self-interpretation.

Ref. 11: the source is website that is just reporting Fatimah's divine relationship. No criticism and self-interpretation again! It's notable that Sunni's also believe Umar had devine relationship.

Ref. 12: It reports that Sunni's don't believe Fatima's devive relationship. Is this Criticims?!!

Ref 13: OR as it's primary source. It is also a Sunni source. further more, it's just reporting, on behalf of Sunnis, what Sunnis think and beliieve. No relationship for this article

Ref. 14:Obvious OR of a primary Sunni source

Ref. 15:OR from a primry Sunni source.

Ref. 16: Sunni's Fatwas against Shia beliefs. OR, unrelib ale sorce.

Ref. 17: Just reporting belief of existence of the Fatima's book from a Shia website. No criticism.

I think these explanation are enough to prove the whole content is just based on self-interpretations.--Aliwiki (talk) 12:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree with Aliwiki, the way he has explained its apparent that this article is a mere anti-shia proaganda by the Sunnis and Wahabis rather than being an encyclopedic material.- Humaliwalay (talk) 12:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can only answer for Refs 1-3 and 12, which are the ones I added. And note too that I removed several portions which were non-encyclopedic, so I'd argue the article continues to improve. Further, the basic concept of the article is a valid one, so I wouldn't necessarily be against removing the last two sections until they can be improved, given the sensitivity of the issue.

I would argue that Aliwiki's list of comments above present some "moving goalposts", in that he appears to be against quoting Shi'a books or Sunni books, and against scholarly commentary or quotes from sectarian commentary. So if a book mentions criticism, it's not in-and-of-itself criticism. And if it criticises, it's sectarian? In response to cites 1-3 which I added:

Ref 1. It is a Shia book which explains What is Taqiyya, there is no critism!!!!!!

Click the link, third paragraph down starts "Some have criticised Shiism by saying that to employ the practice of taqiyya..."

Ref 2. A Sunni source which I explained above. If you open the link, you'll recognize the author used the impolite word of Rafidi which is a common word that Wahabis are using against Shia.

"If you open the link"? The quoted text itself uses the term, so any implication that the biased nature of the quote is concealed is incorrect. The point is that it's quoting an example of Sunni objections to Shi'a belief. Since the sentence is about noting bias, the use of the quote is NPOV since it's in context.

Ref3.Again a Sunni source, and if you read, it is talking about that Shias are not agreeing on Sunni's ideas, which is a fact. Is this criticism???In non of the religious criticism articles, the poit that one religion doesn't accept the other ideology is not criticized.

Ref 7, thanks for the link, will add to the article. Note however that despite the word "Ismailism" in the title, in the specific cited section the author is discussing Shi'a Islam overall (Imamiyya).

The word "criticism" is explicitly used, and further I don't think it's even slightly stretching to consider "rejected the idea...", "opposed unity until XYZ belief was dropped.." as criticism of those beliefs.

Ref. 12: It reports that Sunni's don't believe Fatima's devive relationship. Is this Criticims?!!

Definitely. If group A disbelieves a major precept of group B's religion, I don't see how that could fail to be seen as criticism.

Glancing at your other points, I've not too convinced that the others are correct either. You portyray #17 as Ref. 17: Just reporting belief of existence of the Fatima's book from a Shia website. No criticism..

1. 17 ref is most clearly not a Shi'a website, and is quite clearly a criticism of Shi'a belief in revelations post-dating Muhammad. If you mis-portray such an obvious source here, how are we to believe your opinions on any of the above? Did you not actually look at the link, or are you intentionally misrepresenting it? I do, however, note that it's a non-authoritative sectarian site (non-authoritative in that it's not like it's Al-Azhar or Darul Uloom Deboand issuing an official criticism), so I'm fine removing that one.

Again, we have a page-full of "support" for deletion which is mostly two posters, and then one who arrived today. I appreciate the listing out of specific objections, but as noted I don't think the objections to 1-3 are valid. So far as the two following sections, I can't speak to them as immediately, but a spot-check shows flaws already. The latter two sections need substantial work, but the two earlier sections I added I think are pretty decent. More importantly, I'd say the overall concept is quite valid and educational in helping readers understand the differences between different segments of Islam. Following WP:BEBOLD I'm going to go chop out the non-authoritative references, to include, unfortunately, several books that might be correct but which we can't easily access online. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've made some pretty sweeping cuts to the article, including removing several non-authoritative authors, and several inaccessible books, as well as some long stretches of text that verged on POV, or were simply too exhaustive. Again, adding to my concerns over bias being a motive in this AfD, I note that many of the criticised sections may have indeed had poor footnoting, but also were pretty inarguably true. When someone wants to remove a pretty basic fact for "poor referencing" rather than find a better ref, I do tend to suspect they want the fact removed more than they want it to be proven. Major Sunni commentators and institutions undeniably criticise temporary marriage, the Imamate, "disrespect" to the Sahaba, etc. Attacking those very basic points over footnoting, rather than working to improve footnoting, is rather suspect. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mr MatthewVanitas, thank you very much for your comments. There are some points that I need to discuss in more details: Twice, in your last post and in the first one after my post, you have mention the matter of Majority/Minority of Shia/Sunni. The question is that Majority is a base for reality?Can majority beliefs affect reality? By a simple comparison, Christians are majority ovr Muslims, so can you conclude Christianity is right and Islam is wrong? Or, compare the idea of around just 10 millions Armenian about Armenian Genocide in which the other parts are Turks and Arab-Sunnis with about 300 millions population. Can you conclude the majority idea can affect this undeniable fact that has occured? We must consider the density of groups to be able to compare them. 8 centuries prior to the Fatwa of the Shaykh al-Baz, the grand saudi Muftih that the earth is flat, the shia scholar, Biruni estimated the circumference of the earth.If you want, it will be my pleasure to discuss this matter in more details. You mention the case of Shia negative view on some of Muhammad's companions. I wonder how much you know about these companions? They were among greatest criminals of the Human's history; Umar ordered the two greatest libraries of the ancient word, library of Alexandria and Ctesiphon be burnt. AbuBakr gave the title Sword of Allah to Khalid ibn Walid upon his shameful raping to Malik Ibn Nuwayrah's wife. Uthman subjected the whole Islamic nations to his family and established nepotism. Now talking about the one who has negative view of these great historical criminals must be criticized? Can you be kind to show me some example about criticism of some people who has/had negative view on Hitler, Gengiz Khan, or...... Maybe you don't know who was Judas Iscariot, or maybe you haven't read about that when Moses left his companions for 40 days, they started worshiping a golden goat. Any way, there are much to be said in this case, but logically this matter can not provide any base for Shia criticism. About the ref 17, it's my duty to apologize for my carelessness. About Ref 1, you have just read the first sentence of that paragraph, but seems you haven't read the rest which is its clarifications. If you say some I reserve the right for the author to ask who is this some. To discuss more about this Ref, the author is a Shia and he is defending Shia's idea in his book, I can not understand how his words can be interpreted as criticism. the whole Taqiya section is based on this source. About Ref 2, i explaned a bit above, and I would like to add according to WP:NPOV this source can not be used because the source is a Sunni source. Everything Sunni or Shia say about the other one, can be called only and only accusation not criticism. Criticism must be on behalf of a third neutral party. Ref. 3 has same situation. Ref 7, Madelung is discussing the 12th Imam and his characterizations, and says twelver shias are believing to him!Where is criticism??About Ref 12,I guess my explanations above should be enough. Thank you again.--Aliwiki (talk) 23:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Couple points here:

1) Yes, Tabatabi is writing from the Shi'a perspective. However, he is noting things the Shi'a have been criticised for and is responding to them.

2) Yes, Ref 2 is a Sunni source, but the whole point is that it's being explicitly, directly quoted as an example of the kind of argument Sunnis use against Shi'a, not as a neutral authority on the subject, but as a case-study.

3) Same thing with Madelung as Tabatabi: he's pointing out an argument used against the Shi'a and then explaining how the Shi'a respond to it.

4) As for the first bit, I have zero idea what argument you're making. Where have I ever said that the Sunni are right based on numbers? Are you mistaking the word "major" (as in a recognised authority understood to speak for at least a portion of the Sunni community) with "majority"?

5) On the bit about the Sahaba, it's not in the slightest a legitimate argument, and frankly is the sort of POV attack on the article that drew me into this debate in the 1st place. Your response to the simple statement "Sunnis believe Shi'a disrespect the Sahaba" is to give some lengthy argument that "persons XYZ should be rightly criticised, and nobody can criticise the Shi'a for criticising them?" It's as though you are, yourself, literally just reiterating the Shi'a argument rather than arguing the validity of the statement. Again, several critics of this article appear to recognise that the Sunni criticise the Shi'a, but are simply against any mention thereof; replying with arguments that "the Shi'a are right, Abu Bakr was evil and shouldn't have been caliph" is completely outside the scope of this argument, and again shows a lack of neutrality on this issue. MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, about your points:

1) For sure you are familiar with the following structure in Wikipedia: Some^who? claimed that ..... This section has one source and that source is defending Shia idea, the author is a Shia and he has discussed the answer to any possible criticism.

2)Argument of Shia/Sunni is not related to criticism of one of them. Criticism must be on behalf of a third neutral person, and the involved parties can not criticize eachother. As I told before, any party claim against the other one is ACCUSATION not CRITICISM. To verify this fact, you can have a look to other religious criticism like Criticism of Christianity. It can be a good idea to start two articles with titles Sunni views of Shia and Shia views of Sunni.

3)About Madelung, as it's a RS I need to clarify it better. in page 114, Madelung is reporting Twelver Shia beliefs, such as temporary marraige and other beliefs including the Shia 12th Imam (Who became Imam when he was a child), then he is explaining Shia's doctorine in this matter very well and clear and says:Shi'a belief the knowledge of an imam comes from "inspiration, not acquisition", and thus that even a young imam is not considered unprepared, receiving revelation upon the death of his predecessor.. In fact, Madelung's explanation is a clear answer to any criticism. Here I would like to explain about the other RS of this section, which is from the famous orientalist, Bernard Lewis. Mr Lewis in that book has provided a detailed study of Assassins which was a Nizari Ismaili movement and its founder was Hassan-i Sabbah. It's notable that Hassan Sabbah was inventor of Suicide attack and now if you pay attention to the title of the book Assassins: A Radical Sect in Islam , you can easily realize what's that. I don't know how much you are familiar with the Islamic topic, but it would be worthy to mention that the word Imam has two meanings here: Imam, a general word which means leader;Second is confined to 12 persons see this. Now, Mr. Lewis is describing the Assassins movement, and that they chose a child Rukn al-Din Khurshah as their leader with the title Imam which here is in its general meaning. (Just search the word Rukn al-Din Khurshah inside the book to verify this fact). Now if you have extra time, you can reat the following to understand how a 9-years-old child Imam overcame a debate in the presence of several educated persons [18]

4)The word Majority which you used twice made me to understood that. My mother tongue is not English, so if you say you didn't mean that, again it's my duty to ask you to accept my sincere apology.

5)I know that It's not directly related to here, but that you mentioned the negative view of Shia on Muhammad's companion, made me to clarify this point. I gave example of Judas Iscariot who was an apostle of Jesus, I am proud to say I have negative view on him and I believe if the whole over 6 billion todays human tell me that they love him, won't affect my negative view on him. The case of Muhammad's companions are exactly same. Can we criticize someone who has negative view on Hitler? The answer is No. We can never accept the title Sword of God to a woman raper. If any group including Sunni wants to criticize Shia's negative view on some of Muhammad's companions, first they must prove their loyalty towards Muhammad and Islam, which they failed to do after 1400 years. Now they want to solve this problem by their higher number, but their lower density (which I mentioned above) has limited them.

I guess till now, our debate has covered all the points of article content except the Fatima's book. For more clarification, I will add the following point as-well:

6)Fatimah divine relation: This section has 2 sources. first one (Ref 9) is just an informative source, which informs the shia belief of existence of Fatima's book and her divine relation. The second source (ref 10) exact wording is this:The Shi'ahs believe that at this time God made special revelations to Fatimah, the Prophet's daughter, ...It need scarcely be added that the Sunni writers deny every word of these traditions.. Obviously there is no criticism here, just informative sentences. That's all. Further more, that Sunni's believe non-Prophets do not have divine relation is an obvious lie, because Quran chapter 19 verses 16 to 21 and Quran 3.45 are clearly mention Mary's divine relation, In addition, Sunni's reports shows ordinary people also can have divine relation and here I just give two examples of their most authentic book:[19],[20][21]. Now, when such people can have divine relation, but Fatima can't?Sunnis must criticize Quran and their books prior to criticizing Shia.

Now, is there any unclear point? or is there any point which needs more explanation or clarification?--Aliwiki (talk) 04:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with Aliwiki. - Humaliwalay (talk) 08:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete An article can be written, but without the purely negative tone of the present one, which is pervasive it would be better to start over. criticism of articles are always a problem. In this case, the dispute between the two sects is notable enough to support an article like this--and I suppose the opposite also, but it should discuss not just the negative criticism made, but the positive response to it. It is not anyone's concern here which side has the better of the argument; the purpose of an article like this is to inform someone who comes here knowing very little of this what the argument is about, using sources from both sects, and also from outsiders. DGG ( talk ) 02:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I disagree that it's a "tone" issue. The subject is negative, in that it is criticism, but I think the article makes it quite clear that it's about criticism of Shiism, not the article criticising Shiism. I agree that more classic/standard rebuttals from Shi'a commentators would be good, though unfortunately some of the responses were removed (along with the criticisms themselves) due to sourcing issues. Note that in the newly added material, such as the taqqiya section, I added a common rebuttal from the Shi'a perspective, and the child imams section mentions the rebuttal that there is instantaneous transfer of knowledge upon assuming the imamate. I would also like to point out that these debates have cropped up earlier in articles such as Criticism of Islam, and that there are several similar articles such as Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I appreciate your NPOV comments, DGG, as overall I'm very concerned about POV pushers deleting religious criticism, and this debate had been a bit emotional earlier on. That's been a major problem on articles of various Sunni sects and figures, where properly-footnoted and neutrally toned paragraphs of "Mullah X of ABC Institution took issue with Mullah Y's assertion, citing that yadda-yadda-yadda, and ultimately issuing a fatwa declaring Mullah Y's views invalid." Then IPs come in and nip it out, or editors remove it and then argue forcefully that criticism in a bio is "disrespectful" and Mullah X is an amazing figure beyond criticism. I still submit the basic topic of this article is valid, and I'd welcome any concerns on tone issues in the current article, though again it being a criticism article an NPOV depiction of negativity seems the order of the day. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I agree with Mathew in the point that the tone of the article doesn't have severe problem. in addition, we must take into account that the article is about criticism of a system not individuals, and the article aimed to criticize a system called Shia not individual mullahs; for example criticism of G.W.Bush is different from criticism of US's foreign policy, while they are related together. As I have pointed out before, the main problem of the current article is that absolutely non of the provided sources supports the given idea in its related text, and I discussed this matter in details in my previous comments.--Aliwiki (talk) 16:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, I dispute the claim that footnotes and text don't match up. They match up quite closely, so I'm baffled by the allegation.

1. 1: Article "The Shi'a have been criticised for this practice [taqiyya], deemed cowardly"

Source: Some have criticized Shiism by saying that to employ the practice of taqiyah in religion is opposed to the virtues of courage and bravery

1. 2: Article text is a footnoted direct quote from a published Sunni book of answers to religious questions, from a question regarding the Shi'a.

1. 3a,b: Article describes ecumenical movement which stalled out due to Sunnis being displeased with Shi'a "disrespect" of the Sahaba.

Source: All of these writers followed the same line, rejecting a dialogue with the Shi'a clerics until those ulama began to purify their education and writings from all profanity accorded to Sahabah.. Likewise source specifically states following footnote, that self-flagellation during Ashura was banned by Khameini.

1. 5: On this iteration I can't get a preview of the page quoted, but Madelung specifically says that child imams were not considered problematic because their knowledge, as I directly quote, was derived from "inspiration, not acquisition".

1. 10: Article: "Sunni critics argue that Fatimah never received divine revelations"

Source: It need scarcely be added that the Sunni writers deny every word of these traditions [revelations to Fatimah]

Okay, so how can you claim that the footnotes and the article text don't match up? This isn't some matter of pasting some arbitrary footnote on to a sentence to make it look legitimate. The page numbers are hyperlinked, and the texts I've included specifically support those arguments; or better yet, I read the texts and then encyclopedically summarised the arguments while footnoting. So wherein lies the referencing problem? MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems you haven't reviewed my comment on 04:16, 6 December 2010. Also in my previous comment I said the sources don't support the given idea.

About Taqya:It's enough to write: Some^[who?] have criticized Schiism...... In addition I noted the author is a Shia who is explaining Taqya in that paragraph. Fortunately the preview is available.

About Sunni sources, I told you many times, whatever they say is accusation not criticism. Just check some other criticism articles. Can Muslims criticize Christianity? Criticism must be on behalf of a Academic research, not uneducated Sunni Mullahs. Yes, Shia believes in Fatima's divine relation and has negative view on some of Muhammad's companions. What's the problems? which academic source has criticized this matter?

About Madelung. Follow this structure to verify what he is saying: first see the content, pages 111-115 is about Imamya (=Twelver) Shia, and he is just reporting Twelvers beliefs, such as temporary marriage is permissible untill day of resurrection and many things else. Among this report he is mentioning Mahdi, the 12th Imam, who became Imam when he was a child and he is continuing that Shi'a belief the knowledge of an imam comes from "inspiration, not acquisition", and thus that even a young imam is not considered unprepared, receiving revelation upon the death of his predecessor.. Just you need to search the some words like temporary marriage, Mahdi, inspiration, acquisition and .... to verify this fact. Changing this report to criticism is just self-interpretation. Isn't this? I gave some examples before which you didn't pay attention; Jesus had divine relation as soon as he was born, but we don't see criticism of this matter in criticism of Christianity. For sure studies about Christianity is tens of times more than Twelver Shia. Or consider the case of people like Adam or Noah; according to Judaism, Christianity and Islam they lived more than 1000 years; A normal human will become fool after around 130 years-old. Have you ever seen any criticism says Adam or Noah were fool due to their age? --Aliwiki (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: More about Taqya: Two historical examples, one Shia and one non-Shia, can help to have a better understanding: Two great scientist in the history of the world, Avicenna and Galileo. Both were sentenced to death by uneducated foolish Mullahs of their time (Christians and Sunnis), so they denied what they were believing in the court to save their life. It's clear who must be criticized in this matter.--Aliwiki (talk) 12:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Per reasonable request on my talk page I have relisted this to see whether article improvements have changed anyone's view of this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is changed lot (for good as now it looks like a criticsm article & not a bashing one) and imo we can have article stay for now as it is getting improved each passing day (Thanks to efforts of Matthew). I'll try to contrubute to the article but as of now I have other priorities (both on WP & real life). --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 12:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article should be included in [Criticism of Islam]. As a stand alone article it appears redundant and creates and air of "bashing" Islam. By the way, encyclopedias are not known for there criticism, they are known for presenting generalized information that is accurate about a diversity of subjects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrior777 (talk • contribs)

Comment: I believe this article should be kept separate from Criticism of Islam, as this article is primarily focused on criticism internal to Islam between the two major denominations. If it would make this distinction clearer, I'd be willing to support a title-move to Sunni criticism of Shia Islam and a slight tightening of focus. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I appreciate Matthew's edits on the article, and I am changing my opinion about deletion and vote to keep, as I believe the space which this article can provide for criticism points and related responses can benefit readers. I will make an analysis section on the article talk page to discuss improvement of the article and I invite others to join.--Aliwiki (talk) 15:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Survivor (U.S. TV series) contestants. Courcelles 04:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Hantz

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

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

Twice before has this article been nominated for deletion; both times the discussion has resulted in a redirect (albeit to different pages). At some point after the second debate the article was recreated, possibly the redirect simply being reverted, and I came to the article when following up on vandalism and undid a redirect by a suspected vandal, not knowing the article had earlier been redirected due to AFD (something I subsequently learned).

I've kept the article on my watchlist and it's gone between redirect and full article a number of times since and we should have another discussion about this article which has tons on {{citation needed}} tags and is quite clearly a problem article, even more so as this is a WP:BLP. I'm not aware on any specific notability guidelines for Survivor contestants, but this article cannot be allowed to stay as it is as an almost-totally-unsourced BLP with major issues.

Therefore, propose delete as a problem BLP, or alternatively merge, but to List of Survivor contestants rather than to the pages of either of the seasons of the show he's been in. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 11:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Add-on: Per GDallimore below, I agree that the article should also be salted unless/until something happens to grant the person more notability than simply being a contestant. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 11:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Redirect to List of Survivor contestants per closing rationale in first nomination and per Strange Passerby. Then salt to prevent recreation of article about this person known for only one reason: being a survivor contestant. GDallimore (Talk) 11:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as above and protect redirect, was a memorable contestant but didn't win. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. He has become notable as being well-known amongst fans of Survivor and U.S. reality television in general. -- Evans1982 (talk) 19:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discordian calendar

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

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

Not notable. This is a minor aspect of a minor cult. Although their calendar must be important to them there is no evidence that it has any importance in the larger world. The article consists only of material from primary sources, the Discordians themselves, with no secondary coverage. The fact that the Discordians have their own calendar could be mentioned in their own article with an external link to one of their sites which hosts the information on it. Jaque Hammer (talk) 17:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge information into Discordianism and Delete. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 19:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If content is merged, the edit history must be kept. Having your cake or eating it. Pick one. Uncle G (talk) 20:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wouldn't a merge and redirect take care of it? -Jaque Hammer (talk) 02:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • That doesn't involve deletion in any way. If you wanted that, then you shouldn't have come to AFD in the first place. After all, you yourself have all of the tools to enact a merger. Even editors without accounts have. Only come to AFD if an administrator hitting the delete button, to delete an entire edit history and rendering it impermissible to use any of the deleted content, is what you actually want. And be aware that you can only pick one of the two mutually incompatible outcomes, per the terms of the copyright licences. Uncle G (talk) 01:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would be happy to merge it into a section in Discordianism. I nominated it here because I thought the issue would be controversial. Jaque Hammer (talk) 13:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Agree that Merge and redirect would be the right move, good suggestion Uncle G. However I think Jaque Hammer was right to bring this her; it was a good faith move and led to your good idea - the fact that the original article is not formally deleted does not make this a fail-AfD. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I started a section in Discordianism by pasting in the intro of this article. Oddly enough the calendar was not even mentioned in that article. Jaque Hammer (talk) 09:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First off, Discordianism is fairly widely familiar to millions who have read the novels of Robert Anton Wilson, and Discordianism also exerted influence on the Church of the Subgenius, so although the membership counts for Discordianism would be rather low (assuming that "membership" even means anything when it comes to Discordianism), it's far from being a so-called "obscure cult". Second, the calendar is part of the Principia Discordia scriptures of Discordianism, which have been widely publicly available for about 40 years (and was also included in the popular Illuminatus! Trilogy novels). Third, if a Discordian calendar conversion program is a standard part of most Linux distributions, that would seem to indicate that it has a certain notability. However, I do agree that the "schism" stuff should be cut from the article (since it's pretty much just a self-referential inside meta-joke)... Overall, KEEP. AnonMoos (talk) 00:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please go ahead and do that. I can't really tell which parts should be taken seriously and which parts are jokes. Jaque Hammer (talk) 15:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep inclusion in almost every linux distribution is sufficient notability as far as I'm concerned. And "cult" is a pejorative way to refer to a religion. DenisMoskowitz (talk) 16:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I meant "cult" in the sense of a small group of people intensely interested in something most of us don't care much about. I don't think the article does any harm, my objection to it is mostly "WP is not a web host." I'm not going to merge it or anything unless there is a consensus to do that, which there does not seem to be yet. Jaque Hammer (talk) 15:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for same reason as above. - so sayeth Lucky Number 49 ^{Yell at me!} 16:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for same reason as Denis Moskowitz. Jess Cully (talk) 07:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Informational comment: the page in question is the top google hit for "ddate". If someone discovers ddate on a linux box, wants to know what it is, and searches for it, they will find this informational page. That seems like a win for Wikipedia to me. DenisMoskowitz (talk) 17:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All of the references about the calendar come from the Discordian scriptures themselves. The information on its connection with Linux, that being its major claim to notability, are sourced by dead weblinks at the present. I have a feeling that the calendar is notable (which is why I'm not voting to delete) but the article needs to provide better sources to establish this. Borock (talk) 14:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Reviewing the previous AfD on this article, I see that the question of whether this calendar has any clear notability as per WP:N was raised then. The crux of the current discussion seems to be once again about the notability issue, so, evidently, no effort to establish the required notability has been made or no sources could be found to establish notability. I'm not myself sure that the calendar does deserve to be included in toto in the existing Discordianism article - however, if it does, no objections to a Merge to that article. But there is, so far as I can see, no evidence of notability, or, apparently, much effort to even establish it. John Carter (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep mainly as above. This is a notable concept with multiple sources and references within entertainment, culture and software. Ryanjunk (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Request As the nominator I am tired of watching this. It has been going on over 2 weeks and is clearly going to end as "keep" or whatever the other thing is called that means we can't agree so might as well keep. I would like to remove the section of the article that was pointed out as questionable and I can't do that while the AfD is going on. After that I plan to ignore the article since it doesn't do anyone any harm. Jaque Hammer (talk) 15:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Courcelles 04:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Razi Institute of Medical Sciences

Razi Institute of Medical Sciences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

No indication this meets WP:GNG. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC) Jayjg ^(talk) 02:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is evidence to verify that this university exists, and as an authentic educational institution, its article is well worthy of being kept. Mar4d (talk) 04:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is evidence that this is a valid institution, and seems like the article has potential. The Phoenix Enforcer(talk) 03:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This appears to be a trade school, not a degree-granting college or university. I could not find significant coverage at Google or Google News. --MelanieN (talk) 02:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Courcelles 19:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ma Xianda

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

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

Unsourced BLP of little or no notability. The Wordsmith^Communicate 20:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I see nothing in the article showing notability and no sources. Everything seems to be about family (learned from his father, taught his sons, etc.)--a clear case of notability is not inherited. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 23:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He is one of the highest ranking martial artists in China (only 4 living masters are at his level). I just added both sources and material to the article that I believe support his notability. He is mentioned frequently in Chinese martial arts circles, although many references I found wouldn't pass the reliability standard.Papaursa (talk) 20:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Article would be better if it made direct claims to notability cited by Papaursa.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Article needs much better sourcing, but Papaursa's additions appear to show notability. Astudent0 (talk) 14:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless improved to demonstrate notability. I am prepared to accept Papaursa's view that the subject is notable, but the article does not demonstrate it sufficiently, in my view. Janggeom (talk) 14:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree with Astudent: with Papaursa's reference to establish notability, the article has potential for development. jmcw (talk) 12:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Product Software

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

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

At first glance, Google Scholar does have the term product software surprisingly. A closer look at the citations refer, however, to software made for specific products, ex. https://doi.org/10.1007%2F3-540-68383-6_12 (vcrs, etc.), not what the article claims. Software built on dependencies or other software describes a whole bunch of software, ex. all games. Essentially, someone decided to write a paper that comes up with a new term for "water is wet." Delete per WP:NEOLOGISM/ only the once source referring to this new and not used term. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 07:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In the article's citation itself it switches between product software and software product, which makes me further convinced this is an isolated term. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 07:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NEOLOGISM. Also, completely non-notable. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 04:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maharmah

Maharmah (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 be an essay/research published ("we interpret"), some made up person or fictional character (based on the weird forum links) or a town based on the coordinates. http://www.reference.com/browse/Maharmah states there was a tribal leader from Sahab named Maharmah but the article makes no reference of this (reference.com references this article, so there's issues of reliable citations) and implies that Maharmah are a people (ethnic group). It's unsalvagable. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 07:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can't find anything like reliable sourcing for this topic. That the article in its current state is execrable is irrelevant -- mostly, anyway. Either way, I don't see anything that establishes notability. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The article has unsalvagably bad text. The text of the article is littered with red links, which is a warning sign of WP:BOLLOCKS. The article has so many pronouns that even the subject of the article is unclear: a town? a clan? an ethnic group? a battle? a sect of Islam? Bearian (talk) 18:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 04:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Cottengim

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

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

unsourced, subject has questionable notability, article may have been created by the subject Jweiss11 (talk) 07:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- —innotata 16:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no sources provided. Would reconsider if sources were found and placed in the article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No claim of notability under WP:NSPORT -Drdisque (talk) 05:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete; deleted as G11 by Athaenara (talk · contribs). AfD closed by 28bytes (talk) 12:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vaste Burai

Vaste Burai (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 band, fails WP:BAND. A prod was removed early in this article's history, so we have to go the afd route. Corvus cornix_talk 05:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per G12; tagged as such. Most of the article is copy-pasted from a review on the band's Myspace page, and even if that were removed, the article is nothing but a vanity page. In addition, the band has never released an album on a major label. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 05:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]