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. postdlf ( talk) 19:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Kimberly Amadeo (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Google hits and article references all lead to links trying to sell books and DVDs. Attempts in the article to establish notability of the subject (President of WorldMoneyWatch.com, expert at about.com) are also nothing but attempts to sell products. Beach drifter ( talk) 23:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Comment i am the writer of this article .""She is the economic expert for About.com[1], one of the top ten most visited websites and a part of the New York Times.[2][3]""

i think these sentences are enough for showing that Kimberly Amadeo is famouse between the people who cares about US economy ans the owners of small businesses .if you take look at the about.com you can find out how many people know her.-- Navid1366 ( talk) 19:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

But, Navid, look at this google news search [1], there's been nothing written about her.-- Milowent • ^{talk blp-r} 02:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 14:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete - No significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources. The sourcing in the article is a link to the about.com front page which isn't really a reference at all, and to resumes/bios that are essetnially the equivalent of a press release. Amadeo does does not inherit notability by writing for about.com, a notable site, nor does she inherit notability from the fact that about.com is owned by the NY Times. -- Whpq ( talk) 17:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Whpq. -- Joaquin008 ^{( talk)} 16:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per above. There is significant mention of her in reputable, third-party sources. - SudoGhost ( talk) 03:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf ( talk) 19:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Clandestine MUD (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Acceptable sources were requested one year ago (April 2010) and they were never added. Subject lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable third parties. Delete. PlusPlusDave ( talk) 23:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public ( talk) 01:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. ( G· N· B· S· RS· Talk) • Gene93k ( talk) 14:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete - I could not locate any further sources for this mud, and find The Mud Connector to be weak in terms of our standards of reliability ( WP:RS). Marasmusine ( talk) 10:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete. I'm willing to consider the Mud Connector MOTM as contributing to notability, but it wouldn't suffice by itself in any event. The only other citation is first-party. I've tried repeatedly to find better sourcing for this article with no results. —chaos5023 ( talk) 20:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete The Mud Connector is very useful to MUDders (I've been playing MUDs for over a decade) but I would only consider it reliable if used in conjunction with another reference. Considering the target audience, and that the MOTM only ran for a few months (the MOTM page states it was discontinued for 'lack of interest') I would consider this a very weak source of notability, if at all. - SudoGhost ( talk) 03:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf ( talk) 03:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Avatar (MUD) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Subject lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable third party sources, thus failing GNG. PlusPlusDave ( talk) 23:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public ( talk) 01:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. ( G· N· B· S· RS· Talk) • Gene93k ( talk) 14:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete No evidence of meeting notability guidelines. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete - I have tried in the past to source this (see talk page), but never been able to find any solid references. Marasmusine ( talk) 10:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Zero notability-establishing references. I've also tried to source this article and failed. —chaos5023 ( talk) 20:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete non-notable. HHaeyyn89 ( talk) 06:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Joaquin008 ^{( talk)} 14:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete - no significant coverage in reliable third party sources to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker ( talk) 17:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep (nominator banned, no other opinions to delete). Amalthea 12:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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

Subject fails GNG and lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. The sources which are listed are primary and do not meet the definition of "reliable sources" by any stretch of the imagination. PlusPlusDave ( talk) 23:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep Refs 4, 6, 8, 10 are all WP:SPS by Raph Koster, who is a legitimate expert in the field of game design. In this case, DartMUD's notability is not from its own popularity, which was never more than modest, but from its influence on later game design theory. Since the ebb and flow of Internet game design is posted on, oh, the Internet, rather than print magazines or journals, what you see is exactly what one would expect from an appropriately influential mud. Note that Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/MUD has listed DartMUD as a "notable mud" and Koster as a bona fide expert in the field. Jclemens ( talk) 23:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  • I don't mean to infer your argument is a cop out, but to state that a subject which exists online would not receive treatment or coverage from dead-tree media or any other type of media as defined at WP:RELY seems tenuous at best. If the only documentation exists in the form of a self published document and a WikiProject then the subject may not yet be notable enough. PlusPlusDave ( talk) 00:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply
    • Read carefully the final paragraph in the WP:USERGENERATED section, which explicitly covers (and approves of) SPS'es from experts like Koster. Jclemens ( talk) 01:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply
    • Certainly the MUD task force's notes are meant to summarize notability status according to GNG, rather than serving as a reference in themselves, but I believe that summary in re DartMUD to be entirely justified. —chaos5023 ( talk) 20:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep Could benefit from more references, but DartMUD is highly notable, having influenced the entire MMO genre. To quote Raph Koster, "the sort of crafting we had in UO, which is now sort of the default in all the MMOs, was taken from the LegendMUD crafting, which was inspired in part by the DartMUD crafting". Somewhat ironically, Koster also mentioned DartMUD in an article a couple of years ago, where he discussed mud history being erased from Wikipedia, going on to say "At least there’s a good DartMUD page." KaVir ( talk) 10:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Really? I'd love to add that to the article, even if it is really meta. :-) Jclemens ( talk) 14:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public ( talk) 01:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. ( G· N· B· S· RS· Talk) • Gene93k ( talk) 14:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep - As already stated, Raph Koster is what makes this notabile. Jclemens, the link you want is here [2], and yes, the above quotes are accurate - "at least there's a good DartMUD page". It would be a sad day indeed when this goes. Turlo Lomon ( talk) 17:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep per JClemens and others; significance in design seems to be well established. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep - additional source of significant coverage: Wired Together: Writing, reading, and language acquisition (Hampton Press, 1998) Wikipedia does need some trimming of MUD articles, but this isn't one of them. Marasmusine ( talk) 10:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep. As extensively noted, Koster citations are admissible as evidence for WP:GNG per WP:SPS. Aggregate references more than sufficient to satisfy GNG. —chaos5023 ( talk) 20:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Not only we may take Koster as an expert, but it is nearly a premium resource for the area and time. There were a flock of muds back then, and as things go by it is reasonable to expect that the resonance occurs with only a few, while not less than those few either - frankie^MR ( talk) 01:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf ( talk) 04:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Fractal space map (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Contested prod. The only source is a patent, and that's also the only thing that shows up under "fractal space map" in a Google Scholar search. Without reliable sources that are independent of the subject, the subject of the article is not presumed to be sufficiently notable. The anonymous IP who removed the prod tag did not address this concern, claiming without offering details that he found 2 hits in the ACM digital library and IEEE explore (which I was unable to reproduce). Sławomir Biały ( talk) 23:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Sławomir Biały ( talk) 23:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment. I did an exact phrase search for "fractal map" on the ACM digital library and got two hits. The first of these ( doi: 10.1145/1294685.1294717) is pretty clearly irrelevant, and the second one ( doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-17289-2_30) appears to be about visualization of high dimensional data by packing it into two dimensions (so not related to the subject of the article). Sławomir Biały ( talk) 23:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete – article on a non-notable proprietary visualization technique, created by a single-purpose account, presumably the inventor of the technique. I could find no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. While the search term "fractal map" does score scholarly hits, they are generally about other techniques that involve maps with some fractal aspect.  -- Lambiam 09:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete: I've worked with drill-downable reporting software and in some ways this seems to be an improvement over similar features in other programs. But I don't see the notability criteria being met at the moment even if there may be potential. WP isn't for advertising new products, no matter what merit they may have. The material on Hausdorff dimension seems ORish to me.-- RDBury ( talk) 17:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete. A non-notable and minor variation of treemaps. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf ( talk) 19:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Ahmad Hussain (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Cannot see that this meets WP:Notability (musicians) and have doubts about it even meeting WP:GNG. I have edited it quite a lot for religious statements etc but even before this it was primarily reliant on self-published sources, was an autobiography & the username has been blocked. Sitush ( talk) 22:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Eeekster ( talk) 23:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 14:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Does not meet WP:GNG.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 23:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. -- Joaquin008 ^{( talk)} 16:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf ( talk) 14:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Reds–Cardinals rivalry (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

This article purports to describe a rivalry that now exists between Major League Baseball's St. Louis Cardinals and Cincinnati Reds. The article relies on a single source to establish this rivalry, a Wall Street Journal article that looks at a few incidents that took place in 2010 and argues that a wonderful new sports rivalry may be forming. The article also vaguely tries to link the events in 2010 to two separate occurrences in the 1960s. No other source has been provided stating the basic premise that a Cardinals-Reds rivalry exists, and the best a search for additional sources begun after the beginning of a discussion on the article talk page has found to provide further support for this premise is a blog that believes that the Cardinals and Reds might develop the most interesting rivalry of this decade. The article then cobbles together some franchise history for the two teams to manufacture a rivalry, probably in opposition to WP:Synth. Reliance on a single article from 2010 which basically argues that a single season's worth of encounters has created a new rivalry also appears to run afoul of WP:Recentism and WP:ONESOURCE. Combined, these issues provide serious concerns regarding the WP:N requirement of significant coverage in reliable sources. Indrian ( talk) 22:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete - I am not seeing any compelling argument for this article, short of the one article this year in a relationship that dates well over a century. There is a great deal of referencing, but this is in support of what appears to be making an argument to support the contention of the rivalry. I agree with the nominator citing Synth, Recentism, and (for all intents and purposes) one source. I applaud the attempt at the article, but it simply doesn't belong here. LonelyBeacon ( talk) 01:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom as the originator of several of the talkpage discussions, in which I expressed pretty much the exact concerns raised by Indrian. umrguy 42 12:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

*Keep Both teams had a heated rivalry as referenced in the WSJ article. If people were just talking about 2010, I agree it would have been recentism and it should be deleted. However, 2010 was just a renewal, not an establishment of a rivalry. They hated each other in the 60's and combined with the geographic proximity, it is definitely a rivalry of note. Arnabdas ( talk) 13:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Merge See proposal below. Arnabdas ( talk) 16:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  • You have no sources for this, or rather, you have the single Wall Street JOurnal source claiming this. If a rivalry truly exists dating back to the 1960s, you should be able to find more sources; we are talking a nearly fifty year period here after all. A single news reporter can say whatever he wants. Prove your position with sources or your view has no merit. Indrian ( talk) 18:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply
    • I found a book by William Cook called The Summer of '64: A Pennant Lost that details the rivalry better. http://books.google.com/books?id=G_9qSkkBWssC&printsec=frontcover&dq=1964+national+league+reds+cardinals&source=bl&ots=hnByA9XhIi&sig=eEDIDDQ9KSgOrc_CNbaao8i3tH4&hl=en&ei=tLOlTeD2NsnE0QGg_PWGCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAzgK# Arnabdas ( talk) 15:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC) reply
      • Without reading the book, just skimming through the introduction - that book would be a great resource for an article on the '64 NL pennant race. However, it does NOT appear to be a source for a whole Cards-Reds rivalry. umrguy 42 15:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC) reply
        • I would say that particular pennant race was a well publicized one in a long history. They have had seven times between them where they have finished 1st and 2nd. http://www.fungoes.net/2010/08/16/the-reds-cardinals-rivalry-in-perspective/

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 14:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• • • • • • Yes, but the source you brought up is all about the greatness of the 1964 season. This discussion, however, is about whether or not the Cardinals and Reds have a true rivalry. That book you mentioned does not seemed to be arguing that these two teams have had a great rivalry, but rather that they had one great season of competition. Just because the Reds and Cardinals finished 1/2 in the 1964 standings does not make it a rivalry. For you to cite this source as though it was about the Reds/Cardinals is misleading. And the two clubs have finished 1st/2nd 8 times, not 7. However, the first two were back when both teams were part of the AA and the Cardinals finished 14 and 16 games ahead in those respective seasons. In 1943 the Cardinals finished 18 games ahead of the Reds, and in 2000 they finished 10 games ahead of Cincinnati. (Surely a 1st/2nd finish means little in regards to this "rivalry" if the second place team is behind by double digits in the win-lose column?) That leaves 4 close seasons between these two teams: 1926, 1939, 1964 and 2010. Only Four notable finished in over a 125 years of baseball. How can that be considered a significant rivalry? Ultimahero ( talk) 17:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep - There have been a couple good challenges of phony "rivalries" at AfD recently, but this one is ill-considered. These two teams have played one another more than 2000 times, they hail from the same general region of the country and play in the same league, and their rivalry is not only well-known but it has been covered in the press. This one is valid. Carrite ( talk) 16:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Carrite, could you please provide some sources covering this "well-known" rivalry? I've been a Cardinals fan for over 25 years, and never heard of it. What I see in the article is ONE source from the Wall Street Journal saying it COULD be the next great rivalry, based on last year's kerfluffle, and pointing out a couple instances in the '60s. I don't see how that, combined with playing each other a lot, necessarily makes a rivalry. (And with two states in between them, "same general region of the country" isn't really relevant.) umrguy 42 17:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Every National League team that dates from the late 19th century have played each other many times, and the Reds hail from roughly the same geographic region as all the teams in the Central Division except the Astros. Also, no press sources have been produced describing a rivalry save the single WSJ article sourced in the article. I am afraid that your objections make little sense without additional sourcing to back them up. Indrian ( talk) 18:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete This smacks of recentism. If there had been books or something of that nature written about it then I could see an article about it. But this is clearly not a notable rivalry. - DJSasso ( talk) 17:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete per breach of WP:RECENTISM. GoodDay ( talk) 18:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete. There's more to sports team rivalries than just playing each other on the field a bunch of times. This cuts both ways, as say Mets-Yankees and Cubs-White Sox are rivalries, despite infrequently playing each over as they compete for the same fans. At the same time, just because two teams now play often because they're in the same division doesn't make it a proper rivalry. It may develop as such, but that's a CRYSTALBALL and RECENTISM issue. And Cincinnati and St Louis aren't that close. oknazevad ( talk) 19:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:RECENTISM and WP:SYNTH. One pennant race does not make a WP-notable rivalry, and the WSJ article is the only source arguing for the existence of a rivalry (and even then, it seems to be arguing that a rivalry might be developing more than anything). Might be okay if there were more sources on the rivalry itself, particularly prior to 2010, but I'm not seeing that right now. BryanG ( talk) 21:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete per all the reasons listed above. I don't see anything concrete that makes me want to keep this. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 00:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete While these two franchises may dislike each other (although most of the discussion has seemed to specifically indicate that Reds fans particularly dislike Cardinal fans) that doesn't make it a rivalry. There have only been two competitive seasons between the teams, 1964 and 2010, and one fight that appears to have been an isolated incident. This is all the evidence that has been provided for this "rivalry" despite both franchises having existed for over a century. Surely a true rivalry has more to it than this. Ultimahero ( talk) 16:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• 1939 wasn't competitive? And the teams finished 1-2 in both 1885 and 1887 too, although St. Louis ran up a pretty large margin those years. Rlendog ( talk) 18:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Rlendog, having a number of competitive/close finishes to seasons doesn't necessarily make a rivalry, and without sources stating it, it would be a WP:SYNTH violation anyway. umrguy 42 18:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Page 1 of "The Summer of '64: A Pennant Lost" states that "pitchers regularly threw knockdown pitched and batters stood their ground at the plate without charging the mound very often". So what about the fight that occurred in 1967, only three years after when the book is set. It was the same style of baseball, yet the Reds and Cardinals got in a fight that Tim McCarver described as: "Nothing fuels a rivalry like a good toe-to-toe, and we sure had one that night". ^[1]
• Page 14 states, "All last year we kept waiting for the Reds to make their move. They never made it; had too many guys in a slump." - Milwaukee Braves manager Bobby Bragan. This indicates that the Reds had the talent and were considered in contention for longer than one year; in other words, 1964 was not a fluke and the Reds were a good team as well.
• Unfortunately, the free preview ends there.
• The Reds were picked to finish near the bottom of the standings in 1961, instead they made it to the World Series. The Cardinals were the powerhouse of the 1960s, so that is clearly an upset which causes rivalry.
• The teams are geographically close, have produced numerous Hall of Famers, play each other often in games that mean more to the fans than other series. They have had several extremely close pennant/division races and prior to the introduction of divisions in the MLB had a sustained level of competitiveness. Everyone can agree that the fact that the Reds were put in the west and the Cardinals in the east made no sense, and it effectively ruined the rivalry, in the same way that a team falling out of contention can; although that doesn't always happen (Cubs-Cardinals rivalry = Exhibit A). Now that the teams have been put back into the same division and the Reds have had time to rebuild (and 14 years is not long compared to 125 years of MLB), the rivalry has been restarted. The rivalry is boosted by - not based on - the current situation of the two teams. That combined with the fact that division realignment is all that broke up the otherwise continuous state of competitive play shows that this rivalry, although not of the highest level of prestige (BOS-NYY), is still existent and relevant to Major League Baseball and the two teams.
• I feel that I have made many good points about why the article should be kept. Although not many users have left support for keeping it, I feel that the points I made are strong enough support for the article. Moreover, a large amount of argument for the delete side has been "Just because they play each other a lot doesn't mean it is a rivalry". I have continuously proven why there is more to Reds-Cardinals than other teams in the NL Central the Reds and Cardinals play. Every time I give my point to counter a reason for deletion, someone simply posts another reason for deletion that can be countered with my same points. That is why the "Delete" side seems so supported, because it is a lot of the same opinion posted after that opinion has been addressed. I think there is enough evidence of why it should be kept and so I will probably not contribute much more to this discussion. I think the outcome can be decided now, and to me it appears to be No Consensus, as other people have posted keep opinions that were not so much refuted as simply ignored.
• While I am in no way changing my opinion to merge, I believe that if an admin so decides that this article is unfit for Wikipedia, it should be merged with Major League Baseball rivalries under the NL Central section. I think even "delete" people have agreed that it does show some level of rivalry that warrants mention in Wikipedia, even if not as an article. Once again, I am NOT changing my opinion to merge.
• BeenChanged ( talk) 01:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  • This gets repeated so much that it is almost becoming hackneyed, but it bears mentioning here once again: As stated in WP:TRUTH, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." What you or I believe about the facts you have presented has no bearing on this matter; what is important is whether or not reliable sources have established the concept of a Reds-Cardinals rivalry. Right now, only one source has been found in which an author makes the claim that a rivalry exists between these teams. This is despite the rivalry going back over forty years according to your arguments. Unless you have further evidence to bring to bear on this matter, that is not enough to satisfy the WP:N requirement of significant coverage in reliable sources. Other than that one WSJ article, you do not have a source that speaks to the existence of a rivalry, only a list of specific events you believe constitute one. Arguing facts is useless here because that is the wrong argument. Bring more sources that show the existence of this rivalry and they will be weighed. The rest is just smokescreen. Indrian ( talk) 03:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC) reply
    • And you'r misrepresenting the evidence you are presenting. The book is NOT about the supposed rivalry between the Reds/Cardinals. It's about the the 1964 season. Just because those two teams were among the top in that season does not make the source about those two teams specifically. (And it's often forgotten but the Phillies finished a game back of the Cardinals that year just like the Reds, so it's not like it was a two-horse race the whole season.) The fight in 1967 was an isolated incidence. There is nothing to indicate that it was caused by pre-existing hatred between the teams. (I'm not suggesting that they didn't hate each other; I'm sure they did, like most teams who compete do. The question is not if they hate each other but if they hate each other MORE THAN AVERAGE. Does their hatred go beyond what we would normally expect? Does it reach levels that exceed beyond just those two teams and affect baseball as a whole, like LA-SF or NY-BOS? It's not surprising that Tim McCarver would say what he did; we would expect players that took part in the fight to dislike the competition. But, again, does it go beyond normal baseball tension? You have to substantiate that with reliable sources, which is why the book doesn't count because it doesn't address the topic.)
    • You're misrepresenting the NL in the 60's when you say, "The Reds were picked to finish near the bottom of the standings in 1961, instead they made it to the World Series. The Cardinals were the powerhouse of the 1960s, so that is clearly an upset which causes rivalry." The Cardinals did field strong teams in the 60's, winning three NL Pennants. However, the Dodgers also won three pennants and they finished 2nd to the Reds in 1961. So how was 61 an upset of the Cardinals specifically, as opposed to say the Dodgers who were in 2nd place? (And the Cardinals didn't have a 2nd place finish until 1963, or 1st until 1964, which suggests that they weren't at their best until a few years after the Reds reached the World Series. Also, can you please provide sources to back up the claim that the Reds were predicted to finish near the bottom?)
    • The teams are geographically close, and have had a number of Hall of Fame Players. But you could say the same about the Pirates or Cubs, so why is St. Louis/Cincinnati bigger than Pittsburgh/Cincinnati or Chicago/Cincinnati? You say that they, "play each other often in games that mean more to the fans than other series." Can you prove that with reliable sources? The St. Louis fans on Wikipedia have said that their games against Cincinnati don't really stand out. It would seem that you just don't like the Cardinals and that's your entire basis for claiming a rivalry.
    • You say, "several extremely close pennant/division races and prior to the introduction of divisions in the MLB had a sustained level of competitiveness" but you fail to point out when those close seasons were; you prefer to generalize by saying "several" and thus the rest of us have to guess if we don't know the specifics. But, as I've pointed out above, they've had four close seasons: 1926, 1939, 1964 and 2010. Four close seasons in over 125 years of baseball hardly seems to make a rivalry. You write, "Everyone can agree that the fact that the Reds were put in the west and the Cardinals in the east made no sense, and it effectively ruined the rivalry..." But I would not agree with this statement because I would not agree that they had a rivalry in the first place. Your assuming your conclusion. You also say, "Now that the teams have been put back into the same division and the Reds have had time to rebuild (and 14 years is not long compared to 125 years of MLB), the rivalry has been restarted." So one good season means there's a rivalry? True rivalries don't depend on both teams having constant success. Cardinal fans and Cubs fans always hate each other, even though the latter has been historically inept. The same goes for NY/BOS and LA/SF. If your saying this rivalry only exists when both teams play well then it's not really a rivalry; it's merely a race between two teams that happen to be good at the moment.
    • Sir, you and your arguments have not been ignored. Your dislike of the responses that are given is not the same thing as no response being given. It is your responsibility to make the case that this rivalry exists and, what's even more important, provide reliable sources to substantiate those claims. So far only one source has been given. I have tried hard to follow your argument point by point in my response. If you believe that I have failed to sufficiently address something you've raised then tell me specifically what it is and I will be glad to speak to that point. But I don't believe this constitutes a rivalry and thus believe the page should be deleted and should not be added to the MLB rivalries page. (If it's deleted for not being a substantial rivalry then why add it to a page about substantial rivalries?) Ultimahero ( talk) 04:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC) reply

So you say, "But I don't believe this constitutes a rivalry and thus believe the page should be deleted". So your opinion is what determines if it is kept? I believe that is in direct violation of the policy on who decides the article's fate, as you have taken part in discussion. Unless you are not in charge of it, then your argument that "you think it should be deleted" is no better than mine that it should be kept. As far as unsourced remarks in my post, those are statements that have already been made on the talk page for the article; I am simply restating them. It is not the easiest thing to find sources for topics of this nature that date back into the early/mid 1900s. There are many, many sources that back up the current events and claim it to be a rivalry. Why would so many media sources call it a rivalry if it was only one event?

Articles that call it a rivalry found by searching "reds cardinals rivalry" on Google:

• http://digitalsportsdaily.com/mlb/2807-reds-cardinals-rivalry-heating-up.html
• http://sullybaseball.blogspot.com/2010/09/cardinals-vs-reds-could-be-rivalry-of.html
• http://www.fungoes.net/2010/08/16/the-reds-cardinals-rivalry-in-perspective/
• http://bleacherreport.com/articles/433691-brandon-phillips-brawl-great-for-cardinalsreds-rivalry-baseball - this one specifically addresses the Reds-Cardinals rivalry compared to others
• http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/bernie-miklasz/article_2b61fe77-0037-5cad-beff-cd067789a33c.html - a St. Louis sportswriter who agrees with the rivalry!!!
• http://blogredmachine.com/2011/01/24/the-rivalry-renewed-cincinnati-reds-vs-st-louis-cardinals/
• http://www.101espn.com/post/54887_welcome_to_the_cardinalsreds_rivalry

I stopped after half of page 2 and already here are sources. BeenChanged ( talk) 21:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Sir, I told you that if you felt your arguments were being ignored then just tell me and I will respond. But you did not tell me which ones, if any, you feel I've failed to address. And I have every right to participate in this discussion. Furthermore, you must realize that by taking different sides we necessarily will argue our points in different ways. You have to provide sources because your trying to establish a position. Certainly I cannot be expected to provide sources to prove that something DOESN'T EXIST, can I? So all I can do is respond to what you say, which I believe I've done so. It's true that I said, "But I don't believe this constitutes a rivalry and thus believe the page should be deleted", but that isn't all I said. That was a summary statement of my position. I've written much more on the topic, and, quite frankly, I feel as though it is my responses that have gone unheard.

As to you sources, thank you for posting them here. The first one calls it a rivalry but in no way substantiates the claim. We don't know if it's referring to a perceived historical rivalry or just one season. The second is a blog, which is not exactly scholarly, that says the rivalry, COULD BE the next big rivalry. This source cannot be used on the basis that it is projecting into the future. The third attempts to detail 1/2 finishes between the two clubs, although as I've pointed out half of what it provides don't really count because they were blowout years (1885, 1887, 1943, and 2000). And even this article admits that there have been many long stretches of nothingness between two teams. And, I'm not sure what the source is. It's not a paper, so I'm unsure if it's even acceptable. The fourth source has the same problem as the first, namely, it does not explain if the rivalry is historical or recent, although it seems to be referring to recent events only. The fifth talks about the rivalry as if it were just starting, saying, "The NL Central needs a fresh-popping rivalry" and "But we've got something cooking, and the Cardinals and Reds have the ingredients for a feisty rivalry." So that source clearly speaks to what the rivalry COULD BE. The sixth article speaks of "renewing" the rivalry, but it's clearly speaking of renewing the intensity of 2010, not historically. The final link did not work.

So of your 7 sources, 1 doesn't work, 5 focus only on the recent history and the projected future (and thus cannot be accepted due to violating recentism) and only one COULD work. However, the one possibly good source, the third article, is the one that I'm unsure is usable because I don't know what it is. (It's clearly not a paper.) But please tell me it you know. So thanks for attempting to bring articles, but you'll have to keep trying because most of these don't meet the criteria. Ultimahero ( talk) 20:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC) reply

If you are talking about the "Fungoes" article, it says it is an ESPN affiliate blog. That would be reliable. Why do you discount the fifth article. It is by a writer for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. His article says that the rivalry "ranges from the boardroom to the clubhouse". That is not talking about the future, that is the present and the past. In talking about the rivalry rekindling itself, he says "This new rivalry isn't quite code red, but it's getting there." This proves my point that although it isn't yet very prominent, it does exist.

On an unrelated note, I did not mention any of my arguments I thought were being ignored because they are not being ignored. They are being shot down with the same old "I [you the user] think it doesn't exist, therefore it should be deleted. You haven't cited any sources (debatable), therefore your opinion can't possibly be correct and I [you the user] win. Delete." BeenChanged ( talk) 02:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC) reply

You made a point by point case for your argument, and I have responded point by point. Although I do agree that until now you have not included enough sources (although more would be helpful), I have interacted with your points. Please see my responses above and reply to them. Again, I do not deny that the Reds and Cardinals have a rivalry in a very generic sense. But it's only a rivalry from one season, 2010. It's not old enough to be considered a true rivalry. I explained why I do not count the fifth source. I wrote, "The fifth talks about the rivalry as if it were just starting, saying, "The NL Central needs a fresh-popping rivalry" and "But we've got something cooking, and the Cardinals and Reds have the ingredients for a feisty rivalry." So that source clearly speaks to what the rivalry COULD BE." The article is focused on the 2010 and beyond; it doesn't establish any history. Thank you for pointing out the third source is an ESPN affiliate. Do you know who the author is? Finally, since you only defended the 3rd and 5th sources, are you agreeing that the others are inadmissible? Ultimahero ( talk) 02:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC) reply

This section of the discussion is the only part I have contributed to (apart from a small post in the section below). So I have been responding and your above posts have already been responded to with responses I agree with. The Fungoes blog does not give an author. It is powered by WordPress and is a Cardinals based blog, which helps further disprove the argument that Cardinals fans do not agree it is a rivalry. That is simply the opinion of one Cardinals fan. Much like the assumption that I am pushing for this because I don't like the Cardinals, which is not true. I don't like the Cardinals, but I am pushing for this because I think it is indeed a real rivalry, I am passionate about writing the article about it, and when I say Reds fans don't like them, I don't mean I don't, I mean many Reds fans don't. BeenChanged ( talk) 02:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC) reply

With all due respect, sir, I don't think you've responded to my responses. For example, you originally wrote, "The Reds were picked to finish near the bottom of the standings in 1961, instead they made it to the World Series. The Cardinals were the powerhouse of the 1960s, so that is clearly an upset which causes rivalry." I replied by saying, "You're misrepresenting the NL in the 60's when you say, "The Reds were picked to finish near the bottom of the standings in 1961, instead they made it to the World Series. The Cardinals were the powerhouse of the 1960s, so that is clearly an upset which causes rivalry." The Cardinals did field strong teams in the 60's, winning three NL Pennants. However, the Dodgers also won three pennants and they finished 2nd to the Reds in 1961. So how was 61 an upset of the Cardinals specifically, as opposed to say the Dodgers who were in 2nd place? (And the Cardinals didn't have a 2nd place finish until 1963, or 1st until 1964, which suggests that they weren't at their best until a few years after the Reds reached the World Series. Also, can you please provide sources to back up the claim that the Reds were predicted to finish near the bottom?)" I don't believe that you've replied to this or any of my other responses. If you have then please direct me to them. But you can see that I'm not simply dismissing your arguments. Thus I would expect the same in return. Ultimahero ( talk) 02:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Also, in my last post I reiterated why I don't accept the fifth source, and you did not reply. I also asked if you were disavowing the other sources since you didn't defend them. Finally, the third source does not really seem to indicate that the two teams have been long standing rivals. It asks why they aren't generally linked, then answers that question. The reason they never had much connection through their early years is explained when the author says this: "But though they supplied many Hall of Famers along the way, the Reds — how to put this delicately — have for the most part stunk." The author then explains that they were in different divisions for a long time. So the author never really seems to indicate that the teams had a standout rivalry from their history. Ultimahero ( talk) 02:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Oh, also, the opening line of the third source says this: "The weekend series notwithstanding, the Cardinals have said goodbye to their old rivals in Chicago and Houston and are engaging a new one in the Cincinnati Reds." So it specifically refers to the Reds as a "new" rivalry. Ultimahero ( talk) 03:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC) reply

It seems the delete side feels there are not enough reliable sources to warrant the rivalry to have its own article besides the recent events. However, there are plenty of sources talking about the rivalry as it is today. I agree with the delete side that the rivalry today alone does not warrant an article as that is a violation of Recentism. I voted keep initially because of the heated playoff races in the 60's. Some on the delete side feel that this should not be even mentioned on the MLB Rivalry page. With all due respect to my fellow editors, I simply cannot agree with that notion at all. The rivalry IS notable today and multiple RS show not only that, but even go as far to call it THE rivalry of today. If we included this on the MLB Rivalry page in it's own section, condensed the current article as it is as per WP:WEIGHT, I would agree to that and think it is a fair compromise based on WP standards due to notability and the RS that talk about the notability of the rivalry as it is today. Adding a caveat with "Recently, the Reds and Cardinals have developed what pundits X, Y and Z call the best rivalry in baseball." I do not see how not having a paragraph in the page is unreasonable. Arnabdas ( talk) 16:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• You seem to be saying that you're basing this supposed "notability" off of the recent competition between these two teams. (You even suggest adding the caveat "recently.) So, it would seem that you do not consider any of the other information (1964, the fight in 1967, etc.) to be sagas in a long-going rivalry. Thus, if you are basing everything off of what has happened recently, then are you suggesting that one competitive season is enough to make a rivalry. If that's what you're saying, then should there also be mentions of Rays/Yankees, Giants/Padres, and Dodgers/Rockies? These are all division opponents that had close seasons from the last two years. Does every duo with one close season deserve mention? Does one close season create a rivalry? In my belief there's no way that a single year can constitute a true rivalry. To give mention to one season of work is blatantly in violation of Wikipedia's Recentism policy. If either the Cardinals or Reds fade in 2011 will the section be removed from the MLB Rivalries page? The simple fact of the matter is that it's far too early to call this a rivalry. And while I don't doubt that some have prematurely jumped to that conclusion (although I note that you still failed to provide any sources for such an assertion) it doesn't mean that they are correct to do so. Ultimahero ( talk) 17:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Please do not misrepresent what I said. I am saying that the rivalry was RENEWED now, but can understand the opposition to it warranting its own article. The rivalry existed before and 64 and 67 represent that. I don't understand your ardent opposition to a couple of lines being inserted in the main article saying something along the lines of "the Reds an Cardinals have been noted to renew their rivalry recently." The actual statement can be debated by all means, but I do not understand your refusal to include one paragraph that is sourced reliably. Arnabdas ( talk) 15:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC) reply
    • I am not misrepresenting what you said. Notice that I SPECIFICALLY said, "You SEEM to be saying" and "IF you are basing...". Please read my comments more carefully. Above you did call it a renewal, but just here you suggested calling it "recent". Specifically, you suggested we write, "Recently, the Reds and Cardinals have developed what pundits X, Y and Z call the best rivalry in baseball." So your focus would be on the recent present, not the past. You mention nothing about the teams renewing the rivalry, at least not in this section. Furthermore, a development is substantially different than a renewal. That's why I was confused. Either the teams had a rivalry in the past and such info deserves mention, or they didn't have a rivalry in the past and thus it would not be mentioned. You seem to be suggesting that, yes indeed, they had a true rivalry before but we don't have to talk about that part. But that makes no sense to me. We can't focus on just one season or else we are violating the recentism policy. And I oppose a paragraph on the rivalry because I don't feel that one actually has existed throughout their history. That's what you must substantiate, with sources, before we can "compromise" on including it. Ultimahero ( talk) 19:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Indrian, the policy violation is regarding a separate article, not the topic itself. So my compromise is to include it in the general MLB rivalry page. The rivalry is of note and I stand by that due to the numerous sources I have found. However, a separate article would in fact be of recentism because almost all of the sources are about the current rivalry.
• While I appreciate your desire for compromise, it really does not seem necessary here. A policy argument has been made and the vast majority appear to find it valid. A compromise is what is needed when there is a more even split in views. Consensus seems to be that this article violates policy, and your compromise would not really cure that violation. Furthermore, you have not provided any of these numerous sources calling it the rivalry of today. Indrian ( talk) 17:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I didn't know you expected me to actually publish those sources here, but since you mentioned it: http://digitalsportsdaily.com/mlb/2807-reds-cardinals-rivalry-heating-up.html
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/433691-brandon-phillips-brawl-great-for-cardinalsreds-rivalry-baseball
http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/bernie-miklasz/article_2b61fe77-0037-5cad-beff-cd067789a33c.html
http://thecincinnatiman.com/baseball-brawl-reds-cardinals-duke-it-out-tcm-is-there/
http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/bernie-miklasz/article_0b189910-29da-5088-8539-17a18615fba2.html
http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/blog?name=olney_buster&id=5454489&action=upsell&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fmlb%2fblog%3fname%3dolney_buster%26id%3d5454489
http://www.101espn.com/category/csaunders-blogs/20100810/Welcome-to-the-Cardinals~Reds-rivalry!/
http://www.stlsports.org/pressbox/2010_Arch_Rivalry_Cardinals_Double_Play_Package_8_19_10.php
http://www.journal-news.com/hamilton-sports/cincinnati-reds/did-bronson-arroyo-cheat-cardinals-say-he-did-326832.html
http://www.mancavesports.org/walk-off-wrap-brandon-phillips-starts-a-rivalry-with-words%E2%80%A6really-mean-words/
http://www.scoresreport.com/2010/08/10/brandon-phillips%E2%80%99-comments-about-the-cardinals-refreshing/
http://www.shelbystar.com/articles/rivalries-48929-sports-seasons.html
http://sullybaseball.blogspot.com/2010/09/cardinals-vs-reds-could-be-rivalry-of.html
Arnabdas ( talk) 15:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC) reply

When teams exist as long as the Reds and Cardinals, it is inevitable that there will be brief periods when the two teams will be in close races, and/or see heated games. That this has happened, and may have recently happened is (I think) not a contention for debate. At issue: does all of this constitute a rivalry? The only way to demonstrate this is with multiple reliable sources, and the burden of proof for that, IMO, has not been met. Contrast this to the relationship between the Dodgers-Giants .... which have been in near continuous rivalry for the better part of 125 years ... or the White Sox and Cubs, which have a realtively unique rivalry in that they rarely played each other ... and had more of a fan rivalry. It seems that the relationship between the Reds and Cardinals sees occasional times when they are in heated contests ... but nothing that meets the level of "notable rivalry". LonelyBeacon ( talk) 18:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC) reply

My recently provided sources will support Arnabdas' claims. And if all "worthy" rivalries have a page, what is the point of the MLB rivalries page? Unless, of course, it would be to provide some information on less prominent rivalries than the "big ones" that are the delete side's basis for why Reds-Cardinals is not a rivalry (violation of Other Stuff Exists). BeenChanged ( talk) 21:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC) reply

No, the point of the MLB Rivalries page is not to provide info on "less prominent rivalries". The MLB Rivalries page serves as a hub for all other relevant rivalries. If a rivalry is deemed significant to have a page, it's mentioned on the MLB Rivalries page. Obviously that page would be ridiculously long if we tried to put all the information of all the rivalries there. So each rivalry gets a small section, usually just a paragraph, and a link the bigger article. But a rivalry must be important enough to warrant it's own page to be included on the MLB Rivalries page and vice versa. Ultimahero ( talk) 23:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC) reply

1. You've got a fair amount of blogs on that list, but not all blogs are reliable sources. 2. Those all appear to be discussing the situation from LAST YEAR... not a LONG-STANDING rivalry between the two teams. Again, WP:RECENT/ WP:CRYSTAL applies. umrguy 42 14:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC) reply

As I said before umrguy, how does that not warrant a couple of sentences in the MLB rivalry article as a mention? As for your comments on blogs, most of those blogs are well known ones that are popular and thus for Wikipedia purposes meet WP:RS. Arnabdas ( talk) 16:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC) reply

"Popular" does not necessarily equal "reliable". More importantly, you haven't addressed my second point - all they are really good for is discussing LAST YEAR's events - not a historic rivalry as a whole, violating WP:RECENT. Many speculate that it will lead to a new rivalry, but that violates WP:CRYSTAL. And taking last year's fracas, and combining with past things, violates WP:SYNTH, or at best, is violating WP:ONESOURCE with the WSJ article. umrguy 42 17:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Well all of those sources are reliable as per Wikipedia so that discussion is moot. I did address your 2nd point. I already changed my choice from "Keep" to "Merge" since I do agree with you that 1 year is not enough to warrant it's own article. However, stating specifically something along the lines of "recently, a rivalry between the Reds and Cardinals has re-ignited from their peak in the 60's due to these fights in 2010" does not violate anything at all. It in fact, calls for a notable mention in the article itself because the topic IS notable. Arnabdas ( talk) 19:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC) reply

You continue to assume your conclusion. You're saying, "See? 2010 re-ignited this rivalry from the '60's!" But those of us in favor of deletion are not sure such a rivalry ever did exist in the 1960's. You must prove that it did, through reliable sources. Ultimahero ( talk) 00:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC) reply

What I'm saying is, other than the WSJ article, has there been any other source that establishes an actual rivalry in the 60s? Saying "well, they were both good, and there was the thing in 1964, and the fight in '67, and they've played each other for over 100 years" doesn't establish it. We need sources that say "Cards and Reds have had a rivalry going back to the '60s (or before)". And to be honest, I'm not sure you're really going to find that - I wager most St. Louis fans don't see it as a "rivalry" in the "notable" sense of the term (i.e., on par with Cards-Cubs, Yanks-Sox, Dodgers-Giants), which makes it really tough to be that notable. But this is getting us nowhere - my final (repeated) comment - as it stands, the article is a mess (even though it's well-written) of synthesized WP:ONESOURCE material with WP:UNDUE weight on WP:RECENT events, trying to argue that it has the potential to develop into a nice rivalry (for how long?) umrguy 42 20:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC) reply

The first three sources were also given by BeenChanged above, and I pointed out to him that they all focus on the present. Four and five also only focus on the recent. Six is not an acceptable source because it links to ESPN's insider section, which requires payment and subscription to view, so the majority of Wikipedians couldn't even open it. Seven is recent. Eight is not about Cards/Reds specifically but rather about some festival called "Arch rivalry festivities" explaining how much tickets cost to interested fans, with a Reds/Cardinals game on the agenda. Nine, ten, eleven, and twelve are all about recent events. Finally, thirteen is the blog projecting what the rivalry MIGHT BE. So I don't think any of these sources are acceptable because none of them substantiate what the rivalry is about.

Also, it appears that what the "keep " side (or "merge" side) is doing is simply going to google and searching for "reds/cardinals rivalry" and then putting the links here without even checking what they're about. If that's not what you're doing then I apologize but it sure looks that way. Specifically, source number eight leads me to believe this. If you were reading the sources before posting them then I don't see how you could possibly think this was relevant. Again, if I'm wrong then tell me, but I think you need to explain what you believed this source offered if you were really reading it.

Finally, I don't think it's fair for the "Keep" side to put a bunch of links and expect the "delete" side to sift through them all. It's the responsibility of the "keep" side to go through the sources and pull out all relevant info. I'm not saying I still wouldn't check the sources myself, but I shouldn't be obligated to do so. Ultimahero ( talk) 20:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf ( talk) 03:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Fuzzy matrix theory (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Deeply fringe; cargo-cult mathematics. bobrayner ( talk) 21:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep change to no opinion, see below.-- Pgallert ( talk) 08:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC) (and improve, obviously) The term is not only used by the authors of the cited book (which does exist even if the link in the article does not work for me; find it here). This and this paper use the term, and both Automaton and ieeexplore are respectable publishers. From checking at Google Scholar it looks like an established term to me. -- Pgallert ( talk) 08:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Can you even find the home page for the Automaton (which is actually misspelled, it should be Automation) publishing company? WorldCat indicates virtually no holdings for this book anywhere in the world. [3] Tijfo098 ( talk) 21:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

And what's with the IEEE red herring? There is no such reference in the article, and your searches above don't support the theory claimed to be introduced in this article/book. Tijfo098 ( talk) 14:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 14:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Fair response. Was mistaken with my Automaton remark--I thought I had such journal on my desk the other day, but it must have had a different name. Sorry for adding to the confusion. What I meant with my Google Scholar link and the papers was this: It is clear this title is not a hoax, and not a neologism. The remark "fringe" does not make much sense in mathematics. It can be wrong, or it can be utterly unimportant, in which case it will be forgotten soon, but the platform for opinions is rather small. Change my !vote to "no opinion" because I did not read those papers and can thus not say whether the article does at least rudimentarily sum up what they say on fuzzy matrix theory. -- Pgallert ( talk) 08:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep (striken, now agreeing with Tijfo, Eppstein and others.) The subject dates back to at least the 1970's and there are plenty of academic references. I think the nominator is mistaken in saying that it is fringe. I agree that the current article is extremely poor; the only reference in it may not even be mainstream for fuzzy matrices. Dingo1729 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC). reply
• Is "fringe" bad? And is it grounds for deletion? Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• I think there is some confusion here. The term fuzzy matrix does appear in many sources; e.g. [4], and it usually represents a fuzzy relation [5] (Springer book's author home page [6]) [7]. But the so-called "Fuzzy matrix theory" (which I'm not really sure what it describes) appears to be limited to Smarandache et co. A more appropriat title would be fuzzy relational calculus, [8], but I doubt a separate page from fuzzy relation is needed give we don't even have that. Like always, Wikipedia first gathers spam on a topic before useful articles. Tijfo098 ( talk) 20:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I admit to the confusion. Having read more of the single reference in the article I now realize that it is not the fuzzy matrix theory which I thought it was. I thought it involved probabilistic, normally distributed entries in the matrix. I really don't know whether this mathematics is used by social scientists. Dingo1729 ( talk) 20:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

The standard textbook in the area [9] by Klir and Yuan has some 4000+ citations in google scholar. It has a chapter (#5) on fuzzy relations (which can be presented as matrixes if they are finitary fuzzy binary relations) but no such topic as "fuzzy matrix" or "fuzzy matrix theory" which are present in Wikipedia. Tijfo098 ( talk) 21:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Strong delete per my analysis above. Tijfo098 ( talk) 21:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete. The book on this topic given as the sole reference has only 4 citations in Google scholar, which appear to be references in passing. An example: "As a final conclusion, the approach opens the door towards more future extensions of the proposed approach to other global optimization techniques [11-15] and for solving other mathematical programming problems ...", in which the book is one of those included in the mass citation "[11-15]".  -- Lambiam 10:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete a theory included in a book published in 2007 cannot have gotten that notable in this few years. Nergaal ( talk) 16:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• The actual theory predates these authors by decades, and is notable. It's just not called this way by almost everyone else. The wiki article sadly imparts no real information as to what the theory is about; it just advertises a book which is not even remotely a mainstream one on the topic, and it makes a false claim of priority—false in any substantive sense; the only contribution of these authors seems to be the clever reuse of a commonly used term with "theory" attached to it. Tijfo098 ( talk) 18:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete. The confusion already present in this AfD (and the Google scholar citation counts) makes it obvious that fuzzy matrices are notable but that the Smarandache approach to it is not. And as an aside, the social scientists I've worked with are quite mathematically sophisticated and aren't interested in making their math fuzzy. After deletion, a redirect (without merging any of the content) to fuzzy associative matrix might make sense, but that article is in very sad shape too. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf ( talk) 03:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC) reply

April 11, 1954 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

I don't see how one computer program result can confer notability on a single date. Prod was contested; borderline speedyable, perhaps. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Some guy made a program on some computer, input some indiscriminate data, and somehow concluded that this particular day was boring, and it was even reported on some other guys blog. Sounds perfectly reasonable. Not particularly notable however. Delete Dennis Brown ( talk) 21:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete. This story was picked up on by the press in the UK but it is just a silly-season story used to fill space and amuse. It has no real intellectual or encyclopaedic value. There might be a place for mentioning it somewhere in Wikipedia (perhaps in the article on boredom), provided it is referenced to a reliable secondary source, but it does not justify an article of its own. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 21:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Weak delete. It's gotten some mention in popular culture - it was featured in this Sunday's Luann (comic strip) by Greg Evans - but nothing major. Bearian ( talk) 21:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete The newspapers of the world didn't shut down on April 11, 1954 due to a lack of news to report. The topic of this article is far less notable than the events of that day. Cullen328 ( talk) 21:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete, it is completely unencyclopedic. Maybe find a way to work it into the main article on April 11, but I can't really see how. BurtAlert ( talk) 22:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete: A stint as a news filler. Joe Chill ( talk) 01:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 14:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete: Not sure about the blog source being a RS, but if this was reported elsewhere by RSs, then the info should be in the April 11 and 1954 articles. Mjroots ( talk) 07:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Dennis Brown. -- Joaquin008 ^{( talk)} 14:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf ( talk) 04:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Magic–Pistons rivalry (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:

Heat–Pistons rivalry (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable NBA rivalry. There are no sources that assert notability, other than game recaps of the times the teams met in the regular season and playoffs. X96lee15 ( talk) 21:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. — X96lee15 ( talk) 21:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete Article appears to be WP:OR to claim a "rivalry" based on WP:ROUTINE coverage of games. No sources are currently cited, nor does any significant coverage appear possible of being found. — Bagumba ( talk) 00:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Sttrong Strong Strong Delete This article has about fifty words. WP:OR and WP:ROUTINE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soxrock24 ( talk • contribs) 02:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Christian Thomas (ice hockey) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Non- notable hockey player. Overdrawn Invader ( talk) 20:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Redirect or keep - The article appropriately redirected to another article which discussed the subject (with appropriate sources) before the nominator expanded the redirect into an inappropriate standalone article. If the subject is not notable, that redirect should be restored. However, given full length articles about the subject in the Toronto Star, New York Post and Newsday, and a short article in the Vancouver Sun, the subject may well be notable enough to keep. Rlendog ( talk) 21:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• I've expanded the article, with multiple substantive sources. That, along with his achievement of being part of the first father-son combination to score 50 goals in the OHL, should be enough to keep, but if not, restoring the redirect is more appropriate than deletion. Rlendog ( talk) 21:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Redirect with a possible lean towards keep. The nominator them self created the article which was a redirect that was already in place and then nominated it for deletion. If they nominator didn't think it should be an article not sure why they changed it to one. If they didn't think it should be a redirect then they should have put it up at redirects for discussion. - DJSasso ( talk) 23:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. — DJSasso ( talk) 00:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep: Doesn't meet NHOCKEY on his own, but has received significant coverage in a variety of secondary sources Toronto Star, NHL.com, Hockey News Canada Hky ( talk) 04:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 14:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete, Fails WP:NHOCKEY. Sources provided do not provide significant coverage of this junior hockey player. A search for other sources doesn't come up with much, therefore fails WP:N. A REDLINE is much better than a redirect for young sports persons who might later become notable. Auseplot ( talk) 21:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• I am not sure why you say that "sources provided do not provide significant coverage" when the article itself includes references to 3 full length non-routine articles in major newspapers about this person, which alone should be enough to satisfy WP:GNG. With respect to the redirect vs. redline, the original redirect was to a section of a different article that has appropriate information about this person, including a unique accomplishment in which they both shared. So why would a redline be preferable in this case, regardless of whether he is or becomes notable in the future or not? Rlendog ( talk) 13:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep as Rlendog and Canada Hky have pointed out above, enough sources have been provided to satisfy the General Notability Guideline. Qrsdogg ( talk) 19:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Meets GNG due to extent of coverage, so NHOCKEY is a moot point. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 01:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was KEEP. The consensus below is WP:GNG is satisfied. One of the two deletion !votes is improperly based only on the current state of the article rather than its potential, and so was given little weight. postdlf ( talk) 17:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Ryan Bourque (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Non- notable hockey player. Overdrawn Invader ( talk) 20:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Redirect or keep - This article appropriately redirected to another well sourced article that discussed the player before the nominator inappropriately expanded it into a bogus an inappropriate standalone article. If the subject is not notable, the redirect should be restored. However, I was able to find some articles specifically about the subject, so he might be notable enough to keep. Rlendog ( talk) 21:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Based on the sources below, I am inclined to keep, and would be happy to expand the article using those sources once this AfD closes. Rlendog ( talk) 13:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Redirect back to the page it was originally redirected to. The nominator themself created this page and then nominated it for deletion for no apparent reason. If they felt the redirect should have been deleted then they should have put that up at Redirects for discussion. - DJSasso ( talk) 23:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. — DJSasso ( talk) 00:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep: Doesn't meet NHOCKEY, but there is a significant amount of secondary coverage: Boston Herald, NHL.com, National Post (quoting him, not as significant as the others) Canada Hky ( talk) 04:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• I am not sure nhl.com counts towards notability, but there is also significant independent coverage in the Daily News and others: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18] and more minor coverage elsewhere [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24] Rlendog ( talk) 13:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 14:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete, Fails WP:NHOCKEY. Sources provided do not provide significant coverage of this junior hockey player. A search for other sources doesn't come up with much, therefore fails WP:N. A REDLINE is much better than a redirect for young sports persons who might later become notable. Auseplot ( talk) 21:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• With respect to the redirect vs. redline, the original redirect was to a section of a different article that has appropriate information about this person. So why would a redline be preferable in this case, regardless of whether he becomes notable in the future or not? Rlendog ( talk) 13:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• See for example item 5 under WP:R#KEEP. Rlendog ( talk) 01:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep sources provided by Rlendog meet WP:N quite easily. Hobit ( talk) 01:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep The nontrivial coverage in reliable sources found by Canada Hky ( talk · contribs) and Rlendog ( talk · contribs) demonstrates that Ryan Bourque is notable. The coverage ranges from 2008 to 2011. Spanning several years, the coverage decisively establishes that Ryan Bourque passes Wikipedia:Notability, which supersedes the subject notability guidelines. Cunard ( talk) 06:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete The article currently amounts to two lines of text and one reference, so still fails Wikipedia:Notability. If folks are concerned about keeping the article then a little work on the article would not go amis.-- Salix ( talk): 15:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf ( talk) 19:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Jedediah Harrell (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

No particular notability and unsourced. Clarityfiend ( talk) 20:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Not a single hit expect for the Wikipedia article and mirrors of it... hoax? Delete. BurtAlert ( talk) 22:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Delete No sources, reeks of hoax. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 14:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 14:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete per above. -- Joaquin008 ^{( talk)} 19:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was KEEP. postdlf ( talk) 03:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Petteri Similä (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Non- notable hockey player. Played with KalPa’s A junior team. Looked but could not find any information to support claim that he played in one SM-liiga game (outside of Eliteprospects.com which does not shows minutes played). Overdrawn Invader ( talk) 20:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Comment - Why are minutes played relevant? If the information from Eliteprospects.com is correct, [25] he played a game in the SM-liiga, which should be enough to meet WP:NHOCKEY. Rlendog ( talk) 21:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep per Djsasso in the absence of any valid reason to delete. Rlendog ( talk) 00:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep played a game in the SM-liiga. This is more than enough to meet WP:NHOCKEY. And eliteprospects has been considered reliable before so no reason to doubt it now. - DJSasso ( talk) 23:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. — DJSasso ( talk) 00:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 14:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Keep - Played in one SM-Liga game which satisfies WP:NHOCKEY as playing in a fully professional league. He played 25.1 minutes on Dec 12, 2010 as is shown here. - Pparazorback ( talk) 18:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Meets NHOCKEY. Patken4 ( talk) 19:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep, Sources provided do not provide significant coverage of this junior hockey player. A search for other sources doesn't come up with much, therefore fails WP:N, but it has been shown that he played in the SM-liiga, so he passes WP:NHOCKEY. Auseplot ( talk) 21:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Passes WP:NHOCKEY. -- Joaquin008 ^{( talk)} 16:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf ( talk) 02:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Jedediah Chapman (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Civil War captain with no particular distinction. Clarityfiend ( talk) 20:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 14:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 14:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete: unreferenced biography (most of the possible sources seem to be only geneology sites or WP clones), and no assertations of notability (fails WP:GNG and WP:MILPEOPLE). Additionally, seems to be a pretty close copy of his entry on Find a Grave; I don't think they've released copyright. bahamut0013 ^words _deeds 14:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Far too junior to be notable without additional reason. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete - subject seems to lack "significant coverage" in WP:RS and therefore fails WP:GNG. Anotherclown ( talk) 09:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Lots of men fought and died in the Civil War, and while all played a role in an important part in U.S. history, not all participants are inherently notable in their own right. I salute Jedediah Chapman, but I do not see how he meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. -- Sgt. R.K. Blue ( talk) 07:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. — Sgt. R.K. Blue ( talk) 07:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Joaquin008 ^{( talk)} 16:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. / ƒETCH COMMS / 02:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Martin Marinčin (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Non- notable hockey player. Played in Slovakia's U20 league. Overdrawn Invader ( talk) 20:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal ( talk) 22:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Keep: Marincin played in Slovakia's top professional league, as a member of Slovakia's U20 team. Canada Hky ( talk) 03:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 14:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep - per Gene93k. Nominator gives no valid reason why this player should be considered "non-notable". Just because he played in the U20 league doesn't make him non-notable. Playing in the Slovak Extraliga does make him notable though. Rlendog ( talk) 16:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Non notable hockey player who currently fails WP:NHOCKEY. Cannot find any confirmation that he actually played in the Slovak Extraliga. The U-20 team is a junior level team and not a part of the top league that would make him notable should he had played in it. - Pparazorback ( talk) 18:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

  The U20 is not a junior level team per se. They are a Slovak Extraliga team (HK Orange 20) made up of Slovakia's best junior prospects. Elite Prospects shows him playing for Team Slovakia U20 ( HK Orange 20) ( Link), also, an Edmonton Journal interview Link, TSN.ca shows HK Orange 20 as his club team Link Canada Hky ( talk) 18:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• You beat me to this. HK Orange 20 is a Slovak Extraliga team. Rlendog ( talk) 19:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I go back and forth on this one. We used to delete junior players who were playing in top level leagues but were playing as a junior not a pro. ie the were playing in the pro league but as an unpaid junior. But that was before the change from wp:athlete to the new wp:nsports. - DJSasso ( talk) 19:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep. He plays in the top division in a country that is significant, even though his team is semi-pro/amateur. Patken4 ( talk) 19:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete, Fails WP:NHOCKEY because he has not played on a senior national team. Sources provided do not provide significant coverage of this junior hockey player. A search for other sources doesn't come up with much, therefore fails WP:N. Auseplot ( talk) 22:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Comment: He passes criteria 1 of NHOCKEY: "Played one or more games in an existing or defunct top professional league such as the National Hockey League, World Hockey Association, Elitserien, SM-liiga, or Kontinental Hockey League" by playing in the Slovak Extraliga. Canada Hky ( talk) 03:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep Given the fact that the Slovakia Extraliga is "an existing...top professional league," and thus, by virtue of having played in that league, Marinčin passes the letter of WP:NHOCKEY. On the other hand, Marinčin was playing in that league on a particular team because he was a junior player, not a pro; as such, one could make the case that he is notable only through a loophole in the criteria. This is all pretty dicey, but I don't think it would be proper to delete the article at this time. Passing the guideline through a loophole, if that's what this is, still constitutes passing the guideline. A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 10:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Comment, Non-notable hockey player. He hasn't played on a senior national team and he did not play in the Slovak Extraliga (he played on their junior league) so he doesn't pass WP:NHOCKEY. Overdrawn Invader ( talk) 14:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. This is an entirely unsourced article about a living person. By being nominated for AfD it has become contentious. WP:BLPREMOVE instructs us to "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced". The article is therefore deleted without regard to the arguments about the notability of obscure (para-)nobility. But the discussion indicates that if any sourced information about this person is re-added to Wikipedia, it should be as an addition to his father's article, rather than as a standalone article.  Sandstein  06:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Prince Odysseas-Kimon of Greece and Denmark (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

The subject of this article is a six-year old who "is currently enrolled at knights bridge school in London". (Straight from the first lead paragraph.) It appears that this boy has never done anything notable, and he does not even come close to passing WP:BIO. His name appears in a few press reports having to do with his birth and the births of his siblings, and presumably he appears in the Gotha. That's not the in-depth coverage required by WP:GNG. The article was created by an IP when the boy was 14 months old, presumably on the (invalid) principle that notability is inherited. Hans Adler 19:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

History of this article:

• September 2004: birth of subject.
• November 2004: an IP creates the article
• December 2006: PROD (article still unsourced at this point)
• December 2006: PROD is removed and article turned into a redirect to the father's article
• August 2007: article is restored, still unsourced
• January 2008: article is turned into a redirect to the father's article
• July 2008: same editor as in 2007 restores the article, still unsourced
• April 2011: article still unsourced after 6 1/2 years, with no notability in sight.

Unaware of the history I prodded the article, but Calathan noticed my mistake. I have proposed deletion because (1) a redirect doesn't really make sense for a non-notable person, and (2) it's not clear whether to redirect to father or mother. However, redirect is a conceivable outcome. In this case I would ask for protection of the redirect. Hans Adler 19:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 ( talk) 19:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 ( talk) 19:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 ( talk) 19:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Redirect - but Wikipedia has been a bit lax in the past about Royalty, and based solely on precedent, this would be a keep. Prince Odysseas-Kimon is fourth in line to the Greek throne (if it ever comes back), and somewhere about 268 in line to the British throne (about as likely as King Ralph). A redirect to his father makes sense. I find zero sources online just about this kid. Bearian ( talk) 21:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  • I am sure you are aware that the precedent-based argument is actually the WP:OTHERSTUFF argument and only reflects the recent numerical strength of the fans of nobility cruft. There is no such thing as a Greek throne, as Greece has been a republic since 1974 and there is no reason to believe this is ever going to change again. (The Greek monarchy was a creation of European powers in 1862/63.) Being in the line of succession for this abolished throne doesn't even come close to satisfying WP:BIO as a politician. And 268th in line for the British throne is nothing. The prod in 2006 pointed to WP:Articles_for_deletion/Angelica_Kreuger, an article that was also deleted. That child was 88th in line for the British throne. And as a practical matter, there is simply no material for an article about this child. As usual for this kind of article, it consists entirely of nobilitycruft templates. In a sense this is also a case of WP:BLP1E, the only event that has ever been reported being the child's birth. Hans Adler 21:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I did not know about the Angelica Kreuger precedent. I stand corrected. Bearian ( talk) 20:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

By the way, my "precedent" argument was and is based on WP:OUTCOMES, not WP:OTHERSTUFF. Bearian ( talk) 20:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Sorry, my mistake. Somehow the absurdity of WP:Articles for deletion/Alexandre Louis, Duke of Valois and similar AfDs has disillusioned me w.r.t. previous outcomes of nobility-related deletion discussions. (A not-quite-three-year-old boy who died in 1676 and whose existence is only known from a mention in a letter by his mother. No other sources. AfD ended in keep.) But of course OUTCOMES is still sane as a general principle. Hans Adler 21:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Merge and redirect to Pavlos, Crown Prince of Greece and do the same for the other children. - dwc lr ( talk) 18:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep article as is. This article and those on the remaining siblings are of historical and political interest and are relevant. We maintain articles on children of other monarchies, such as Viscount Severn (England), and even though the Greek monarchy is defunct at the moment, these are still persons of interest. Unless there is a removal request from the children's family, these articles are harmless. As to source-less, give the article time to develop (after all, this is a child) and gain sourced information. As there has been debate on this page, there is clearly interest in maintaining the page. Why not err on the side of inclusion? After all, that was the original idea behind Wikipedia.

Unregistered ( talk) 14:26, 12 April 2011 (PST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.102.20.79 ( talk)

Wrong project. This is Wikipedia, not WikiGotha. This child fails all our notability guidelines. Wikipedia does not aim to give complete genealogical lists of modern representatives of formerly ruling families. And even if it did, it would be utterly pointless to do this by giving each member of such a family a separate page full of ornamental templates that have nothing to do with the person. Not even the Almanach de Gotha, or the various web pages maintained by modern royalty, uh, enthusiasts spend a full page on every little pseudo-royal rugrat or abecedarian. Why should we? Not even an average mayor of a medium-sized city gets an article here. Hans Adler 21:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Comment "December 2006: PROD is removed and article turned into a redirect to the father's article", "January 2008: article is turned into a redirect to the father's article." There's the real problem, whatever those peoples' motivations. Not the person who restored it, who did absolutely the right thing, even if by accident or for bad reasons. If redirecting without discussion is not sanctionable, it should be. Redirected articles are only a little easier to find than deleted ones, and there is a reason we have AFDs, no? Anarchangel ( talk) 22:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  • I wish you were right, but you are not. Try starting an AfD and saying up front that you want the outcome to be redirect rather than deletion. Anyone but a masochist will do that at most once. From the POV of AfD bureaucrat it's a criminal abuse of AfD because, according to them, "redirect" is technically the same outcome as "keep". Some admins even follow this ideology when closing AfDs and close near-unanimous redirect cases with "keep". Hans Adler 23:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Summarise, merge and redirect to Pavlos, Crown Prince of Greece. The nom is quite right that this kid is not notable enough for his own article. If he was the eldest son, fine, but he's the third, so until he does something particularly noteworthy, he's only slightly more notable than a regular six-year-old. Nightw 02:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Merge into father's article and do the same with all his siblings aside from the eldest son. Morhange ( talk) 06:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep notability is in exceptional cases inherited, and one of them is reasonably enough the immediate family of monarchs. DGG ( talk ) 23:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Are you aware that this child was born 30 years after Greece became a republic? I wouldn't consider a grandchild immediate family. The fact that Greece is no longer a monarchy can of course easily be missed in this walled garden of nobilitycruft. Hans Adler 04:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was KEEP. postdlf ( talk) 19:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Terje Svabø (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Google search yields few results other than mirror sites. The only other link to him is part of an unsourced reference on another wikipedia page, Civita. He is not even on the Civita page. Ryan Vesey ( talk) 18:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal ( talk) 22:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal ( talk) 22:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Stuff comes up if you look for Norwegian sites. I added three references and made it a little more accurate. Even without using the Kvasir search engine, I found enough mentions of him, together with that think tank general manager position and the senior TV news positions, to establish notability. Yngvadottir ( talk) 01:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep, nationally known. Geschichte ( talk) 06:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Comment I was unaware of his status in Norway when I created this, I am still glad I tagged it because it seems like it helped the page to improve some. Ryan Vesey ( talk) 12:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep well known in Norway. The article has sufficient reliable sources to establish notability, such as the Dagbladet article which is solely about him and his personal life. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf ( talk) 04:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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

Possibly non notable COI spam; see the user page for the article's creator, Nfitzmaurice ( talk · contribs).

Most of the refs in the article either appear to be: primary, podcasts with person from the subject, or brief mentions. OSborn ^arf _contribs. 18:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 ( talk) 19:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 ( talk) 19:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 ( talk) 19:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete I'm seeing lots of press releases, but not independent coverage. Dennis Brown ( talk) 20:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Reply the discussion runs for 7 days. It is clear from your userpage that you have a direct commercial interest in this product/company. OSborn ^arf _contribs. 19:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

WTF are you talking about? I do believe you have me mistaken for the person you linked to, which isn't me. Also, I was agreeing with your nomination. Dennis Brown ( talk) 17:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I was replying to a comment which was apparently later removed. OSborn ^arf _contribs. 18:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Ah, that explains it. Bad form. He shouldn't have removed it, and simply struck it instead. Dennis Brown ( talk) 18:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Yet another integrated system for clinical operations planning, forecasting, outsourcing, and project tracking. This apparently has to do with tracking clinical drug tests for pharmaceutical companies, but for some reason they just can't allow themselves to say so in English. Claims to minimal significance are only non-notable mutual admiration awards from trade associations. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete- non-notable business; only references provided are PR news releases. Dialectric ( talk) 12:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf ( talk) 04:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Duong Hong Ky (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

WP:V, WP:N: Can't find reliable secondary sources which provide signficant coverage of this musician and community activist, only videos, his blog, and wikimirrors. As such the biography of a living person is both unverified and there is no evidence of meeting the general notability guideline. But it's possible I'm missing something, and additional sourcing, as always, is welcomed. joe decker ^{talk to me} 18:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete - I am unable to find any coverage of the subject in reliable sources. I also looked for coverage for the Chicago International Musicians ensemble in which he is a member and found no coverage there either. -- Whpq ( talk) 19:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 ( talk) 19:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 ( talk) 19:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 ( talk) 19:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete: unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n( talk page) 22:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was KEEP. postdlf ( talk) 02:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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

This article provides only misinformation, and fails WP:VERIFY because the sources do not actually verify what the article purports. The word “uttering”, as a legal term, is used only in conjunction with the U.S. crime of Uttering and publishing, or in Canada/Britain with the crime of Uttering a forged document. Similarly, in commonly law the word has no “stand alone” legal meaning. A search of on-line legal dictionaries [26] [27] fails to find the word “uttering” as a stand-alone legal term. Previous AfD was closed prematurely (after only 12 hours) by a non-admin editor. Securel ( talk) 18:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Comment If the article needs improvement then it should be improved, rather than deleted. "Uttering" is a technical term in English law concerned with passing counterfeit coins: see [28], [29] which has a whole section on "uttering" [30] which defines the standalone term, [31] and [32]. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus ( talk) 19:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 ( talk) 19:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 ( talk) 19:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep Seems to be a notable topic. A case to delete could be made based on "not a dictionary" since the article is mainly about the use of the word, not the crime itself. However it is useful if a person wants to know what the crime of "uttering" is. Kitfoxxe ( talk) 20:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep It helps to add the word "currency" when searching to narrow down the hits to ones that are relevant, which seem to be plentiful in at least scholar. Since it is a legal term, it would be acceptable to have more than a dictionary definition. Probably more commonly used outside of the USA, but that doesn't make it less worthy of an article in the English version of Wikipedia. Dennis Brown ( talk) 21:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep - nominating an article for the second time for AFD when nothing has changed to give a preditable delete result only results in the Keep-votes becoming more firm.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 21:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Comment After reviewing the logs for the first AFD, I do have to agree that it was closed improperly after less than a day and only two comments. That said, I still say to keep the article. Won't hurt to let the process play out. Dennis Brown ( talk) 21:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Since this seemed to work the last time around, I'll try again:

Uttering is clearly a crime in several countries. See the sources in the article (e.g., "Forgery per se is not a crime. The crime is uttering, i.e. using as genuine a fabricated writing falsely intended to pass as genuine the writing of another person." [33]) or this quote: "Uttering (Va. Code 18.2-172) is a separate and distinct offense from forgery. The crime of forgery is complete when the accused has made or altered the writing with the intent to defraud. The crime of uttering occurs when the accused uses or attempts to use a forged writing..." [34] Yes, I suppose something must be uttered just as something must be stolen, someone must be murdered, &c., but that doesn't preclude having an article under those titles at Wikipedia.

See also the following sources for info:

• Charles Curry. "Forgery, and Uttering Forged Instruments". The Virginia Law Register. Vol. 8, No. 2 (June 1902). pp. 79-96.
• David Crystal-Kirk. "Forgery Reforged: Art-Faking and Commercial Passing-off since 1981". The Modern Law Review. Vol. 49, No. 5 (September 1986). pp. 608-616.

—  AjaxSmack  22:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep I have some sympathy for the nominator here - in its original usage to utter is merely to issue forth, and it survives in British English at least in respect of the spoken word (eg to utter a remark). In the case of counterfeit coin, which appears to be where the term gained legal significance in England, it was clearly important to distinguish cases where the accused had actually forged the coin from ones where he had merely uttered it (and why the latter should be a crime if the necesary guilty intent were present). So 'uttering' was a crime only in the context of what was actually uttered (and so it is very different from murder, forgery etc). Having said all that, it is clear that the word does appear widely as a crime in many legal reference works by dint of usage (I can add the Oxford Companion to Law from 1980 to the list), and is clearly notable. As a technical term, with differing applications in each jurisdiction (eg between England and Scotland) there is plenty of scope for it to become a respectable article. It is well short of that now. AJHingston ( talk) 23:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Thanks for your comments. You note that "original usage to utter is merely to issue forth" but it has largely lost that wide meaning now and yet retains it in the legal sense. All the more reason to keep the article just as we have an article on murder that deals largely with the legal aspects of the term. "Uttering" (with explanation and examples) is precisely the type of entry that an encyclopedia was designed for. —  AjaxSmack  01:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Actually it is the reverse in Britain - to utter in relation to speech, in particular, remains a common usage, whilst the legal usage as here is obsolete in England, where the offence is of passing counterfeit notes and coins. It would be equally correct, and more natural, to speak of somebody uttering a slander as far as linguistic usage goes. But I wasn't arguing for deltion, just making the point that the nomination was not as ill-conceived as seemed to be suggested. The article does need to make very clear that it is talking specifically about the legal use and its evolution in Common Law jurisdictions. AJHingston ( talk) 20:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep Poor article, which should be improvable. There does appear to be a legal concept of uttering that is common to all of the named jurisdictions. We have scope for a lightweight article that covers this, but whose prime purpose is to link onwards to the separate descriptions of uttering in the more specific contexts for which each jurisdiction makes specific use of the term. Ideally these would be larger separate articles, although even separate sections in one (as at present) justify it. Andy Dingley ( talk) 09:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf ( talk) 04:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Mark Strauss (artist) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

I came across this page during the UBLP rescue project and am unable to find secondary sources; all I find is the subject's home page. Does not seem to meet GNG. Yoninah ( talk) 18:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. — Yoninah ( talk) 18:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete per WP:GNG. Yoninah ( talk) 18:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Comment. There are a few news stories, mainly behind pay walls--not clear how much notability they would convey, however. [35] [36] [37] [38] Could not find any independent coverage of his books. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 18:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 ( talk) 19:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete per WP:GNG. PlusPlusDave ( talk) 23:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 14:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf ( talk) 02:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Rebecca Javeleau Birthday Party (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Bringing this to AfD after I declined a speedy giving as its reason "Why is this here?". I didn't this was a valid CSD reason, but thought the question merited further discussion. There has been a failed attempt to bring this to AfD previously. Peridon ( talk) 18:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete. No notability whatsoever. -- bender235 ( talk) 18:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete - while it got a fair amount of coverage, there isn't any hint so far that this WP:EVENT holds lasting significance - frankie^MR ( talk) 18:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete - As per nom, and what my fellow wiki mates said above, it has not enough notability and relevance to have an article here in wikipedia. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 19:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 ( talk) 19:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 ( talk) 19:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete or merge. I think I remember this one being in the news at the time, but a GNews search puts virtually all of the coverage in the immediate aftermath of the event, which doesn't really meet WP:EVENT. Should someone find an article that covers controversy over Facebook-based parties, however, the article would be appropriate there. Chris Neville-Smith ( talk) 21:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 14:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete, ultimately a case of WP:NOTNEWS, with a brief spike in coverage around that time, with no evidence of actual encyclopedic notability. At best this might be worth a half-sentence mention at an article about criticism of Facebook, but only if that can be sourced. -- Kinu ^t/ _c 19:44, 16 April 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was KEEP. postdlf ( talk) 04:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC) reply

William Asplin (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Duplicate of article William Aspinwall (minister) except without sources Nightenbelle ( talk) 17:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Speedy Keep. Two quite evidently different people, minimal similarity between articles. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 19:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 ( talk) 19:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 ( talk) 19:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Comment The article is a direct cut and paste of this wikisource entry. Acather96 ( talk) 20:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep. If he's significant enough for a DNB entry then he's notable enough for Wikipedia. However, the article shouldn't just be a cut and paste of the DNB article, so should be reduced to a stub until someone has the time or inclination to write it properly. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 08:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 14:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was KEEP. postdlf ( talk) 02:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Race and intelligence (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

This article demonstrates the reason why wikipedia WP:NPOV applies to article titles not just content.

To accept the premise of the stand alone article of this title is WP:UNDUE it completely loses the scientific context of the number of world class institutions who do not consider this to be an area meritting study

The context of this contraversial issue has been completely lost from the creator's comment "copied large section from Racism"

The article is purely about IQ and not intelligence and there is a difference. Which means it is already misnamed. The information needs to be put in scientific context ie what effects an IQ test [39] to name one of many. Someone's genetic code is complex as are how things are passed on. If this subject is viewed as notable then it should appear under its closest scientific field Heritability of IQ or in a social context such as Scientific racism

Because NPOV arguments are so rarely needed on deletion I will give a short example just because there are news articles about World war II bomber found on the Moon [40] doesn't mean that the context should be ignored and an article written as if the story was believed to be true. It has nothing to do with notability.

Both Race and Intelligence and Race and IQ should be deleted WP:PSCI; WP:FRINGE; WP:NPOV; WP:UNDUE; not redirected and the content placed on Heritability of IQ as a subsection towards the end, a great deal of clean-up is still needed after the move as the article currently stands it is in breech of WP:Propaganda. Tetron76 ( talk) 16:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep. To nominate an article for deletion on the basis that its title violates NPOV is quite simply absurd. Clearly the nominator is offended by the subject matter, but the notion that IQ has a racial component has a long history and has been the subject of many scientific investigations. It matters not one whit whether it's "true" or not so far as the existence of this article is concerned. Malleus Fatuorum 17:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep As politically charged as it is, the fact remains that the subject matter is certainly notable and the article itself is meticulously cited. The title is appropriate, even if it bothers someone. The controversy of Race vs. Intelligence goes back centuries, and whether there is or isn't a correlation (I'm more of a "environment vs. intelligence" guy myself), it doesn't take away the fact that subject matter is worthy (and verifiable) as an article. To say that the subject matter is fringe is just silly. As to NPOV, that is a matter of editing, as is the other reasons given for delete (ie: not valid reasons to bring an AFD to begin with). The article clearly says in the beginning that it has been a matter of debate for decades, which is true. Deleting the article won't change that. Dennis Brown ( talk) 17:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

The view that this article is viewed as meticulously cited is very scary. The first citation comes on line 17 and the cited article does not make the point that it is supposed to be backing. While I appreciate wikipedia articles are edited by non-academics, anytime a statement is made there should be a citation that contains the information to support this statement. Tetron76 ( talk) 17:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep - An unreadably massive, turgidly written exercise, but both highly notable and highly policed for POV, including the mother of all ArbCom cases. Carrite ( talk) 18:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep The article is has been a magnet for POV pushing, socking and meatpuppetry and WP:SPA's but it is a notable topic. Controversial, but notable. Professor marginalia ( talk) 18:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Speedy keep If an article has the wrong title, or if the contents are POV you fix it by moving the article and by editing it to NPOV, not by deleting the article. The subject is often discussed and clearly notable. Sjö ( talk) 18:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Certainly, not speedy keep criteria. What if the fix of the contents is to stubbify the article and then rename it to a very different title? How is this not the same as deletion? Tetron76 ( talk) 18:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep Nomination does not make sense to me. What is "the premise" of the phrase "Race and intelligence"? MartinPoulter ( talk) 18:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I meant that the topic implies an intersect of ideas along the lines of WP:SYNTHSIS, historically the topic was not discussed under these terms. It was along the lines of Blacks are unable to read, they have inferior intelligence because there language doesn't have a term for "chemistry". while I agree the material was widely covered it was never grouped together under the blanket of Race and intelligence. This implies an area of dicussion based upon a scientific discernment. The modern topic of discussing this is genetics and intelligence. By using scientifically imprecise descriptive terms it allows propaganda to be treated as mainstream such as the example of responding about black chess grandmasters [41]

• Keep The problems with this article can be solved by regular NPOV editing. I don't think AFD is the right venue for this conversation since a simple Google Books search turns up a number of books about this issue. Qrsdogg ( talk) 18:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep There are major problems with the article, as evidenced for example by WP:ARBR&I, but the controversy concerned is covered in many top rate sources (e.g. books of Stephen Jay Gould, Jefferson Fish, Nicholas Mackintosh, Robert Sternberg, Christopher Jencks, james Flynn, Arthur Jensen, Richard Nisbett, etc). It is an article that understandably not many editors will wish to edit and which therefore, in normal circumstances, hardly changes from one problematic state to another. Exceptionally it was completely rewritten from scratch a year ago, but not under optimal circumstances. However, since there is copious first class literature on the controversy and it has over the years provoked historically noteworthy clashes between prominent academics, there is no reason to delete it. Its controversial nature and the editors it occasionally attracts will always prevent it from being either a good article or a stable article. But that is how things are. Mathsci ( talk) 18:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep - This is a subject brought by many researchers throughout centuries, this is what a encyclopedia is all about, it is all about the information, the article should extract any single piece of POV away and keep the article rationale. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 19:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep and tag The general topic of this article is certainly notable. The problem in this case is that editors who are most interested in actively editing the article tend to have specific racialist agendas that they want to promote. Likewise, articles which have gone through arbitration often have significant structural and content problems which rise well above the usual issues that occur in other articles. Ideally there would be a tag somewhere that notes these problems exists at a more chronic level, and are likely to persist. aprock ( talk) 20:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep None of the given rationales apply and will be explicitly rebutted if necessary. Morton Shumway— talk 21:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC). reply

I would be grateful if you explain why? i.e WP:FRINGE Tetron76 ( talk) 18:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep I have no opinion on the article content but the nominator has failed to state a suitable rationale under which anyone should consider deleting the article. I am not sure what to recommend other than another review of WP:NPOV; I simply do not understand the nominator. Blue Rasberry (talk) 07:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 14:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 14:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• keep I want to strongly encourage or even implore everyone who votes on this article to actively participate in writing the article. The article and related topics have a long history of pov problems and of focusing narrowly on the specific studies of a group of psychologists that attempt to prove that some races are naturally inferior to others, while ignoring issues of racism and the long tradition of using claims of lower intelligence for social and political purposes. I cannot vote delete as the topic is notable and I know that if enough neutral editors gather to work on the article it will be possible to write a good and neutral article about the topic. This has not been possible in the past couple of years while I have been engaged with the topic, mostly due to the imbalanced ratio of SPAs to less invested editors. ·Maunus·ƛ· 14:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep This is a highly notable topic widely discussed in reliable sources. There is no reason whatsoever for this proposal for deletion.-- Victor Chmara ( talk) 15:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Comment - It's snowing... Carrite ( talk) 16:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I noticed that as well, but since this has been put up on AFD so many times, piling on might actually be helpful. Dennis Brown ( talk) 17:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

If you are complaining about frequent renominations it didn't help that the talk page had wrongly removed any reference to past AfDs. Due to wikipedia problems it took over an hour just to add the tag. Tetron76 ( talk) 17:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Comment since I have clearly failed to express myself well I will try to expand the detail. From wikipedia guidelines:

An idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea,[3] and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner.

• None of the 173 sources are presenting information the article with relation to the mainstream ideas within Genetics or Cognitive science.

• To present even the best possible written article on this topic requires information that is off topic to show that race is too crude a measure when doing a genetic study before the lead. The title prevents the inclusion of the information as it is a superset of the article.

• This is Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Pseudoscience point 3, if it was genuine science: race to start off with would have to be replaced by ethnicity as "black", "white" and "asian" all cover more than one ethnic group as demonstrated by David Cameron's comments about Oxford University's 2009 admissions [42] and IQ would be adjusted for race in the way that they are for age.

• While it is true that the content issues could be improved by deleting every unsourced or wrongly Cited lines and adding factors that affect an IQ test from Brest feeding, to limitations of questions, it is not ever possible to present this information in a manner that is appropriate for a lay-person to understand without information preceding the lead because it is unencyclopedic.

• In my opinion the argument is about the content being what wikipedia is not and discussions of notability are therefore Ignoratio elenchi. Tetron76 ( talk) 17:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment I think we already got your point. Every single issue you have mentioned are topics for the article's talk page, and some seem a bit hysterical, such as WP:Propaganda. I will leave it at that and let the closing admin make their determination as they see fit, as it appears the probability of this discussion invoking Godwin's Law is rapidly approaching 1. Dennis Brown ( talk) 18:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• I withdraw my nomination since when I started making the nomination, the preexisting AfD wasn't showing on the talk page, I am effectively nominating on the same reasons as were made in 2005. I accept that an extra 5+ years of POV doesn't change the interpretation of wikipedia guidelines and clearly I am not eloquent enough for this debate to be of value. Tetron76 ( talk) 10:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC) reply

KEEP but work on it and perhaps re-title it. I think the general areas of intelligence and its definition, (supposed) measurement by conventional IQ tests, the results of such tests as they correlate with economic status individually and by country, performance changes over time for individuals and groups, correlations with school success and job success, the proposed linkage of such test results to the ill-defined category of race, and the political and social policy conclusions some draw from the test results needs to be carefully discussed. The reasons that many people hold false stereotypes and draw illogical conclusions about these issues also ought to be examined, though that bleeds over into psychology, sociology and politics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.185.175.10 ( talk) 19:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete Six years later, the article is still an exhaustive survey of all the facts other than the ones that really count. It has no substantial mention of the cultural bias in IQ testing into which economic and therefore education differences play, the flimsiness of IQ as a measure of the scope of human intelligence, rebuttals of the concept of race, or how lack of opportunity creates a disincentive to scholarly thinking in general. The only time the word "culture" is used in the entire article is as a rebuttal of a passing mention of cultural bias later on in the article. Articles on controversial subjects such as these should be given the chance to become balanced, and scrapped if they remain as biased as this. Anarchangel ( talk) 23:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf ( talk) 04:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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

Notability and COI concerns. MorganKevinJ ^(talk) 17:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete COI concerns don't bother me as that can be fixed, as could the spammy way this article is written, as an endorsement of the website. What bothers me is the inability to verify the notability of this subject matter via any reliable source. Too new to know if it will or will not ever be notable. It would appear that at this time, it is not. Dennis Brown ( talk) 17:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete I agree with Dennis Brown. The article is spam, but more important is the total lack of any sign of notability. JamesBWatson ( talk) 13:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 14:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete - COI/spam may not in itself be a reason for deletion, but without reliable sources the problem is not correctable and the subject fails WP:GNG. -- Rrburke ( talk) 00:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  06:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Legend of Nereid (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

does not meet the notability guideline for books Mootros ( talk) 17:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• This is a published book series. It's as notable as any other graphic novel. Cedear ( talk) 04:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 14:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 14:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Dream Focus 13:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete - I did not find anything in my Google search to indicate notability. – Allen4 names 17:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Comment Not within the Anime/Manga project scope. see Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga#What_topics_we_do_not_cover -- KrebMarkt ( talk) 19:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete Does not meet or even claim to meet WP:Bk. "As notable as any other graphic novel" is the same as saying not-notable. Wickedjacob ( talk) 21:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  06:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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

A fringe non-notable company/product. They claim to offering something new and revolutionary, yet the product is barely in production - it still seems to be at the prototype stage as helmets take 16 weeks to produce. There are some references - one a patent application (which anyone can do), two from the company itself (the Sussex Innovation Centre) and one from the Daily Mail which looks like a press-release reprint. Yet there are none from motorcycle-related publications which is where you would expect a new and revolutionary motorcycle helmet to be reported and featured. The Daily Mail website mentions July 2010 as the launch of a cheaper version of the helmet, yet that is not apparent on the company's website - yet more evidence that this is a minor league product/company that launched with a big splash and has faded to nothing. Bottom line - the company itself would fail the notability test, and I can see no reason why the product itself is notable enough to keep this article. Biker Biker ( talk) 16:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

KEEP. "fringe" is not the correct way to describe start-up companies. If they'd been around for years and achieved nothing, then maybe. As far as "offering something new and revolutionary", most would argue that these words applied tightly to a British innovation in the form of a motorcycle helmet with an endothermic reactor that cooled your brain on impact, let alone it's ability to call emergency services and transmit riders' GPS coordinates. The helmet is not "at prototype stage" just because it takes 12-16 weeks to make a bespoke, hand made carbon fibre and Kevlar helmet from the results of a fitting kit dispatched to buyers days after purchase (I brought one and thus know). The industry standard for bespoke CF helmets is 16 weeks from order to delivery, as set by 43.6% market leader Arai. The British patent is Granted; it is not possible for "anyone [to] do" that. The Daily Mail don't "reprint" articles and thus that article is genuine. Notoriety is prolific as the are literally thousands of articles on this innovation in the motorcycling and general press. Biker Biker removed links to 90% of them and then claimed there aren't any(?) Odd. In this month's (April 2011) Fast Bikes magazine, ThermaHelm's Halo helmet was ranked the best in a hands-on test of all the top helmets. Just because articles like these don't get distributed on the net by the publisher in order to keep printed readership up, does not mean articles on this product are not marking its notoriety daily. Despite this, a web search shows 57,000 results. Spendthrift Biker Biker then claims this university-based, life-saving innovation company has hoodwinked the public by not yet launching a less expensive version and has thus, in his opinion, has "faded to nothing" - despite totally selling out in 3 days of an 11 day show at the Carole Nash International Motorcycle Show in November last year, according to a Cisionwire news release. Hailypaige ( talk) 07:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Calling me a spendthrift, and any other name calling or personal attack will do nothing to further your cause and won't help you keep your article. -- Biker Biker ( talk) 07:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

No personal attack made (unlike your unfactual and defamatory comments on the technology) just factual defense to your baseless comments. Hailypaige ( talk) 07:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC) http://www.cisionwire.com/search-news-media/revolutionary-new-motorcycle-helmet-sells-out Hailypaige ( talk) 10:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Cisionwire.com is a self-published source i.e. it is a facility for companies to publish their own press releases. What is needed on Wikipedia is reliable and verifiable third party (ideally secondary) sources not corporate promotional material. -- Biker Biker ( talk) 10:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Ok...here we go...including some of those removed by Biker Biker - to which he now claims lack of notoriety and coverage in motorcycle press(??)

http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/Products/productsresults/Helmets/2009/December/dec2309-speedway-legend-backs-thermahelm/

http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/article80925.ece

http://www.defensefile.com/Customisation/News/Personal_Equipment/Armour_helmets_and_combat_apparel/Battlefield_helmet_design_includes_cooling_device_activated_by_impact.asp

DAILY UPDATED MOTORCYCLE NEWS WEBSITE: http://indianmotosblog.com/thermahelm-future-motorcycling-helmet

http://www.techmagnews.com/tag/helmet

http://www.dailytech.com/Thermahelm+Motorcycle+Helmet+Helps+Prevent+Injury+by+Inducing+Brain+Freeze/article17427.htm

DAILY BIKES NEWS AND REVIEWS: http://www.bikerzlane.com/12390/futuristic-helmet-design-thermahelm.html

http://articles.org/the-halo-by-thermahelm-the-science-of-cold/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXcF2Nxf5kA

http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/ariel-schwartz/sustainability/thermahelm-air-bag-your-brain?partner=rss

http://www.geeky-gadgets.com/thermahelm-ice-pack-helmet-15-01-2010/

OBSESSIVE COVERAGE OF THE AUTO INDUSTRY: http://www.autoblog.com/2009/12/09/video-thermahelm-motorcycle-helmet-is-swell-err-not/

http://www.topspeed.com/motorcycles/motorcycle-news/thermahelm-cooling-helmet-can-turn-out-to-be-a-live-saver-w-video-ar82137.html

http://www.news-gazette.com/news/health/health-care/2011-03-27/doctors-move-forward-research-brain-cooling.html (mention near bottom)

INSURANCE COMPANIES: http://www.swinton.co.uk/motor/motorcycle/SpecialistBikeNews/ThermaHelm-'can-save-lives-by-cooling-the-brain'_19563004

Foreign:

French: http://www.maxisciences.com/thermahelm/thermahelm-un-casque-qui-refroidit-la-bo-te-cranienne-apres-un-choc_art5319.html

Uzbekistan: http://www.webdev.uz/thermahelm-termoshlem-kotoryj-soxranit-zhizni-tysyacham-motociklistov-video/

Taiwan: http://www.autonet.com.tw/cgi-bin/view.cgi?/news/2009/12/a9120034.ti+a2+a3+a4+a5+b1+/news/2009/12/a9120034+/opt/d00007+b3+d6+c1+c2+c3+e1+e2+e3+e5+f1

Italy: http://www.diredonna.it/thermahelm-il-casco-salva-vita-5301.html

Greece: http://www.mototriti.gr/data/news/preview_news/79593.asp

Lithuania: http://www.techpill.lt/index.php/naujienos/alta-galva-su-thermahelm/

Netherlands: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXcF2Nxf5kA

China: http://hi.baidu.com/baby%D0%A1%BB%D2%BB%D2/blog/item/af24e40868f4caa42fddd4fe.html

...and on...and on. Google advises there are articles on this invention in 173 countries and 141 languages. Hailypaige ( talk) 11:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

My last comment before others have their say. There is a lot of rubbish among those links. Seasoned Wikipedians will recognise a lot of them are blogs and article/press-release republishers, with very very little in the way of reliable referenceable material, which is exactly why I removed those links from the article in the first place. The fact that a product or company exists does not make them notable. The fact that they have lots of coverage in some of the sites listed above is because they have a product that is interesting or novel, and again that does not make them notable, just good at PR. Wikipedia is not a place for companies to boost their profile and promote their products and right now that's exactly what this article looks like - company sponsored spam. -- Biker Biker ( talk) 11:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Absolute rubbish. Wikipedians will likely not be fooled into backing you on this one. You have no real concept of logic in this regard whatsoever and really, really need some acuity on this topic. How on earth is a technology that is in the UK Trade & Investment's Global Entrepreneurs Programme marked as a Technology of Exceptional Potential not notable? In addition, being University-based means ALL - 100% - revenue goes to R&D. Thus, you cannot correctly call it a commercial product in the same vein as for-profit companies and truthfully, presence on Wikipedia is ZERO commercial benefit to the innovation when the Wiki article is totally buried several pages deep in a Google search. In any event, God forbid a rider find it here and choose a higher level of safety without pinching pennies on his life.

The above links point to vast Global journalistic interest in the one and only evolution-change in the redundancy of passive motorcycle helmets - that's why me and all my mates are wearing them. Why? Because ThermaHelm has brought us the first ACTIVE motorcycle helmet. Thus, the first real step-change in over 50 years. All other helmets are Passive/Dumb/sans anything but blunt technology to save lives. In fact, post-impact, they all work quickly to kill your brain cells by insulating your emissary capillaries so that your body cannot self-regulate its temperature.

If the cumulative Wiki community does not concur that this notable innovation is worthy of permeating the cognisance of intelligent bikers who reference Wikipedia, then feel free to remove. Hailypaige ( talk) 13:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep While some references are sketchy, I trust the Daily Mail and the Daily Tech as reputable news sources. I'm not sure though, but it's better to keep and article than to delete it. Bluefist ^talk 14:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete In six months, or a year, a reputable source or two might give us something to work with on this topic. Or ThermaHelm will be forgotten. Currently, it's premature. Clearly this new helmet has made a big splash on some blogs, but that only creates a lot of noise to sift through. Sandbagging this discussion with links to unreliable blogs, plus more copies of press releasable even after it was pointed out that press releases are unhelpful, makes this process more work than it ought to be. The Daily Mail is not a serious newspaper, and the Daily Tech article is a brief, fluffy blog post. If ThermaHelm pans out, it will get coverage in good sources and we can re-create the article then. Keeping it now just creates someplace for links to sketchy sources to accumulate, for somebody else to have to come along and delete. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 04:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep ~ There are verifiable evidence that the subject ( ThermaHelm) has received significant attention, coverage and recognition by media, and not only in the UK but worldwide and in many languages. I think this is enough to support a claim of notability. However, the article about ThermaHelm requires to be expanded in a short time. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and each of its articles must be in an encyclopedic format. – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 13:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC) reply

NOTE: my suspicion that this article had been driven by commercial interests is made stronger by this post on the article's talk page by an editor who is being paid by the university to save the article. -- Biker Biker ( talk) 16:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Brain cooling is a proven and recently approved medical salve. See Global, verifiable and non-bias news reports on the subject that the company has collected here: http://www.thermahelm.com/blog.html Hailypaige ( talk) 19:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC) reply

There are already articles on the subjects of cortical cooling and therapeutic hypothermia. It remains that the most reputable (if you call it reputable and I don't) coverage of ThermaHelm is in the Daily Mail. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 20:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy close. There was already an AfD open at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alpha Gamma. I have centralized all discussion there. This close is merely a procedural close to get all conversations at one place. I have copied the remarks left here to that thread. — C.Fred ( talk) 23:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Alpha Gamma (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

non notable organization Wuh Wuz Dat 15:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep as this article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. NYCRuss ☎ 18:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep - I'll say something different this time. There needs to be procedural keeps right down the line for this entire mass of highly disruptive drive by shootings of Alpha-BLANK-BLANK fraternity and sorority articles. This sort of wanton article destruction, apparently taken on a whim, judging by the lack of research and argument backing each nomination, should not be rewarded. Nor should anyone have to put three seconds into defending disruptive challenges such as these from deletion. This is an exercise in encyclopedia-wrecking, in my opinion, from a self-described "semi-retired" Wikipedia editor. I would hope that some administrator steps in shortly to rein in this ill-considered onslaught. Carrite ( talk) 22:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf ( talk) 02:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Alpha Gamma Nu (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

non notable organization Wuh Wuz Dat 15:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Notable organization. My rationale is no more half-assed than this cut-and-paste nomination, which smacks of bad faith and a lack of any research whatsoever. Carrite ( talk) 18:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Please consider Assuming good faith with nominations as you would assume others assume good faith with you. Hasteur ( talk) 13:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

What is one supposed to think about 20 or so nominations, all of which coincidentally begin with ALPHA, without anything more than a simple cut-and-pasted 4 word "rationale" and no visible evidence that the slightest effort was made to separate the sheep from the goats? Pro-forma nomination gets a pro-forma defense, and all these should be ruled a procedural keep by the closing administrator unless valid indication that the NOMINATION had merit can be demonstrated by delete voters. Carrite ( talk) 17:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I am with Carrite, except I can't assume bad faith when it could be just lack of WP:COMPETENCE. WWD can take his pick, for all I care; they are both critical flaws. You weren't to know, necessarily, but WWD does this routinely, most recently making a score of nominations each with only the words, "non notable former model". All but one of those were Kept, I believe. Anarchangel ( talk) 00:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep because this article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. NYCRuss ☎ 18:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete. As a local fraternity (single chapter), it does not not appear to meet the criteria and general standards for notability of fraternities and sororities. — C.Fred ( talk) 01:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete, a local club with 28 members and no outside coverage whatsoever. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete - 28 members at a single university does not qualify this as a notable organization. Single reference on article is to the listing of fraternaties on the campus. Hasteur ( talk) 13:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete, local clubs are not notable as a general rule, and no evidence has been given that this is an exception.-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 13:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 14:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Comment - Per the discussion at ANI on the "Bizarre AFDs" by this editor, I urge a SPEEDY PROCEDURAL CLOSE of this and all other clearly bad-faith, automated ALPHA-BLANK-BLANK challenges, without prejudice to the opening of a new AfD debate on the limited number of pages which may well not meet Wikipedia's inclusion standards. Carrite ( talk) 17:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Of course not. There are already more than enough good faith, substantial delete arguments here to demonstrate that the AfD has merit, whatever the motivations of the original nomination. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Old enough to qualify for notablity even as a single campus fraternity Naraht ( talk) 12:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete - per reasoning of C.Fred above. -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _{( blah?)} 01:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete because of lack of the significant coverage in multiple sources required to show notability. Of the keep !votes so far, none seem valid. "Speedy keep" because of faults of the nominator became invalid as soon as the first good faith delete !vote came in. Keep because it's old enough to be notable is, well, just not how it works, age doesn't give automatic notability.-- Yaksar (let's chat) 02:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Procedural keep as bad-faith nomination. Carnildo ( talk) 01:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Alpha Gamma Omega (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

non notable organization Wuh Wuz Dat 15:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Comment A brief article concerning Alpha Gamma Omega, "Christian Fraternity starts CU chapter" appeared in the Rocky Mountain News on August 31, 1996. Chuck ( talk) 17:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep Alpha Gamma Omega is an active fraternity with many living and deceased alumni. There is no reason it should be deleted. The article contains factual information about the organization and fulfills all the the requirements wikipedia demands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylepetz ( talk • contribs) 17:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Notable organization. My rationale is no more half-assed than this cut-and-paste nomination, which smacks of bad faith and a lack of any research whatsoever. Carrite ( talk) 18:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep because this article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. NYCRuss ☎ 18:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep: and make nominator subject to wikipedia hazing rituals involving greased turkeys.-- Milowent • ^{talk blp-r} 02:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 14:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Comment - Per the discussion at ANI on the "Bizarre AFDs" by this editor, I urge a SPEEDY PROCEDURAL CLOSE of this and all other clearly bad-faith, automated ALPHA-BLANK-BLANK challenges, without prejudice to the opening of a new AfD debate on the limited number of pages which may well not meet Wikipedia's inclusion standards. Carrite ( talk) 17:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Weak Keep - No cited references. Tagged with the request for references. If in a month the references are not forthcoming, I will re-nominate the article as we are supposed to have researched and cited articles. Hasteur ( talk) 19:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Keep. Salix ( talk): 15:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Alpha Psi Omega (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

non notable organization Wuh Wuz Dat 15:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Notable organization. My rationale is no more half-assed than this cut-and-paste nomination, which smacks of bad faith and a lack of any research whatsoever. Carrite ( talk) 18:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep because this article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. NYCRuss ☎ 18:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 14:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Comment - Per the discussion at ANI on the "Bizarre AFDs" by this editor, I urge a SPEEDY PROCEDURAL CLOSE of this and all other clearly bad-faith, automated ALPHA-BLANK-BLANK challenges, without prejudice to the opening of a new AfD debate on the limited number of pages which may well not meet Wikipedia's inclusion standards. Carrite ( talk) 17:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Article has been requesting references since October 2009. IF the organization is as notable as claimed, supporters should be able to find references before the close of this AfD. Hasteur ( talk) 19:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Comment - References added and an OTRS requested for the History. Naraht ( talk) 20:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC) reply

  You do realize that primary sources (From the subject itself) aren't appropraite for establishing notability. Hasteur ( talk) 21:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete Google News search finds only passing mentions "so-and-so was a member of..." or inclusions in lists. Google Books finds a little information in specialty journals like "The Southern Speech Journal" and "The Speech Teacher". Not enough for notability. -- MelanieN ( talk) 02:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep 550 chapters are enough for notability -- its a valid factor in judging an organization. Discussions in the specialty journals are exactly what one would expect to find and out to find fora specialized subject society. There is no requirement in Wikipedia that something be notable outside its field--if there were, out goes about 90% of the articles and we'd be a condensed encyclopedia , not an encyclopedia . Carrite is right about the nomination, which completely ignored deletion policy. DGG ( talk ) 23:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep. I have notvoted for deletion on many pages on fraternities and sororities with one to five chapters. There is no way an article on an org with 550 chapters should be deleted. If somebody could show that number to be made up, then I would reconsider. Abductive ( reasoning) 21:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep I found that there are 1650 results for "Delta Psi Omega", and 13000 results(!) for "Alpha Psi Omega" in GBooks, including significant coverage in numerous books, see for example [43] [44]. I'm not saying those are particulary proving notability but among the thousands results I'm sure a good source can be found, additionally, I found that the claim of "little information in specialty journals " like "The Southern Speech Journal" and "The Speech Teacher". Not enough for notability." made by User:MelanieN is not accurate at all, because I actually checked those sources and they fit exactly into the definition of a reliable source AND significant coverage as per WP:GNG. Dragquennom ( talk) 08:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep per above. – BuickCentury Driver 08:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was RESULT: Speedy redirect, which is blatantly obvious since it's a redirect that was submitted and there is no evidence in the page history that the redirect was contested. J Greb ( talk) 20:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Superman: Man of Steel (2012 Film) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Already exists as Man of Steel. User refuses to accept redirect. Rusted AutoParts ( talk) 12:34 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• Speedy redirect to Man of Steel (film project) which is what this page was doing anyway. -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 15:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Comment.Seems to be a redirection now. No real reason to have a AFD if so. Although this userspace draft was for what it looks like when it's not a film project anymore. But with all the updating that you have to do I can see how it can be unnecessary. But when it comes being a redirection and being AFD'd at the same time, one or the other. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf ( talk) 02:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Third Palestinian Intifada (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD  • AfD statistics)

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

Article created after being deleted per expired PROD. This article about a future event contains no sources (see WP:CRYSTAL) and is being used to promote a similarly unreferenced page in ro.wp. - Andrei ( talk) 15:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Neutral:Yes it is a future event, and so some people may do not give it the notability, for that reason i am neutral. However, about the sources, i do not know about English ones, but Al-Jazeera Net in Arabic have many articles about this event, just for example: [45] [46] [47] -- aad_Dira ( talk) 21:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC). reply

• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. This article is also part of the hype around the recently publicized Facebook page. Similar AfD on this subject last year as well.-- NortyNort (Holla) 21:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Dennis Brown ( talk) 21:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 14:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 14:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Haaretz, The Huffington Post, Fox, Bloomberg, Ma'an..etc etc. It doesn't need its own Wikipedia article but there are plenty of sources out there talking about the event/page (not an actual Third Palestinian Intifada as the article is misleadingly called). I would have thought all of this could be summarized down to a few sentences to be added to articles like Nakba Day, 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests and probably a few others. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Merge - this is part of 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests and should be placed there as part of the protests in the Palestinian territories. Also required significant improvement. There were already "unity protests" and other protests in the Palestinian territories. Calls for a third Palestinian Intifada are part of that ongoing protest movement. Poyani ( talk) 15:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. -- Joaquin008 ^{( talk)} 16:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Against - this page is very important for Millions of Palestinians. رائد 1991 ( talk) 07:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Against - . رائد حموده ( talk) 07:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. All hype and wishful thinking — Dhhhhhtttere ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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 closing as moot. Article has been speedily deleted as unambiguous advertising by User:Peridon. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Stolle Milk (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Extensive claims of medical benefits for a product, with the sources cited for that being apparently self-published or non-reliable. Article includes sales contacts for the product vendors, etc. Article is essentially promotional. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 15:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete - as it stands it is WP:SPAM and WP:WEASEL. Searching for sources does suggest that either Stolle Milk Biologics Incorporated and Hyper-immune milk might be notable enough to have their articles written, if properly sourced - frankie^MR ( talk) 16:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• It slices! It dices! and even if it made julianne fries, I would say delete this spammy and non-notable subject matter. Dennis Brown ( talk) 17:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete as non-notable product with dubious, poorly sourced claims. -- NellieBly ( talk) 21:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 13:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 14:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete. ...can be referred to as The Milk of Human Science, is a health related product based on improving the quality of standard milk. Stolle Milk increases the body's anti-inflammatory system, increased antibody function, and better overall athletic performance.... Today, SMBI is an integral part of Spencer Trask Holdings. Spencer Trask has provided financial services to entrepreneurs and companies that have helped shape history.... SMBI's advancements in milk-based technologies have been scientifically proven to enhance the health benefits of cow's milk..... For further information about how SMBI milk products can promote good health derived from nature, please contact us.... Stolle milk can be found on facebook, continually updating their new discoveries and influences around the world. So tagging. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC) reply

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