Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 October 22

< October 21	October 23 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. -- RG ² 01:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reform Socialist Party

article unverifiable, google search shows some hits, but none of them really talk about this party Chris! _ct 03:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep-I have heard of it, giveit time to be ref'd. This is premature.JJJ999 04:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, having heard of it is not a viable reason to keep, this is totally unsourced and thus fails WP:NOR and WP:V. meshach 04:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- the point is it CAN be sourced. This is premature, let's give it time to get sourced by someone from ItalianWiki or something...user is aklso a long time contributor who is an apparent expert on the subject matter.JJJ999 04:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: An AfD debate remains open for 5 days, that's long enough for someone to add some reliable sources. --Darkwind (talk) 05:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has been here for seven months and no one has added anything. But it evidence of satisfying WP:N is added I would be willing to reconsider. meshach 05:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It was a political party in Italy, one of the splinter groups of the Italian Socialist Party born in 1993-1996. Its leader is now a leadeing member of Forza Italia. I think it deserves an article. --Checco 11:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable, can be ref'd. —Nightstallion 13:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Could a former tiny splinter group have the potential for a useful article? One of two sentences somewhere ... Pavel Vozenilek 00:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keeep The size of the party is not really the factor--if it had any historical significance at all it is notable. DGG (talk) 03:51, 26 October 2007 (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, with no prejudice against further editorial solutions regarding the nominated article and the mentioned ones (which btw need to be tagged as well to be explicitly included into an AfD).--Tikiwont 09:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hayer affidavits

article content unverifiable and non-notable. Google search returns only 790 hits. Chris! _ct 03:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to nominate the following related articles for deletion:

Chris! _ct 03:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This should be merged into Malcolm X and redirect there. If the section on his assassination grows too long, it can be split into its own article. — Ksero 12:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About the other articles, if you want to AfD them and you have considered the alternatives to deletion, then go ahead and AfD them. This AfD only concerns the Hayer affidavits article. — Ksero 12:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment But the article I nominated have nearly no google hits. How do we know that the article is related to Malcolm X. Chris! _ct 19:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep All Individuals are clearly notable. Another failure to observe Wikipedia:deletion policy from a persistent abuser of the AfD process. AfD interferes with existing efforts to consolidate and reorganize this articles. Alansohn 21:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please learn how to assume good faith and stop making personal comments. I will report you if you continue your incivility and disruptive behavior. Chris! _ct 02:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Was Wikipedia:deletion policy followed in this case? What steps have you taken to edit and improve these articles as required, before starting this AfD? Alansohn 03:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep All As I proposed at Talk:Hayer affidavits, I am in the middle of merging these articles into an article about the assassination of Malcolm X. New York just ran an article, "The Man Who Didn’t Shoot Malcolm X" on this very subject. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 00:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the main one, and merge the other articles in. But that is an editing decision. Let there be time for the editing--let's not try to do it here.DGG (talk) 03:23, 28 October 2007 (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. Please insert listed sources within the article, thanks. - Mailer Diablo 02:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Nasty

Not sure how this artist is notable for inclusion. I'm having difficulty establishing it. Mercury 03:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I thought this had to be a hoax, but here's the interview mentioned in the article. I hate to say it, but it looks like the guy's decently notable. The article will definitely have to be cleaned up, though. GlassCobra 04:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per User:GlassCobra. Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 04:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- per above... what an awesome name.JJJ999 04:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the articst is notable as shown above. Ridernyc 10:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and shoot me now--don't wait until you get home. JJL 23:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if actual qualified citations can be added to the article. RFerreira 08:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Some notablity established, probably enough for WP:Music but article is in an appalling state and needs a complete cleanup. A1octopus 17:39, 25 October 2007 (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. I don't see compelling evidence for a move so will tag the article for further study and discussion. Eluchil404 04:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dhoomangunj

potential non-notable place with no reference Chris! _ct 03:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too early- let's see what someone can do to it first...JJJ999 05:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What do you mean too early? The article is created back in February, that is more than enough time to write a FA. Chris! _ct 05:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Consensus is that places are inherently notable. Alansohn 05:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alansohn; towns, villages, and place names are inherently notable, and I was able to find some, if not much, confirmation that the place actually exists. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very few results on Google, but some results for Dhoomanganj, which is possibly the same place. - Snigbrook 15:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If Dhoomanganj is the preferred spelling, we should probably move the article to the more prevalent title. Alansohn 15:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Dhoomanganj per Alansohn. GlassCobra 17:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Such geographical places are automatically notable as there is evidence that it exists but consider moving as per above. Davewild 07:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kee[ inhabited places re notable, including all townships such as this. The material for the article will increase,but even if it does not, stubs are perfectly acceptable. DGG (talk) 20:18, 27 October 2007 (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 to delete. Eluchil404 21:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ballet sneakers

Non-notable product. I couldn't find a good reason to speedy a product like this. If there is a speedy reason for a situation like this, I'd love to know it. Pig^man 03:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources are found that establish notability. Searching around a bit, I found a a trivial mention of the term and this article, which might be a good source (quote from the google search hit: "Shoe manufacturers are now producing leather "ballet sneakers" that look like regular lace-up athletic shoes but have [...]"). However, I'm not willing to pay to find out for sure ;). — Ksero 12:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Ballet sneakers" brings up a fair bit of hits on Google, at a minimum this article needs sources. Is this just a jazzy "ballet slippers"? Mindraker 22:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CitiCat^♫ 04:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep and Merge This article is notable, but a page for it, no. Needs merged into a suitable place. scope_creep 16:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional keep. Needs more sources, but seems to be a popular fashion of slip-on shoe for girls. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Is the article poorly done? Yes. It the topic legit? Yes, per Jelly shoes, Brothel creepers, and Espadrilles--Esprit15d 20:19, 31 October 2007 (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. - Mailer Diablo 02:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bushra Jamil

Do 4th runners-up in a beauty contest meet WP:BIO? I don't think so but the prod was removed. NeilN 03:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see WP:BIO material here. Pig^man 03:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can't we change WP:BIO to include the "curvaceous"? Delete. Dylan 04:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment She's apparently going to be representing Pakistan in the World Miss University pageant. That may confer some notability; I'm withholding judgment until other people weigh in on this. GlassCobra 17:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Miss Pakistan World contest is relatively new and the article states its contestants are from the UK, US and Canada, not Pakistan. Clarityfiend 17:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N and WP:BIO but meets WP:HOTTIE. --Sc straker 00:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:HOTTIE no longer redlinked. :P GlassCobra 04:56, 24 October 2007 (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 to delete. Eluchil404 04:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Riki Lindhome

She is not sufficiently noteworthy to merit an entry on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clifbar123 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fixed malformed nom. cab 05:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs fixing, but she is pretty notable as a guest star on several shows and directed a known short film with the guy behind Family Guy. Nate 06:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this is a border-line case. [1] definitely establishes some notability. The Profiles for Courage award adds some more (though [2] is a 404 right now, it can be found at [3]). — Ksero 11:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I came here looking for information about her after seeing her in a recent episode of Pushing Daisies. Other people might be interested in doing the same. Honestly, the only person who seems bent on deleting the article is Clifbar123, whose contribs page seems to indicate some sort of personal vendetta against the subject. — fdiv_bug 00:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I didn't notice that he removed info to try to justify the AfD before you brought it up; that's a definite no-no. An additional note to the nominator that one person who may not be notable to someone may be notable to someone else. I'm interested in actresses that are more obscure and don't headline shows, but they are still needed to fill out the soul of a production. Nate 00:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some minor acting, some probable future notability, but I don't see how you can hang an article on a high school essay contest. --Dhartung | Talk 01:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is borderline, but I'd say keep for now.Alberon 15:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I don't feel comfortable enough with the AfD process to say either way. The article is OK in written style, and has references.... but she doesn't seem quite notable enough yet... —Scouter Sig 02:51, 28 October 2007 (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. - Mailer Diablo 02:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pulsatory Resonation

Pure original research. Also fails WP:RS, WP:V. Dethme0w 03:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. You usually don't see OR that's literally research -- that's a new one for me! Dylan 04:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I wouldn't exactly dignify this as research, but in any case, it is very close to total nonsense, and there is no indication whatsoever anyone has ever noticed this. DGG (talk) 04:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nonsense. --ScottMorrison 06:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm no expert, but it sounds like gibberish to me. Jermor 02:01, 23 October 2007 (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. Eluchil404 04:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brainwave Attunement

Pure original research. Fails WP:OR, WP:RS, and WP:V and creator has not addressed these concerns in the article or in discussion. Dethme0w 03:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not sure the creator quite understands, as he's a first time editor. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry —Preceding comment was added at 03:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In any case, it is very close to total nonsense, and there is no indication whatsoever anyone has ever noticed this. DGG (talk) 04:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, we've noticed, we're just not biting the newbs by telling the creator his article is nonsense. The article still needs to be deleted. Dethme0w 05:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nonsense; I think we can safely discourage first time editors of this sort. --ScottMorrison 06:22, 22 October 2007 (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 as article was blanked by author and no other editors had made substantial contributions. -- But|seriously|folks 00:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Apelbaum

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Does not meet notability, but I could not speedy it because it indicated importance.--12 Noon 03:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I would ask you to please reconsider. Jacob more then passes the notability test. Consider the following facts:
- 1. He has published 4 books in the U.S (see ISBN numbers for reference)
- 2. He holds 7 U.S IT patents (see links to actual inventions)
- 3. His inventions are used by several large organizations such as FDC, Microsoft ,and IBM
- 4. He has been interviewed and mentioned in the media on at least 3 occasions (see references)
- 5. He contributed significantly to several well world known engineering projects (including the Sunshine Skyway Bridge demolition, and the automation of PM)

Best regards, User:JillFine

— JillFine (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at Rjd0060 22:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]

~~Strong Keep~~: This subject certainly does meet notability guidelines. It is also very well sourced. I am very suprised that this was nominated for deletion, considering it is only October, and it shouldn't be snowing yet. - Rjd0060 05:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Delete: What a mess this AfD has turned into. Per most arguments made below, this page clearly should be deleted. I definitely think that this subject meets notability guidelines, but that is nothing if it cannot be backed up by reliable 3rdPS. Maybe sometime in the future this can come back (assuming that there are some sources to back it up). - Rjd0060 22:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An article that clearly demonstrates notability, but that would benefit from greater wikification, including converting inline links into references. Alansohn 06:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm impressed by his accomplishments, but I'm hard-pressed to see notability here. He's certainly successful, but accomplishment is not notability. He has published books, but I can't find reviews (they would likely be in trade magazines, to be sure). He has patents, but we have no independent attribution of their importance. There's an assertion that large organizations have made use of his work without any attribution to back it up. And three interviews in connection with two projects is not a lot. I guess if I got anything when I googled his name (in News Archive, or Books, I'd feel more confident. When I look at his papers in Google Scholar, there's no evidence of citation. Sorry to melt the snow, but I just don't see the notability, even with all the primary sources. We need secondary sources, because we're an encyclopedia. --Dhartung | Talk 07:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (changed from delete - see new comment) unless someone can provide references to those interviews. The links to patents on freepatentsonline.com are primary sources. Listing his four published books says nothing about notability. The external links establish notability for the Sunshine Skyway, but I don't see any mention of the article's subject.

As for the references in the article text, [4] is a primary source, and it doesn't mention Apelbaum. [5], [6], [7], [8] and [9] don't mention the name "Apelbaum". I can't read the paper at [10], so I'm not sure if that establishes some notability. — Ksero 10:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the interview that Cheeser1 later removed. That's exactly what's needed to establish notability. If you can't find that article online, then there's nothing wrong with citing a paper source (like the newspaper that the article appeared in). As long as the journal that the interview was published in is legit, I change my opinion to keep. — Ksero 11:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:I would ask you to reconsider again. Three interviews with major newspaper all pertaining to his areas of expertise (1 interview is dedicated entirely to him) does make him notable and makes him publicly known. Also, please read the actual 6 patent links, you can clearly see the importance of the inventions (these are not miscellaneous mechanical devices) they cover important areas such as VOIP, encryption, and AI. Finally, these article should address media notability: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.17.249 (talk • contribs)

— 71.167.17.249 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at Rjd0060 22:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]

comment - I have removed these images, which are copyrighted and cannot legally be uploaded to Wikipedia. --Cheeser1 11:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not leave the images up to help establish his notability. Also, why were the images of his books and other publications removed? Clearly they are original materials--DavidStock

— DavidStock (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at Rjd0060 22:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]

Because these images are NOT allowed on Wikipedia. You cannot upload copyrighted images, and we cannot use them in any part of Wikipedia. --Cheeser1 11:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Apelbaum is the copyright holder of his books and from the image information it looks like they were released to public domain. --DavidStock —Preceding unsigned comment added by JillFine (talk • contribs) 11:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, he isn't. Copyrights are almost universally held by the publisher of the book (and those newspaper clippings are decidedly not his). Furthermore, there is no way to know that the uploader is the copyright holder, and in the case of a published work, if the author actually does retain copyright, s/he is generally not allowed to release the work in to the public domain. Finally, why are you signing your contributions with one username and yet you are signed in as another? Please note that you cannot have more than one username. --Cheeser1 12:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can have more than one username. Colonel Warden 16:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously. And when you're arguing to keep this page, as two users, that's not allowed. And what's funny is that they seem to trace back to the same place - the subject of this article. See here. I suspect serious conflict(s) of interest, no matter how many distinct people are posting here from the same workstation at their office. --Cheeser1 20:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the copyright issue, I stand corrected. As far as posting under Jill’s name, I was just talking to her about these postings (we work in the same area) and posted my question from her workstation. Sorry!!!

I just completed a quick search for similar linked and imbedded materials (news clippings and book cover images) and found several examples Eran_Ben-Shahar. Is there an exception to this policy? user:Jill Fine —Preceding unsigned comment added by JillFine (talk • contribs) 13:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Violations of copyright policy in one place do not justify those elsewhere, although the news clipping actually is allowed because it's being used to illustrate the news clipping itself, and includes critical commentary about that piece of news, not just to provide sourcing for info. --Cheeser1 —Preceding comment was added at 14:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that makes sense. Thanks for the explanation. User:Jill Fine

Comment: a search for the books mentioned finds very few sources, but Jill Ashley Fine is credited as editor of two of the books. - Snigbrook 19:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

e.g. [11] - Snigbrook 19:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be me:) I am a technical author\editor --JillFine —Preceding comment was added at 19:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear editors, I really appreciate your help and constructive input. This is my first attempt at posting to Wikipedia so please be patient and forgive the newbie mistakes. Cheeser1 has indicated that due to copyright issues, I cannot upload the newspaper article (referencing Jacob) and he promptly deleted them. But I understand that I need these newspaper articles and media releases I uploaded to address the notoriety issue brought up earlier in this discussion. So my dilemma is: if I can't show the articles to the reviewing editors, how can I illustrate Jacob's notoriety. Cheeser1 also feels strongly that all of the media references should only be cited. Can anyone give me an example of how one would go about citing the following article in Wikipedia? Image:CM Media.jpg--JillFine 02:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You cite the article, you don't upload it. --Cheeser1 02:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dhartung. - Snigbrook 03:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; As Dhartung says, there are no reliable sources showing any signiicant coverage about this person. The references and interviews in the article are not about him, they just refer to him as part of something else. If significant coverage can be found, add it to the article, at the moment this article fails to meet WP:N. Masaruemoto 05:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Have you actually read the Chicago Daily Herald article? One of Apelbaum's professional claims is that he developed a noted CM software product (the Construction Manager) which was used widely by Metra for the rehabilitation of the Ogilvie [[12]] transportation center. Anyone can clearly see, that the article is entirely dedicated to his work, his expertise, and achievements. As a matter of fact, no other individual is mentioned in it but him! He is quoted in it verbatim four times (see below) and any non-biased reader would conclude that the main purpose of the article was Apelbaum’s software contribution to construction management.

"It was either put it on computer or hire 50 more office workers," Apelbaum said.
"The CPT (Central Passenger Terminal) project covered every conceivable construction type," Apelbaum said.
"You've got a report and a pic¬ture," Apelbaum said.
"Seven years later, if something collapses, we can see exactly who inspected it.” Apelbaum said.

The same applies to the other news articles I provided which include: Herald-Tribune, the Bradenton Herald, Dodge Construction News, Between the Rails magazine, Hardaway company news releases, etc. I uploaded scanned images (the news outlets that published this information in print do not have the contents on-line) in order to establish the credibility of these references, and had no intention of keeping them permanently as exhibits. If there is any doubt about the authenticity of these documents, I will be more than happy to forward a confirmation letter from the news organizations. (this was my original posting but I forgot to login when I originally uploaded it. I am resigning it now)--JillFine 17:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being good at your job is not a part of the relevant notability guideline. If he was involved with notable projects (a bridge or a software program or whatever), then he is certainly allowed to be mentioned in articles about those projects (possibly), but he does not inherit notability from the notability of these projects. Also, please clear this up: do you have a personal relationship with Mr. Apelbaum (e.g. coworker, friend, etc)? --Cheeser1 18:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apelbaum notoriety is not derived from his association with notable projects, rather, it is from his exceptional technical skills and ingenuity (4 published books, 7 technology patens, and number of media references). In the case of the Construction Manager, he invented the concept and successfully implemented it on a wide commercial scale (this was one of the largest rehab projects in the U.S). The same applies to the rest of his professional contributions to engineering, computer science and technology. Over the past week, I have examined the credentials of numerous Wikipidia noted individuals within the category of engineering and computer science, and discovered that many claim’s of notoriety constitute a mere link to their university. Cheeser1! I find your continues insinuations of malice, questionable motives, and dishonesty offensive and unprofessional --JillFine 19:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Quite an accusation. Exceptional technical skills or book publishing are not how we establish notability. There must be third party sources that establish notability. The fact that I'm applying policy in this AfD is not offensive/unprofessional, nor is the fact that I've asked you not to include copyright protected images (images of published text, no less) in articles. This is entire scope of my comments. Furthermore, you and another user admit to having shared a workstation, which explains this. I presume that this can be explained in a similar fashion - a comment written by, and signed by, you was posted while someone was logged in as Mr. Apelbaum. I am simply asking for an explanation. --Cheeser1 19:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheeser1, spare me the Orwellian surveillance ! The fact is, that an objective reviewer would find sufficient notability with a fraction of the information provided. At this point it doesn’t really matter how much more supporting information I provide, you need to save face and will do whatever it takes...--JillFine 20:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please remain civil with the comments (take a deep breath); Cheeser1 may have tone issues, but if you listen to him it will help you. BTW, no matter how well written the article, IMO it still lacks notability and the fact that the author is in contact with the subject screams of conflict of interest. If a third party were authoring this article it would establish a bit more credibility (not to imply anything about the author's credibility).--12 Noon 21:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, 12 Noon. I will point out that what people post to Wikipedia, anywhere, is open to public examination. The fact that conflict of interest problems may exist is relevant and important to this debate (an issue Jill still hasn't addressed). A great deal of this article was written by User:Apelbaum on his talk page, and there is evidence to at least suggest that Apelbaum and JillFine are sharing a computer (presumably here which traceroutes to NYC). I will also point out that I have not even "voted" in this matter. At least, not yet. Having taken the time now to examine the article in detail, I will say delete. Many of the "references" are simply patents owned by Apelbaum, or books/articles written by Apelbaum (ie not third party sources, and one even appears to be written by "L.O. Apelbaum" - is that even the same person?). The non-scanned sources that are from third parties are not about Apelbaum - they don't even mention him. The scanned ones may mention him in passing , but they aren't about him - if Apelbaum's significance is only tied to some notable product/software, then he should be mentioned in the article about that product/software (except that this software is also not notable). Writing a new or helpful piece of software is not enough; The relevant guideline requires far more than this to meet notability policy. I've been interviewed in the newspaper once, I write new and helpful software for my job. I could go out and get a patent. I have published works. There are thousands of people who meet these criteria. But they are not the right criteria. --Cheeser1 03:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: COI shouldn't present a problem (with the article anyways) unless there are POV issues. IMO, the article doesn't have a problem with the NPOV policy. Are you disputing the neutrality of the article? - Rjd0060 03:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read the guideline. Having a conflict of interest and writing the majority of this article raise suspicions. Making no edits elsewhere is also suspicious. Contributing to this AfD, referring to how good Apelbaum is at his job and how many primary-source publications he has (instead of discussing many references and how much notability there are - none - the relevant policy) seems due cause to question how this conflict of interest is affecting this user's contribution to the AfD (not her contributions to the article, which are a separate matter). I mean, if there were an article about someone I was friends/coworkers/etc with up for an AfD, I would deliberately abstain from voting, and rightly so. --Cheeser1 04:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was only speaking about her involvement in the article. Being the primary contributor raises suspicions, yes, but that guideline also says "Editors who may have a conflict of interest are not barred from participating in articles and discussion of articles where they have a conflict of interest, but must be careful when editing in mainspace". I agree with you as far as her AfD comments are concerned (they should have been very limited if even existent). As a sidenote, you really don't need to be flashing policies and guidelines (especially the same ones) in every comment you leave. Most of us are as familiar (if not more familiar) with these policies/guidelines as you are. - Rjd0060 04:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Aaack! Civility, please! Bolding in that context is dickish in and of itself.--12 Noon 18:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets notability guidelines, no reason to delete. THE KING 13:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not only is JillFine posting as DavidStock, Apelbaum and DavidStock have been uploading the same images. See here and here. I can smell the socks / meat from here. -- But|seriously|folks 09:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AND, 71.167.17.249 made substantial edits to the subject's bio, when it was still on his user talk page, and edited Authentication, which was also edited by Apelbaum at around the same time. -- But|seriously|folks 09:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dhartung, WP:N and WP:V. Patents are primary sources, not secondary indicators of notability. Also, the author and many of the keep votes are either the same person or various people who all share a WP:COI, so they should not be participating here. -- But|seriously|folks 09:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP What is wrong with you people? The notability of this fine, it's in news papers, trade magazines, books, and all over the internet. WP:N is not an issue here. Additionally, we have an experienced writer building a very well written article. I would say delete if it had even a hint of point of view, but that is not the case. Good article! 68.143.88.2 13:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, this is the best looking "stub" article I've ever seen! :) 68.143.88.2 13:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet our standards for reliable sourcing. Reads like a resume or an advertisement. WP:BIO provides:

The person must have been the subject of published[1] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.[2]

In spite of the great amount of detail in this article, I can't find any independent references that assess Apelbaum's stature as an engineer. It is uncommon to see patents listed in an article, since they don't tell us how the person is regarded within his profession. If this article could be rewritten to meet our standards, with proper sourcing, it is conceivable he would be found notable. As of now, I don't see it. The research to find proper sources is too difficult to expect regular Wikipedia editors to undertake it. The Conflict of Interest issues are troubling, though they don't imply deletion in their own right. EdJohnston 14:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comment. This article is starting to make me nervous. I haven't been able to find any of the four books mentioned in the article on amazon.com or worldcat.org (showing that any libraries have them). Their ISBNs, such as 0980000009, sound 'made up'. Conceivably they were never issued by a regular publisher. I am concerned that much of the information in the article is unverifiable. I have noticed that some of the items listed as references for him don't even mention his name. I believe that many of these ought to be removed from the article, and if I thought that other editors here would support that, I would remove to the article's Talk page all the apparent references (such as the books) whose legitimacy can't be established online, or which do not mention his name. For instance the linked PDF file [13] does not say anything about Jacob Apelbaum or a firm called Bright Ideas Software. A Google search for 'bright ideas software chicago' does not find anything. How can we be confident that what is currently in the article is true? EdJohnston 15:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section break

You can locate the books in:[14]--Jill Fine 15:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by EdJ: Excuse my interrupting your posting so my comment would be next to the reference. This URL shows that the books are in Barnes and Noble's catalog, but the screen says that no new copies can be ordered from them. Unfortunately this doesn't give proof that the books ever existed. Maybe there is a link somewhere on a publisher's web site? The ISBNs still look very strange, with so many zeros in them. Do you know who the publisher was? EdJohnston 18:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It does say on Barnes and Noble that the publisher is 'Technology Press' but I can't find any more information about the publisher. Looking at the ISBNs if they are genuine, they don't seem to have published any other books. Snigbrook 20:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Jill Fine: The books were originally published in small quantity (250 hard copies) via direct order publisher called Technology Press. After the initial publication, they were converted to e-books, so it doesn’t surprise me that B&N shows no inventory. Regarding the strange structure of the ISBN number, it is pretty common. This usually indicates that a large block of ISBN’s has been purchased by a publisher (most likely for digital media) as this helps insure that they would be able to maintain sequential listing for their media.

I hope this helps.--Jill Fine 21:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by EdJ: Thanks for the clarification. You can understand that, to us, it looks like these were self-published books, which normally wouldn't be acceptable as references in an article. Also they would not tend to prove the author's notability. Any mention of the books by third parties would help, so even if they were self-published, if there were any printed reviews of the books, that would be worth noting. EdJohnston 22:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: that was what I thought - self-published. The ISBN is in a valid block but only consists of ten numbers ([15]). - Snigbrook 22:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Posting by Jill Fine resumes here:

Regarding media and secondary sources coverage, the following are the citation:
Shankman, Neal (1996-10-20), "Work on Metra station starts wheels rolling on software program", Chicago Daily Herald, p. 14

and here is the actual article (it is not available on-line, so I uploaded it to backup the citation):
<copyvio deleted

Comment by EdJ: Thanks for this useful information. While the Construction Manager program was helpful to Metra, and did save them some money, it seems to have been contributed by Apelbaum as a volunteer project. There is mention at the end that he hoped to commercialize the program, but no comment as to whether that occurred. EdJohnston 18:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment buy Jill Fine: I forgot to address your commercialization question. In 1998 several components of the product were sold to [16] the details are governed by an active NDA.--Jill Fine 21:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Jill Fine: The article doesn’t say contributed or volunteer and there is a clear reference to the product size and value (70,000 lines of VC++ code, and estimated at $250,000. which clearly shows commercial interest). The reason for giving Metra free usage rights was purely strategic (to help with market penetration). Also, Metra and other RTA agencies conducted dozens of large construction projects a year--which would have helped “exercise” the software. This is no different than a traditional beta program where the customer gets “free” evaluation software, but the owner keeps the rights to the product.

Finally, the reason for the carefully worded “took on his spare time” was to eliminate potential claims from the Federal government or other funding agencies which could have claimed ownership to a product that was developed on one of their funded projects ($130 million).

I hope this helps.--Jill Fine 21:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by EdJ: It is too bad there is an active NDA. An NDA defeats publication, which also defeats the creation of any evidence that is visible to us for the commercial success of the Construction Manager program. Secrecy means you can't write about it, and we can't write about it, because we can't see the evidence. You must be aware that a large, successful software company would make waves and we would perceive that. There is nothing here for us to perceive. EdJohnston 22:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Posting by Jill Fine resumes here:

finally, here is the official acknowledgment by the Roadmaster’s Association for an outstanding job done by Bright Idea Software of Chicago:
File:Roadmasters and Maintenance of Way Association of America.jpg

--Jill Fine 17:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lots of patents were filed, but where are the non-trivial reliable third party sources published about this person? Burntsauce 21:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? "Where are all the non-trivial reliable third party sources?" Did you even read the article? They are listed throughout the entire thing. The author even uploaded many of them (although they were deleted per copyvio...which is ironic in itself) so we could view them without going to the library. I have a real problem with deletionists; all they do is vote "delete" without ever making any real contributions. The point is to grow the encyclopedia, not slowly delete it. This guy is notable -- give it up! And the article is very well written with reliable sources to back up the claims. 68.143.88.2 21:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this is some kind of an inside Wikipedia joke or not, but each time I upload the news articles to show third party source coverage, someone deletes the articles and 2 minutes later there is another posting complaining that there is a lack of third party sources.--Jill Fine 21:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a joke. As explained to you above, you can't upload other people's text and images because of copyright concerns. Just cite them in the article. But even if they were uploadable, that would not mean that people would have to accept them as reliable sources. -- But|seriously|folks 22:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) If it is an inside joke, I don't get it either. Jill Fine, if they're scans (which would be most convincing), you can always open an account at Flickr & upload the images there. Otherwise, find a free web host & upload the files there. In either case, once this is done give us a URL to that site. -- llywrch 22:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, please don't do that. We can't link to copyvios here either per WP:EL. It is neither necessary nor appropriate to provide the entire source. Just cite it. -- But|seriously|folks 22:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit Conflict) Linking to a copyvio is no different than adding it to this site. Cite the sources, dont upload them. - Rjd0060 22:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think I got it. I will only cite my third party sources (which are only in print sinch most are pre 1996) and not upload them. Thanks. --Jill Fine 23:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Creator blanked the article. JuJube 23:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have decided to remove the article as the overhead associated with talking about it has grown beyond what my busy schedule permits. It has already consumed more than 8 hours of my time and it looks like there is no end in sight.

My first experience with creating contents in Wikipedia has been a real eye opener. Thanks to all the individuals who provided constructive advice and guidance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JillFine (talk • contribs) 00:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So tagged (WP:CSD#G7). Should result in a speedy close of this debate. - Rjd0060 00:00, 25 October 2007 (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. -- RHaworth 05:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caesarea-arts.com

I don't think this meets WP:CORP but I'd like other opinions on it. Pig^man 03:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as blatant spam. I've tagged it as such. GlassCobra 03:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per CSD G11 - this article was created by the owner of the company. A clearer case of WP:COI can't be found. Dethme0w 04:16, 22 October 2007 (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. John254 00:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hotin County

A potential non-notable place with no references.Chris! _ct 03:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Complete rewrite - County are notable by itself, but this one-sentence "article" should just be tossed out. SYSS Mouse 03:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep All geographic locations are notable. Needs work, but no way should it be deleted. faithless (^speak) 03:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Provided the place does exist. :) faithless (^speak) 03:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How's this? --Oakshade 03:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was cautious because Google Earth doesn't turn up anything, but the expansion of the article explains why that is. Good job, Carlos! faithless (^speak) 00:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well, Romanian Wikipedia seems to find it notable and has much more information on this place. I'm not an expert on Romania, but Judeţs seem to be equivalent to French Departments or American counties, which are considered inherently notable. Not a lot of Romanians edit on English Wikipedia, so it takes time for these articles to expand. --Oakshade 03:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Being WP:BOLD I have added the good stuff from the Romanian WP into our article. Someone fluent in Romanian should just make sure that I got it 100% correct but most Latin languages are sufficiently similar that I'm confident at the 95% level. And anyone who is interested, maybe wikiproject Romania, could do likewise to about a dozen more of these. Carlossuarez46 19:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great job in expansion! --Oakshade 21:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, real places are inherently notable. Corvus cornix 19:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, automatically notable if it exists, nothing indicates that it doesn't exist. Punkmorten 21:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Such locations are automatically notable but expansion has massively improved article anyway. Davewild 07:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:OUTCOMES. Smashville 16:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Since when did counties become non-notable places? You've got to be kidding. Burntsauce 17:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'll create a redirect, as well. -- RG ² 01:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo, the World's Strongest Man

a fictional non-notable character, unsourced - possible violates WP:FICTION Chris! _ct 03:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak-ish Delete Perhaps notable, but already mentioned at the Pee-Wee article, and this one seems unnecessary. Furthermore, I can't find any real-world sources suggesting notability. Merge if there's anything worth saving, but yeah, delete. faithless (^speak) 03:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources are found. — Ksero 12:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pee-wee's Playhouse. Potential search term. Eluchil404 04:03, 28 October 2007 (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. John254 00:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of bestselling novels in the United States

I am also nominating the follwoing related (sub)pages:

List of bestselling novels in the United States in the 1900s

List of bestselling novels in the United States in the 1910s

List of bestselling novels in the United States in the 1920s

List of bestselling novels in the United States in the 1930s

List of bestselling novels in the United States in the 1940s

List of bestselling novels in the United States in the 1950s

List of bestselling novels in the United States in the 1960s

List of bestselling novels in the United States in the 1970s

List of bestselling novels in the United States in the 1980s

List of bestselling novels in the United States in the 1990s

List of bestselling novels in the United States in the 2000s

These pages are all taken from a single source (Publishers Weekly) which might make them a possible copyright violation. They conform to a set of standards used in the original publication which are not made reference to in the title of the pages nor in the subject of the pages. For example none of the Harry Potter books are included as they are not targeted to an adult audience, since these conditions are not mentioned the articles are in effect innacurate going by the titles and descriptions. Wikipedia should not just reproduce magazine features and convert them into artciles as has happened here. Guest9999 02:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm of two minds with this. Guest9999 is correct on the biases inherent in the selection. Also connected is the article titles which are misleading and inaccurate. I'm also mindful of the copyvio inherent in them as well but I expect some of the earlier decades may have passed into the public domain by now. Yet I feel the information is valuable to have available. It does indicate something about what people were buying and reading and the popularity of novels of the period. And I think Publishers Weekly has been a quite an authoritative voice in the industry at times. So I'm not rendering an opinion yet but will try to keep an eye on this discussion. Sorry to be so wishy-washy. Pig^man 03:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all First, there is no copyvio--we are reporting on what they have listed. In the US, this is not a violation of their copyright, any more than a list of Academy awards is. . Second, the standard is that they have been selected the major reliable independent reference publication in the field, whose reviews are routinely used and totally accepted to establish notability for books and authors in Wikipedia. This is as clear and distinct a standard as can be expected. If the heading of t he article needs modification, it can be modified.DGG (talk) 15:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep all. Not a copyright violation at all. This is important almanac-style information from an authoritative industry source about book sales. The page should, of course, explain what is and is not included in their methodology, but this is a matter to hash out on talk pages (or merely be bold and fix it), and not AFD. This is good, encyclopedic, verified, neutral, discriminate information. Therefore, we speedy keep for there is no valid deletion reason left. --JayHenry 16:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although I did not mention it in the nomination notability is probably anissue - if there is no copyright violation. These lists are not a general compilation of the best selling novels in the US but a direct copy of lists manufactured by a single publication - with their own (as yet unkown)standards and measures. I feel significant coverage by independant secondary sources about or makinf reference to the Publishers Weekly lists and not just of best selling books in general is required under WP:NN. Effectively this article is not actualy on the best selling novels in the US (as titled) but on the Publishers Weekly articles about the best selling novels in the US - are these articles actually notable? They might be but no evidence is given in the (Wikipedia) artciles - not a single source. [[Guest9999 16:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Are you serious? About three and a half seconds on Google can establish that notability isn't even close to an issue. [17], [18], [19], [20]. Also, you can easily determine that the lists are widely reproduced in dozens if not hundreds of newspapers, and have been, continuously, for a century. These pages are based on statistics that PW compiles not on "Publishers Weekly articles." These are like statistics compiled by Nielsen or Billboard. They are, in fact, a general compilation of the best-selling novels. It would be fine to add data from other best-seller lists, that also attempted a general compilation of sales date, but you've yet to come up with anything like a valid deletion reason. Suggest withdrawal. --JayHenry 19:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment perhaps the ed. above has not seen the widespread acceptance of these lists as a criterion of notability., Awards which are individually notable are notable awards. DGG (talk) 17:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Sorry I don't really understand what you mean, however I do not feel that WP:OTHERSTUFF is a good reason for inclusion. [[Guest9999 17:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Keep if not copyvio I am not convinced about the copyvio claim, because these are being published as fact, without any editorial twist on them, and it's just the fact that's being reported: little different than using foreign government sources (which unlike US gov't sources are copyright protected) for lists of populations/postal codes of the cities, provinces, etc. Why keep? Because this is notable almanac like data that is encyclopedic in nature. Which books were best sellers in 1964 are encyclopedic factoids, not trivia, and those factoids enhance the books' notability. Carlossuarez46 18:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From the input of DGG and JayHenry, I think the only reservation I had (copyvio) is satisfied positively. I do think work needs to be done to clarify the titles and contents of the articles but that is do-able. Pig^man 19:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Publishers Weekly stats are an authorative source on the US publishing industry. Such lists of titles are not protected by copyright. I agree that the criteria used by PW should be included in the header of each list to avoid confusion. Espresso Addict 00:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Could we find other sources so these are "meta lists"--lists that compare different best seller lists; e.g. integrate New York Times, PW, etc.? As for the debate, I'm leaning towards keep--these article titles do seem to be encyclopedic/good reference material. Jason McHuff 05:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see the problem with this. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. If it's a copyvio, do the legal research or ask the Foundation lawyer, but we can't reasonably debate that here. Similarly, if Publisher's Weekly is not the best source (say, New York Times is?) then make an argument either on the page or village pump, and if necessary simply redo the list (which can be done as an editorial matter subject to consensus, and doesn't need a deletion vote). If there are more than one notable lists, consider making a table. Either way, simply deleting this is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. This is an immensely useful organization system for readers to use to peruse Wikipedia articles, and to find information. Wikidemo 19:36, 26 October 2007 (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, non-notable fan club. —Verrai 13:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MOIST (Marinos Official International Supporters Team)

Vanity article of non-notable soccer team supporters club comprising of two members. No notability is asserted, nor is it likely to find any independent sources related to this supporters club. Hen Features 02:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable Pilotbob 02:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN group. Two members? Two is a couple not a significant group. Pig^man 03:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 07:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Red card it. Neier 08:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sebisthlm 11:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete so if I take my son to a game and we wear matching T-shirts we can have a WP article? Awesome :-) ChrisTheDude 12:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Six beers before during and after the game? Pah - easy! :-D It's a fun article, but nowhere near encyclopedic. Surprised noone picked up on it before to be honest! ShizuokaSensei 12:29, 22 October 2007 (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. Looking at the sources mentioned, none of them are particularly about Jason's, (except #1) they only mention Jason's as a place where Dougherty played. And number 1 is a festival guide, and uses Jason's as a backdrop for Dougherty. If someone could find articles about Jason's, it's possible the article could be brought back. CitiCat^♫ 05:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jason's

Unsourced article on a former snooker club in suburban Dublin notable only as a one-time haunt of a major criminal and because a snooker champion once played there. That's all of note that anyone has had to say about it in the 2 years since the article was created. I doubt it even merits a mention in any of the related articles. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not very notable, not sourced Pilotbob 02:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- not even the assertion of notability. shame.JJJ999 04:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, not sourced. PKT 19:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 12:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I think this establishment has closed down. --Gavin Collins 12:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep (probably), and note that most delete votes should be discounted because they miss the point. The article has as clear a claim of notability as there can be: "Jason's was famous for two things:..." If that's true, it's clearly notable. That means notability over time for an establishment, in business 30 years, that's the launching places for careers of famous people. That passes WP:CORP. Closing down doesn't affect notability - once notable, always notable. We're not a directory of open businesses. So the only issue is whether the claim is true, and sourcing. I see about 500+ google hits and several dozen news stories combining Jason's, Dublin ,and Snooker. It would take more searching but just on the first couple pages I see non-trivial mentions in reliable sources. They're not always substantial write-ups but they're not trivial or passing either. One - [21]. These three you would need to find another way to get the article: [22] [23] [24]. A book, [25]. [26]. That's from a quick look. If anyone wants to do a more exhaustive search, the sources seem to be out there. This is a classic example of a business that seems notable, only the article needs improvement. When in doubt, improve, don't delete. Wikidemo 16:13, 26 October 2007 (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. John254 00:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neopia

does not belong in encyclopedia Pilotbob 02:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could you explain why you don't believe it belongs in the encyclopedia? Clearly you feel that way, as you're nominating it for deletion. But could you cite a specific policy or guideline? I've done a quick Google Books search and found some references, I'll add them. The article is certainly in need of help, it's too long and in an in-universe format. But I don't think it warrants deletion. faithless (^speak) 03:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and Close - An important article that pertains to Neopets. Doesn't warrant deletion. Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 04:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Too much information to merge into Neopets and couldn't be put anywhere else. Red Fiona 14:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see how most of this information can be cited with reliable sources and the article is basically fancruft. This article is inherently unencyclopedic. It has been around for over 1.5 years and if it was going to improve it would have happened by now. Pilotbob 16:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- passes Notability, with multiple external cites. May need cleanup, but that's not a valid reason for deletion.--SarekOfVulcan 17:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep often mentioned as an example. See also [27],[28],[29],[30]. JJL 23:08, 22 October 2007 (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 without prejudice with regards to a merge. Eluchil404 03:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline reads "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Here, no notability reason given. SYSS Mouse 02:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP This is an episode of a notable show shown regularly on a major television network. Pilotbob 02:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So? I hate to say this, but quite a few articles of individual episodes, when viewed alone, is not notable by itself (not just South Park, but among others) Some episodes does, by controversy or by special elements used (like Make Love, not Warcraft). And remember, WP:Not a TV guide - it is not really cyclopedic to give detail to plots to individual episodes. SYSS Mouse 03:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Keep as long as the required secondary sources can be found. I imagine they're out there as episodes of popular televison shows are usually widely reviewed and written about. [[Guest9999 03:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
What? Do you want all the episodes of South Park to be deleted? Just because it is missing some sources does not mean it fails WP:N meshach 04:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would do that if you want, except some. SYSS Mouse 15:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep without prejudice to a merge WP:EPISODE strongly discourages episode AFDs and requests editors to merge instead Will ^(talk) 11:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, but many episode article creators strongly oppose any effort in merging (<= general remark, not about this article or its creator). You can not delete them, because the guideline says not to, but you can't merge or redirect them, because a vocal group defends them, going against the guideline and policy (WP:NOT#PLOT)... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fram (talk • contribs)

Redirect to episode list, nothing worth merging, but realistic search term, so can be a useful redirect. Fram 12:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since this WP:FICTION article in its current state doesn't assert its notability and is a violation of WP:NOT#PLOT, it sure is merge material (without much to actually merge other than excessive plot and trivia). However, as Fram already said, enough fans will always override policy and guideline consensus. I also guess episodes of Southpark as a hugely popular show have significant amounts of production info (audio commentaries?) as well as some third-party coverage that just hasn't been added to the article yet. So I'm uncomfortable to !vote delete or redirect an article that may have potential, and prefer to keep without prejudice to a merge until WP:EPISODE is better overseen and enforced at large. (E.g. instead stubbifying ep articles and redirecting: merge all episode plots into one season article, no matter if the plot is excessive...) – sgeureka ^t•c 13:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as you can see from the articles on the newest episodes, South Park episodes get lots of independent reviews. 96T 21:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep along witht the other 163 episodes of South Pak that have articles written about them.--Swellman 21:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as 96T mentions, there are some really good SP articles, including (I beleive) three GA episode articles. 3/160 for GAs is actually a much higher ratio than the 3000/2000000 there is for normal articles. It's going to take a while a to get all the episode articles up to snuff, but it's going to be a lot quicker than getting WP up to snuff. Let them live an be improved. - Peregrine Fisher 23:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this episode is clearly notable insofar as any episode of a major TV series can be considered notable. Standard TV-review source links can, i'm sure, be found for it. Really, I cannot see a valid reason to specifically delete this article except as part of a seriously radical restructuring of all of Wikipedia's South Park content - individually deleting certain episodes while leaving others intact will seriously reduce the volume of useful information available here and hurt the structure of the whole section/category. ~ Mazca 00:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment I hope people remembered the Wikipedia:Pokemon test. SYSS Mouse 01:16, 23 October 2007 (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. -- RG ² 01:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Neopets

Inworld context only, not encyclopedic Pilotbob 02:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 03:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unless nom would like to explain how this list differs from the various other list of fictional characters already on WP, I'm not inclined to agree that this does not fit WP's standards of encyclopedic content. Context issues can be fixed by editing. hateless 04:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to keep this article. These characters are not notable at all outside of the neopets universe. Pilotbob 16:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: vast, vast website. Inherently notable. Could perhaps use some pruning of in-universe ideas, but is otherwise useful information. As to Pilotbob - there was a McDonald's promotion with these characters, I'm pretty sure if they offer them as Happy Meal toys then the characters are notable outside of the Neopets universe. Now, were this an article listing every storyline character on Neopets, then I'd be with you - that's unnecessary. But it isn't, so I vote to keep. ♠P M C♠ 23:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at WP:USEFUL.--Addhoc 13:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with Pilotbob. This article/list is not really a list of fictional characters, it is more like a fancrufty list of "species" within the website. In addition, this article only contains 1 source other than the website itself, and also is mostly original research. As for notability, it is not automatically inherited , even if Neopets is very notable. SmileToday☺(talk to me , My edits) 02:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I second the deletion of this article, for the aforementioned reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.211.198 (talk) 03:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of independent reliable sources. Subject adequately covered by Neopets and Neopets Inc. articles. Addhoc 13:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:RS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.9.250.64 (talk) 00:50, 29 October 2007 (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--JForget 00:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Tarek Ola-abaza

Non-notable musician. No actual releases yet, only source is a Myspace page. "Notable as a matter of right"? I don't even know what that means. GlassCobra 01:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: If the result is delete, please also delete the redirect, Ola-abaza. GlassCobra 16:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Having "works in progress" is not enough to satisfy WP:N or WP:MUSIC. MySpace is not a reliable source. No other verifiable source of notability given. -- Kesh 02:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per Kesh Pilotbob 02:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not yet shown; no 'officially' published albums or other works. Myspacecruft as it stands. SkierRMH 03:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More sources have been added. This is a relatively small local artist and therefore not much should be expected. It remains useful for local people to find information about their own artists. The Myspace page cited has a very large following (18,000 plays and above). More info and refrences will be added as it is found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infoguardian (talk • contribs) 02:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You only added one, and it's some directory that explicitly says it's only for local artists. GlassCobra 03:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A composer with an audience, even an internet audience, is in a sense notable. Myspace is also very frequently cited around Wikipedia for bands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infoguardian (talk • contribs) 02:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "[I]n a sense notable"? What does that mean? And Myspace is included as a link in bands' articles, but it's not actually cited as a source in any. GlassCobra 03:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In short, my contention above is that a significant Internet audience (which is here evident) may help legitimate the article as notable. --Info Of Interest 03:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infoguardian (talk • contribs)

The Myspace link contains "third party" remarks in a sense. May also meet this notability guideline: "Has composed a number of melodies, tunes or standards used in a notable genre, or tradition or school within a notable genre."--Info Of Interest 03:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- You keep saying things like "in a sense" and "may meet," which doesn't speak well for the notability of your subject. And the guideline that you're citing is definitely not met. Read it more closely. GlassCobra 03:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could you imagine if Wikipedia had a page for every artist who has created music, it would be huge! Notability among a local group does not mean it is notable to an encyclopedia.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 03:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Notability among a local group does not mean it is notable to an encyclopedia."- well yes it can. Why not? All 'notability' is limited to the "contexts of groups", local or global. Also, the thousands of online listeners are from all over the globe. etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infoguardian (talk • contribs) 03:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:MUSIC; no reliable sources presented, nor any indication of notability or major-label releases to be found. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Meets, "for composers outside the mass media", this criteria: "Has composed a number of melodies, tunes or standards used in a notable genre, or tradition or school within a notable genre. "--Info Of Interest 04:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete WP:NOT a social networking site nor an extension of a social netwoking site. What you want is not what Wikipedia is. It is not even a Who's Who of people within a profession, e.g. an architect would not get a page here no matter how well he is thought of by his fellow architects unless he meets some notability standard. Notability is what happens when you break out of the MySpaces or Who's Whos. Why do you want that article here? It does not serve the purpose of Wikipedia. --Justanother 04:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article should be here for anyone who may look up info on the matter. In a sense a job for a Wiki-based archive of information to do. The point of my gesture is also to contribute to improving the online records of the membership and work of the Abaza Clan from a genealogical impulse.--Info Of Interest 04:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  - Your comments, this one in particular, suggest to me that you have a very grounded interest in this topic, possibly autobiographical. In that case, this article would also be a violation of WP:COI. GlassCobra 20:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This non-notable individual doesn't meet WP:BAND -- no recording contract, no albums, MySpace adds zero notability. His ancestry also adds zero notability (people are not notable for their relatives) and he doesn't meet WP:BIO. But I was fascinated by trying to work out just what a "neutralized New Zealander" could be. It's either castration or naturalization, and I have to hope for his sake it's the latter. Accounting4Taste 05:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- lol "neutralized New Zealander" means having gained citizeship but not having been born in the country. I think. But it needs to be stated clearer perhaps. There is a music label, although it is especially set-up. There is also the large internet audience. This is the age of the internet and digital media, not only physical CDs. Well, at least it is moving towards that. Myspace is a medium that can create large audiences. Listing the Abaza Clan's memebrs is important perhaps with refrence to their importance in Egypt (which is evident even just through internet searches).--Info Of Interest 06:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  - The word you're looking for is naturalized. -- Kesh 14:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last note for now: I suspect both this article and the Ola Kamel article can probablly be edited to comply with your standards. I tried to do that today. --Info Of Interest 07:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete [31] and [32] are both primary sources that don't establish notability. As for the 18,000 plays on the myspace page, I think that argument is an example of WP:BIG.— Ksero 09:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Only the second refrence is a primary source. And in any case many band profiles and personal/official sites are cited on wikipedia articles in various forms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infoguardian (talk • contribs)
  - As I stated above, bands' Myspaces are included in their articles, but none of the articles actually cite the Myspace page as a source. You're clearly not reading anyone's responses to your points. GlassCobra 20:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As WP:PSTS writes, secondary sources draw on primary sources to make generalizations or interpretive, analytical, or synthetic claims. I don't think [33] does that. Therefore, it is not a secondary source, it's a primary source that doesn't establish notability. — Ksero 11:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have a habit of doing this. Your new link is just a list of people who exist. It does not establish notability at all. -- Kesh 14:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking to me? I think you might have been confused by the unsigned comment. I was commenting on why the sources cited by the article didn't establish notability. — Ksero 20:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my indentation was off. That was meant for Infoguardian, as you pointed out. Must've been a bad night for my typing! -- Kesh 20:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Glass Cobra: I read the responses fully. I see the matter as simpler, the page is within the scope of a wiki's expected contents and can be improved instead of deleted. When sources are limited then sources are limited, but they are not illegitimate simply because they include Myspace. Yes this is a primary source, but it provides info exactly as a primary source would, info which is valid. Third party sources are limited in this case with the exception of the hundreds of 'third party' comments on the Myspace page acknowledging the artist as notable. Somewhat notable. Perhaps notable enough for a brief article.--Info Of Interest 00:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Your sources are not valid because they include Myspace, your sources are invalid because they are Myspace; you have nothing else. You have Myspace and another primary source, a list of local bands. Myspace is not a valid source for an article, period. You claim that it makes you notable because you have some number of plays, but as Ksero already said, this is not a valid argument (WP:BIG). You also claim that your comments on your Myspace confer notability, but is it not true that supporters would be more inclined to comment on your Myspace rather than those who dislike it, thus breaching the neutral point of view policy? Furthermore, as clearly stated in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, sources must come from independent third parties (which your Myspace is clearly not, since it is yours and you put the information there) with a reputation for comprehensive fact-checking and accuracy (which again, a Myspace is not. Last I checked, anyone can say anything they want there). I'm sorry, but you do not meet the notability criteria for having an article. GlassCobra 01:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, if you all would not allow the article in any form, not even a limited form, or in a different place, then I guess I will just have to wait until so-called 'Third Party' sources appear.--Info Of Interest 02:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC) I still stand by my stance that such an article is not entirely out of place. --Info Of Interest 02:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)--Info Of Interest 02:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infoguardian (talk • contribs)

a suggestion: perhaps an editor other than myself can strip down the article into a suitable stub?--Info Of Interest 03:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infoguardian (talk • contribs)

As I mentioned to Glass Cobra, I am an academic who appreciates rigour and accuracy. And so I find it hard to defend this article. Therefore, I accept deletion if you insist, but I hope for a stub or small article instead if the wiki community would allow it.--Info Of Interest 07:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infoguardian (talk • contribs)
- This just caught my eye: "the page is within the scope of a wiki's expected contents" which ties into the earlier "a Wiki-based archive of information". Therein lies the rub; Wikipedia is neither "a [generic] wiki" nor a "Wiki-based archive of [indiscriminate] information" - it is a very specific sort of wiki that includes very specific sort of information. It is an encyclopedia. Would that you expend the effort you are expending here in creating or improving actually encyclopedic articles. --Justanother 14:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I no longer care whther the Ola-abaza article stays or not. --Info Of Interest 02:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infoguardian (talk • contribs)
Delete Despite all of the above impassioned argument, the subject still clearly falls foul of WP:Music. A1octopus 16:19, 26 October 2007 (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.. Copyvio removed, will mark expand. CitiCat^♫ 03:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maroon and Gold

According to WP:NOT#LYRICS an "article may not consist solely of the lyrics."
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 01:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:NOT#LYRICS. GlassCobra 01:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Arizona State University if it's deemed to be useful. Redirect not suggested as school colours are pretty common - although if someone is interested in doing the research it could be made into a disambig page ultimately. SkierRMH 03:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The merge would be okay since the song is actually already in the Arizona State University article. We could actually rename Maroon and Gold to Arizona State University Fight Song or something like that first, and then place a redirect on the page to Arizona State University#Fight Song since the current Maroon and Gold article is part of the {{Pac-10 Fight Songs}} template and there needs to be some kind of a redirect.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 03:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Keep as long as it's expanded and properly sourced. Per Category:Fight songs, plenty of fight songs have their own articles. But it does need to be expanded. faithless (^speak) 04:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Depending on when the song was written, the lyrics may be subject to copyright, and so should be removed anyway. J Milburn 11:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've deleted the lyrics until such time as the copyright is established. Corvus cornix 19:33, 22 October 2007 (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. Eluchil404 03:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vallamai Tharayo

Fails the future film notability guidelines. Girolamo Savonarola 01:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no references, no 3rd party coverage, no IMDB or AMG listing for the film as of yet. SkierRMH 03:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per the nominator, doesn't meet WP:MOVIE since its production has yet to begin, it seems. Accounting4Taste 22:49, 22 October 2007 (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, original research, non-notable, etc. —Verrai 13:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Jason Giambi Curse

Article has no sources and reeks of original research. Seems to be a non-notable neologism. Delete as nom. Michael Greiner 01:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as uninteresting coincidence. SolidPlaid 01:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the fact that I have never even heard of this, and I watch a lot of Sportscenter.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 01:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as sheer OR. GlassCobra 01:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everything said above. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 01:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This supposed "curse" is merely an artifact of unusually high expectations among Yankee fans, or at least the unusually high expectations of the editor who created this article. --Metropolitan90 01:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep lest we all be afflicted by this curseDelete WP:OR, WP:V, unreferenced neologism. SkierRMH 03:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Delete Interesting read, but unfortunately it violates original research, and verifiability policies. --Hdt83 ^Chat 03:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I cleaned up the article and added the only source I could find. Still, this should probably be deleted. faithless (^speak) 04:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone. Maxa megalon 2000 05:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR Chris! _ct 05:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - original research and nonsense. Seven years is not a long time to not win a World Series. --skew-t 06:49, 22 October 2007 (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, WP:CSD#A7, no assertion of notability. Halocruft that will never be notable, and something made up one day. —Verrai 01:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edpwn

No google hits on edpwn so likely WP:MADEUP; prod removed NeilN 00:48, 22 October 2007 (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. May later achieve notability (e.g. if it is commercially released) but hasn't yet. Eluchil404 03:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aashayein

Fails future film notability guidelines. Girolamo Savonarola 00:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nominator, films that have not yet been released don't meet WP:MOVIE unless they are of exceptional anticipatory interest, which this doesn't seem to be. Accounting4Taste 00:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-referenced "future" film, no anticipatory 3rd party coverage, no references found. SkierRMH 02:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. Caknuck 03:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No Delete ( Aashayein ) is a forthcoming Bollywood film . Please No Delete.
No Delete ( Aashayein ) [sonia_m2]

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.

Media:Example.ogg

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 not notable Gnan garra 01:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ola Kamel

Non-notable individual. She had run for a political office in 2004, but has not actually held any. The only references given are a list of people who are members of the Labor Party, and a brief statement she made when she ran for office. There's at least an assertion of notability, so this doesn't qualify for a speedy delete, but I do not see any verifiable sources of notability. - Kesh 02:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - As a minor note, the author has a conflict of interest in the subject, as pointed out here. -- Kesh 02:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She held office as Spokesperson for the local Muslim Community and as Chair of the EAC (Egyptian Association of Canterbury) and as Treasurer for the Labour Party's South Island Branch and as Chairperson of the Multi-Ethnic Branch, and more that i will add to the article later as i find info about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infoguardian (talk • contribs) 02:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable Pilotbob 02:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete presented as 'also ran' candidate with other civil interests, none of which add up to notability. SkierRMH 03:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the linked sources simply shows some indication about her involvement and political activities and leanings.--Info Of Interest 03:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infoguardian (talk • contribs)

It is verifiable online that she is the local politician the article cites. And that she ran for office and held certain views as indicated in the short quote. She was Spokesperson for the An-Nur Mosque and that would be confirmed by the institution at any time. The Labour Party can verify the same, and she is cited as a former List Candidate.--Info Of Interest 03:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I obviously need help tidying it up. I couldn't insert the picture in the usual way (side-lined). It is one of many pieces photographic evidence I could potentially add of her political activities. --Info Of Interest 04:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC) But of course only one should be enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infoguardian (talk • contribs)
Delete, WP is not a advertising service. meshach 04:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She's not selling anything or even currently seeking any office! She's a woman who did good works (public, political, and professional work) and who is notable!--Info Of Interest 05:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infoguardian (talk • contribs)

No one is questioning her existence. To stay in wikipedia there needs to be verifiable reliable sources added to the article that verify she satisfies the notability requirement. If these can be added then I am sure it will be kept. Otherwise it will likely be deleted. meshach 05:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you for your participation. I do wish for this page and for the Ola-abaza article to be done properly. I found this text: "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself, or:

Ask the article's creator for advice on where to look for sources.

I will try to look for sources myself but it perhaps would be better if third-party people interested in improving the article approached relevant institutions online and asked them to verify Ola Kamel's positions and activities. These could be the The New Zealand Labour Party1, the Muslim Association of Canterbury (MAC)2, or the Egyptian Association of Canterbury (EAC). MAC can verify Ola Kamel's many activities including her position as the first female Spokesperson for the Mosque, wide involvment with the media, and representing the New Zeland Muslim Community at a major overseas conference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infoguardian (talk • contribs) 06:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made some changes. Minor ones.--Info Of Interest 06:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infoguardian (talk • contribs)

Last note for now: I suspect both this article and the Ola-abaza article can probablly be edited to comply with your standards. I tried to do that today. --Info Of Interest 07:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete. It's not the lack of the sources that is the main problem, but rather that the assertions in the article don't add up to a sufficient level of prominence for this person. — BillC ^talk 07:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete: the sources indicate and give hints towards her varied involvements. In terms of prominence, but I cannot provide these easily, for quite a number of years she regurally appeared in the Print Media and on TV in this country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infoguardian (talk • contribs) 07:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete [34] and [35] are primary sources that don't establish notability. [36] is a reliable secondary source, but it only trivially mentions the article's subject. Therefore, the article doesn't establish notability in its current revision. — Ksero 09:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of these are in fact not primary sources, they are sources from institutions that do not equate to Ola Kamel but have cited her online. So perhaps don't delete, with the exception of the quote she didn't sign the sources. And the sources are an indication and demonstration of her political activities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infoguardian (talk • contribs) 09:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As WP:PSTS writes, secondary sources draw on primary sources to make generalizations or interpretive, analytical, or synthetic claims. I don't think [37] and [38] does that. Therefore, they are not secondary sources. They are primary sources that don't establish notability. — Ksero 11:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are just lists that show she exists. They do nothing to show she is notable per our policies. -- Kesh 14:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That's exactly what I said. We agree. — Ksero 20:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my indentation was off. That was meant as a reply to Infoguardian! -- Kesh 20:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there again. The 'lists' say more than just that she simply exists (and not all of the links are simply 'lists ' either). They indicate and demonstrate her activities and involvements in line with the assertions of the article. I will add detailed references today of her appearances in the NZ print media, but i cannot scan these, i can only provide dates and references to specific articles and their contents. Anyone can follow up on the accuracy of these if they can be bothered.

Also, anyone seeking to improve the article can try and do that. I doubt/hope any of you would claim that the article is simply inaccurate? And in terms of 'notability' I think what is already shown in the article hints towards her notability in the local context in which she worked. I am new to editing wikipedia but i am an old user/reader of the wiki. So i strongly think these articles are within the scope of this wiki. There are many similar articles about similar figures which you could look up if you can be bothered. I request that instead of deletion, patient correction and improvement is allowed.

I must repeat that Ola Kamel is notable due to her extensive activites and relative local fame (and her special place as one of very few empowered female spokespeople for Islam). I hope the wiki community will see that. --Info Of Interest 07:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep I've fixed up the article significantly~~, but it still needs a few good sources. However,~~ and added a few sources. I think it easily demonstrates enough notability to be kept. Any thoughts on the changes? GlassCobra 07:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy with your version. I welcome other people's contribution in the future and I will avoid adding much info myself due to the fact that Ola Kamel is my beloved mother.--Info Of Interest 07:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infoguardian (talk • contribs)
Delete I stress that notability has nothing whatsoever to do with goodness, competence, or productivity. I am sure that Mrs. Kamel brings honor to her family and to her community. That said, if we posit that there is any level of "notability" whatsoever below which an individual does not "merit" (used loosely) an article in an encyclopedia then she would be below any reasonable bar. --Justanother 15:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If we look past your purple prose, you're not really stating any reason for deletion. Would you mind clarifying more? GlassCobra 05:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course I am; you just need more practice with "purple prose" (smile). ~~Here, let me make it clearer. N-o-t n-o-t-a-b-l-e.~~ --Justanother 12:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wow, okay, I'm sorry for saying your statement was purple prose, but that wasn't really necessary... GlassCobra 16:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, if it offends then I will strike it. No problemo, mi amigo. --Justanother 16:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Fair enough, but you still haven't given any real reasoning behind your decision. GlassCobra 15:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
She is clearly notable. She was an important and pioneering female official for MAC and caught the national media's and the public's attention in this country. --Info Of Interest 02:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infoguardian (talk • contribs)
Delete Has not held office, is not notable as a leader, is a participant of a movement. And an insurmountable COI issue Mbisanz 02:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GlassCobra's improvements to WP:HEY. Bearian 17:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The statement above is wrong, she held several offices. Most notably as Spokeswomen for Canterbury Muslims, as Chair of the Egyptian Association, and as Head of at least two Labour Party branches, at sometime or another. --Info Of Interest 23:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep Needs a bit of work, but notability is established. Sources seem alright, but expansion would be helpful. Jmlk 1 7 00:55, 1 November 2007 (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.