Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 January 18

< 17 January	19 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Withdrawing nomination she actually meets WP:MUSIC. LibStar (talk) 02:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Svetlana Navasardyan

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. hardly anything in gnews which is a bit surprising since the article claims she has performed in some English speaking countries. would reconsider if someone searches in Armenian or Russian but no article exists for her in these langauges. LibStar (talk) 02:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. No rationale has been given for deletion and no one other than the nominator has suggested deletion. (non-admin closure) Blodance the Seeker 02:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

H2O Audio

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

Queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My reasons why I wrote this article and find it to be notable and Wiki-worthy
I fully understand the reasoning behind not allowing every company to post a company profile, and the need to keep Wikipedia encyclopedic and free of advertising. However, I think a company take makes the only deep dive case for ipods and iphones is worth noting, because if you're a diver, especially a technical diver who travels to deep depths, you may have to spend HOURS underwater at decompression stops and this invention allows a diver to watch a movie or listen to music to pass the time. Also, inventing and patenting something like the Commander Scroll Wheel that conducts the electricity needed to operate a touch sensitive scroll wheel on devices like an ipod through a hard case and on to the device while maintaining full waterproof integrity I think is pretty amazing and note worthy. There are a few companies out there that produce waterproof ipod accessories, but none of them are going about it in the same way, or have created such notable inventions as H2O Audio. This is shown by the 5 patents that they hold and also by various reviews and write-ups on significant tech and consumer websites, magazines and journals. I feel that the article is written in a fair unbiased tone that doesn't state whether the products are good or bad, but rather that they are an interesting invention. I also feel this article doesn't promote the company in any way, but rather just explains how such unique inventions were derived and how they are being used today. I welcome ANY feedback I can get on how to make this article better, and thank everyone who has put the time in to help. DanaS (talk) 19:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)DanaS[reply]
Keep: There seems to be sufficient independent coverage to satisfy the notability guideline. --Slashme (talk) 14:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I'll first note that there isn't a rationale given for why this article is being nominated for deletion. That somebody tagged it for speedy deletion and it was contested is not a reason for deletion. After digging int he article history, I'm assuming it is on notability grounds. The references provided in the article do not do a good job of establishing notability. The US Patent Office does nto establish notability. Neither does Michael Phelps facebook page, nor Laird Hamilton's website. I'll also note that they aren't even reliable sources. However, they've received coverage in Macworld, LA Times, WCBD, and other minor coverage such as [1]. Not a trememdous amount, but enough to estalish notability for me. -- Whpq (talk) 17:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Whittemore-Goad

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

Subject is not notable apart from her illness and her parents, the article is actually more about her parents, suggest a merge or a redirect to either the parents or the illness or the medical center her parents have opened. Off2riorob (talk) 23:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject has for all practical purposes become the "face" of chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), at least in North America, as the only patient I'm aware of to be interviewed and her photograph depicted in major media, including The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. This coverage alone places her in a category with other famous illness representatives such as Gaetan Dugas and Ryan White. In addition, the subject is not merely a "girl with an illness", as stated elsewhere by the listing editor, Off2riorob: she is a 31-year-old woman who has been (and is) an active participant in CFS research and treatment advocacy. She would also appear to be the most prominent individual to have taken the experimental (and now rejected) proposed CFS drug Ampligen and to discuss her experiences with the drug publicly. No article on the subject could avoid mentioning her wealthy and influential parents, as they have founded a notable and controversial research institute because of the subject's experience, an endeavour in which the subject has also participated. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As far as I can see, this article is just another vehicle to add WP:COATRACK criticism of Dr Peterson and her father (which is on this page) as there is no controversy around Andrea herself. Yes, she's been interviewed a few times because of her association with her parents, but does this make her notable enough for multiple editors to want to spend a lot of time validating the content of other contributions? Without the scrutiny of multiple editors, a single active editor is largely free from the proper Wikipedia checks and balances on an article like this. -- TerryE (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Andrea Whittemore-Goad" currently has 7,120 google hits; "Andrea Whittemore-Goad" -daughter has 70. -- TerryE (talk) 18:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Terry here, this seems to be the unneeded expansion of a group of articles, the subject individually doesn't appear to be notable enough to meet WP:BIO to warrant her own biography. She is mentioned in the citations as a side issue to the main story which is the illness or the medical center or the parents. Off2riorob (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Puzzled I'm missing something here. The article does make reference to her parents, but this section does seem to demonstrate notability in a way that goes beyond her merely being ill, but being a notable spokesperson about her illness. What am I missing? --Dweller (talk) 15:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, so let me see if I have this correct, woman gets yuppie flu, her parents have an involvement in ME charities, this makes the woman notable? Has she found a cure for yuppie flu? No. Having read the sources I find that the NYT article has a passing mention of Andrea and none of the others are relevant to her, but are relevant to ME. If you want I can gut this article to show you want can be proven. Redirect to the syndrome, and merge the information to that article about the drug trial and possible viral connections if you want but this person does not deserve to be on Wikipedia. FWIW the first source requires a log in so I don't know if she is a "prominent" sufferer, and that is the first of many things that should be removed from this article. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This person does not meet WP:BIO several passing mentions in references do not add up to notability. --Leivick (talk) 18:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the article on the institute. Unlike Ryan White, she isn't a national poster child; unlike Gaetan Dugas, she isn't a major part of a book, or accused of being the main original vector of her disease. She is notable because a notable institute was founded due to her, but I don't see anyone covering her life from cradle to grave because of it, again, unlike both Ryan White and Gaetan Dugas. All that said, this isn't a delete opinion, she should be mentioned in the encyclopedia, she just doesn't seem to have gotten enough individual attention focused on her. --GRuban (talk) 18:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. --Tom (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while this young woman may have a WP article in her future, right now I don't believe there is enough to set her apart from many other patients, aside from the institute that her parents and others helped establish. From researching the lead, the ref stating "prominent" appears to be a reprint from a Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS) self published newsletter.[2] Not a good RS for this. The next part of the lead states AW-G's experiences with CFS motivated her parents and her doctor to found the insitution. Her doctors motivation is not well described in the article sources, but other sources indicate he was motivated to find a better approach to the disease for his many patients.[3] In large part the motivation for her mother was to help others according to AW-G.[4][5] AW-G has been interviewed in the media, but no more than other patients such as Gino Oliveri mentioned in CFS books [6] articles, and whose picture was on the cover of Newsweek in 1990,[7], Nancy Kaiser is well known for being the first CFS patient to try Ampligen and is documented in Osler's Web, Newsweek, and Reader's Digest, and in numerous other venues,[8] and Gerald Crum who AW-G mentioned as a family friend[9] and advocated for patients with cfs, cancer, and for the WPI [10] (to name a few). As for advocacy, three letters written by AW-G from primary sources is not really that notable. Ward20 (talk) 20:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough for a biography. --JN 466 22:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The nominator nails this one accurately Vartanza (talk) 10:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, default to "keep". Jayjg ^(talk) 03:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Renato M. E. Sabbatini

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

before nominating this article I noted that User:Upsala did a phenomenal job reviewing the citations for accuracy and tagging the text where questions still exist. The article has significant violations of WP:COI that make it difficult to wade through; in addition, most of the sources are in Portuguese, complicating matters. I removed the most detailed citation in English, which was to a past version of the subject's Wikipedia userpage. He may indeed be notable in Portuguese, but based on my review and Upsala's work I can find no evidence of sufficient notability for inclusion in the English Wikipedia. otherl left 17:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. —otherl left 17:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 17:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - a bit too flattering and one sided, but of some interest.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There may be sourcing and COI issues, but those are solvable without deletion; but gross overtagging of the article by an apparent sockpuppet with no significant edit history is certainly a signal that there's another agenda playing out here -- especially since many of the sourcing defects appear to reflect the structure rather than the content of the referenced pages (eg, framing disguising actual URLs of specific sources). Nominator's suggestion that language of sources impairs notability is also rather odd. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's an acknowledgement that I can't independently verify them. If an editor without a conflict of interest confirms that they confer notability I certainly wouldn't have a problem - but COI issues make it particularly important to know what the sources actually say.--otherl left 18:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with much of what Hullaballoo Wolfowitz says - there seems to be something unhelpful about the recent editing of this article. Will Beback talk 20:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As a matter of principle if a topic is notable in sources of one language it is suitable to write about in any language edition of Wikipedia. We have Portuguese-speaking editors and machine-translation is another possibility. So the question is not "should this be in the Portuguese Wikipedia instead", but rather "does he meet WP:PROF?" From Google Scholar, citations to his work are not high (h-index ~6), but there are other criteria. Fences&Windows 20:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Now arguing for Keep. I believe that Sabbatini does pass notability guidelines for his involvement in various organisations, and his awards for this. He is often quoted in the press as a scientist, e.g.[11] and was interviewed by a French educational magazine:[12].
- Note to closing admin: an avid 'alternative account' like Upsala who is succeeding in driving an editor off Wikipedia should be given little or no weight in this decision. I do not believe that this behaviour falls under WP:SOCK#LEGIT, as it seems to be done to avoid scrutiny. Fences&Windows 02:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, re "sockpuppetry": Yes, I have edited under another account and continue to do so. That account has a "clean record" and this has nothing to do with deceiving anyone. It's simply a matter of privacy, since my real-world identity is increasingly obvious in association with my other account. I did this after concluding my situation fell under the "Privacy" exception of WP:Multiple_Accounts. The articles I edit under this account are far removed from my work under my other account. There's no "agenda."

Re my extensive tagging: After Sabbatini removed "Like resume" "More footnotes" and "Primary sources" tags from the article without addressing the problems, I responding by tagging the individual statements needed sources to demonstrate how serious the problems are. Please see my exchange with Sabbatini on Talk:Renato_M._E._Sabbatini in which I explained this and suggested that he start adding cites for material he would like to see remain in the article. Since the article's about him, and he wrote it, you'd think he'd have no problem doing that, but it's been almost a week and Sabbatini hasn't done anything (though he's been active on other articles) so I'm going ahead and removing all the uncited material. If Sabbatini insists on continuing to edit his own bio (which he really shouldn't) he can add material back if and when he can provide cites.

I personally was not planning to nominate the article for deletion, at least until seeing what was still in the article after cites were added and uncited material removed. But since Sabbatini's been on notice for some time now, I think the discussion should proceed on the article with uncited material removed.

I think it's significant that the Port. Wikipedia (whose editors would have no trouble making use of original sources) has only a two-line article on Sabbatini -- perhaps an illustration of WP:AUTO's warning that "Many people exaggerate their own significance or notability above what third parties would think."

Upsala (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or stub down to two lines as notability is not demonstrated manifestly. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep - barely passes as notable per WP:PROF. Bearian (talk) 02:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think everyone should take a look at WP:PROF, as Bearian suggests, before expressing an opinion. Upsala (talk) 04:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely Delete: I'd like everyone who has already commented to take a fresh look and either confirm or reconsider their prior evaluation. I have removed, step by step, all the material which was unsourced or sourced only by self-published material. This turns out to be almost the entire article, because the blunt fact is that the only person who has written anything about Sabbatini is S himself, or his family ("S.H. Cardoso" is his wife). The only exceptions are the sources for (1) his "Chamption of Innovation" listing, (2) his writing award, and (3) a cite, which I added, to a powerpoint presentation mentioning S's participation in forming the Brazilian Society for Health Informatics. While S seems like a good guy who has done some creative things, he doesn't even come close to notability under WP:PROF, and even if he did it would be impossible to write an independently sourced article on him, because there are no independent sources (and S has had plenty of time to add them even while this discussion, of which he was notified, has been going on). Unless someone can show where this logic is wrong, the article is a clear delete. Upsala (talk) 06:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that one of the six citations remaining is to the subject's own Wikipedia userpage hurts my brain. Isn't that the very essence of self-publication? Other than that, I was hoping that your culling would make it easier to evaluate the non-English sources for those of us constrained to that language, and it has. I still stand by the nomination.--otherl left 13:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC) I'm taking the liberty of summarizing your comments as a Delete vote. We need your brain, so I'll remove that quote. BTW why are there two L's in otherlleft? Are you a llama? Upsala (talk) 13:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was asked to look at the article again. It's now shorter but the notability factors remain. Particularly, the receipt of an award and the inclusion in a list "50 Champions of Innovation". Will Beback talk 21:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Does anyone have access to a database to test this one against WP:PROF? Bearian (talk) 23:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer - Web of Science lists 33 articles authored or coauthored by Sabbatini as being cited at least once. (Most of the "Selected Publications" S. listed in the WP article have never been cited, according to both W. of S. and Google Scholar.) Of these 33, 22 have been cited exactly once (in some cases, by S himself), 6 were cited 2-3 times, and the rest were cited 7, 10, 24, 28, and 28 times. On none of these 5 was S the sole or even lead author. (In fact with a sigle exception every paper, on which S was the sole or lead author, has been cited exactly zero or one time; the exception: 3 times.)

As to "Champions" and popular-science writing award, these don't come anywhere near the guidelines of WP:PROF: "...major academic awards, such as the Nobel Prize, MacArthur Fellowship, the Fields Medal, the Bancroft Prize, the Pulitzer Prize for History, etc, always qualify [or] lesser significant academic honors and awards that confer a high level of academic prestige [such as] certain awards, honors and prizes of notable academic societies, of notable foundations and trusts e.g. the Guggenheim Fellowship, Linguapax Prize, etc." "Receipt of an award" and "inclusion in a list" don't pass muster. Upsala (talk) 04:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would give an h index of 5. Is that correct? Usually an h index of 10 is the bare minimum at which notability is likely under WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Well, I'm not a big fan of cold metrics in isolation, but it's obvious that no one has taken enough notice of anything Sabbatini's done to write about it. This doesn't mean he hasn't done interesting and useful things. He has. But they're not notable if no one's noted them. Actually, things are even worse than my summary above suggests: on one of the two papers with 28 cites, S. was one of a dozen coauthors! Upsala (talk) 19:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 23:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My comments stand, and since there was some back and forth above, let me recap: Sabbatini seems like a good man, but nothing he has done has been commented on by anyone else that I can find (nor apparently that he himself can find, since he was invited to add cites to his own autobiography, certainly knew that this deletion discussion was going on, yet he's done nothing along those lines). His published work has been cited by almost no one, except in 5 cases where he was neither the sole nor lead author (usually he was one of many authors; papers he wrote on his own, or with his wife, sometimes get one cite but usually zero). The writing award, and inclusion in a popular magazines list of "Champions of Innovation for 2007" hardly count as "significant academic honors." Statements (above) that "other criteria" might confer notability don't help the discussion without specifying which other criteria might apply and what S. has done to satisfy them. Neither do unsubstantiated accusations against me of sockpuppety have any bearing on Sabbatini's notability. Even if notability is present, there's still another problem: there's absolutely nothing written about Sabbatini at all, except by Sabbatini, so there are no sources that could be used as the basis for an article. I'd like to hear someone tell me where I'm wrong about all this, otherwise Delete seems to be the only conclusion. Upsala (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notability seems fairly clear to me. From the article: "Sabbatini received the 1992 Prêmio José Reis de Divulgação Científica award for popular science writing,[3] and was named one of Info Exame Magazine's "50 Champions of Innovation" for 2007.[4] He is currently president of the Edumed Institute for Education in Medicine and Health, a "not-for-profit educational, research and development institution."[5]" Any of those claims by themselves would be a reasonable claim to notability; taken together, they make a pretty strong one. Robofish (talk) 02:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Robofish reasonings. Why isnt there a Afd tag placed on the article I wonder too?--BabbaQ (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion of the biographed

Since I am the person under scrutiny, I will not manifest myself over keeping or not this article. I have tried to contribute to Wikipedia because I believed in the concept. Now I know that what is notoriety for Wikipedia can be better illustrated by obscure football players, videogame characters or, more interestingly, a List of pornographic actresses by decade.

I will now retire as a contributing editor to Wikipedia, with more than 150 articles started by me.

Do what you want regarding the article, there are hundreds of copies of it in Wikipedia copycats.

Upsala, who started all this, shows a worrying feature of Wikipedia, which is that unknown, anonymous contributors like him, have more credibility than an indentified, bona-fine, author. He has systematically and obsessively destroyed a lot of my contributions to Wikipedia, which makes me think whether he is some personal enemy of mine. The universal nature of English Wikipedia is threatened by arguments like the above, that I am a native of a Portuguese-speaking country. If a person who has hundreds of published articles in Portuguese and several books in this language, and whose credentials cannot be verified just because they are in Portuguese, then we cannot expect much about Wikipedia'a vaunted neutral and unbiased stand. In regard to notoriety, this is a more serious issue. If a person who has been (properly docomented) a founder, president, vice-president, secretary and director of informatics and director of education of three large national learned societies, including the Brazilian Medical Association (140,000 members) received awards and nominations who put him among the 50 best known authors and scientists in the country, then you all should revise what constitutes notoriety. Now I understand the reason why 99,9% of Brazilian scientists I have contacted to propose a systematic list of biographies in Wikipedia have refused: they think that it is not serious, academically speaking, and that they don't give a damn if they are listed or not.

I am now moving to be an author of Medpedia, which is supported by Harvard University, Stanford University, University of Californa at Berkeley and Wisconsin University, and which forbids ignorant non-entities, anonymous contributors, like Upsala to write anything, and which recognizes and shows the leadind editors to each article. Lost my time here. R.Sabbatini (talk) 16:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What phenomenal job?? Smearing campaign

You all may notice by the list of Upsala contributions that he entered Wikipedia as an anonymous contributor on January 3rd 2010 exclusively to target the destruction and smearing of Dr. Sabbatini's valuable contributions to Wikipedia. He asked for a reference every two or three words of the bio article, which is patently an exaggeration, otherwise 90% of all bios in Wikipedia would have to be deleted. Upsala's only goal seems to be to delete Dr. Sabbatini' biography and as many as his contributions as possible. I suggest that a more responsible editor restores the entire article, deleting only obvious self-propaganda, and block User Upsala. The Philosopher of Sao Paulo (talk) 04:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can appreciate that Dr. Sabbatini is frustrated by the process by which we determine notability with reliable sources (that is, those that he didn't write himself). I further note that no sockpuppet investigation of Upsala has been opened, much less drawn any conclusion. I must conclude that discussions regarding Dr. Sabbatini's feelings (assuming that the article about him doesn't contain factual errors, for which he would certainly have redress) and Upsala's contributions must be set aside to focus on this deletion debate. Upsala has raised some very specific issues regarding the usefulness of several sources, and further discussion has completely dismissed those claims. Are there any specific refutations of Upsala's assertions regarding sources?--otherl left 01:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: An editor appears to have inadvertantly reopened this debate. I'm reverting to the close and advising them to start another AFD if they wish. FYI. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus, default to "keep" Jayjg ^(talk) 03:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Hastert

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHITs and GNEWS of substance – mostly brief notices of his running from office. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. ttonyb (talk) 23:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For normal candidates I'd normally agree. But the notoriety of Hastert's last name has garnered national media attention to this race and I think it warrants remaining on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Titomuerte (talk • contribs) 23:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Not sure what is a "normal" vs. non-"normal" candidacy. Notability is not inherited (from a last name or anything else) and must be demonstrated by meeting the Wikipedia criteria. In this case, notability is defined in WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. ttonyb (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In my view, there is extensive coverage in which he is the principal subject: here. As a general note, has there ever been consideration of applying the principles of WP:BLP1E to candidates? Candidates tend to get a lot of coverage, which would pass WP:GNG, but if they fail, they're generally only notable for their candidacy. In that respect, the coverage could be said to be of the candidature and the horse race, rather than of the person. I see weaknesses in this approach (especially that it involves a bias towards incumbents and stretches the concepts of an "event" and of "low profile person") and am not putting it forward as my view but it seems like one possible way in which guidelines can be invoked to delete articles about failed candidates for political office who are not notable otherwise than for their candidacies. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Sorry to interject my comment here, but looking at the GNEWS hits listed above, maybe only two are close to substantial articles about Hastert, the rest are only minimum discussions of the candidate. I do not see they support Wikipedia notability. ttonyb (talk) 05:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here are the sources in more detail: 1 a Boston Herald article solely about Hastert; 2 an ABC News article from AP solely about him; 3 a FOX News article from AP solely about him; 4 a Congressional Quarterly article solely about him. That’s ignoring the multitude of state-level and local sources, and the national sources that mention him as one of a number of subjects. And just for a bit of fun, there’s coverage of his drink-driving arrest as well: here and in many other sources. In my view, all of this coverage would get anyone who is not a political candidate past WP:GNG. The only way in which I can conceive that a political candidate should be treated differently is if WP:BLP1E applied. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – #1 is hardly a substantial article, but rather a short mention. Update - Actually, #1 is hard to tell if this is substantial or not-the article was archived. #2 and #3 are the possibles I saw, and #4 appears to be a blog and fails WP:RS. The DD mention is a WP:BIO1E that probably fails to support WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 05:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Congressional Quarterly is a blog that doesn't meet WP:RS? Per WP:RS, "some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control". No suggestion that that standard is not met here. CQ is a highly reputable publication. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – you are correct. I should have been more specific to say that I was not sure if this was a blog or a blog with editorial oversight. ttonyb (talk) 06:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's an important distinction between candidates (in the sense of people who have actually won the nomination of their party) and people in the running for a particular candidacy. Given that pretty much anyone can run for office, the mere act of running for office doesn't of itself confer any notability at all. It's debateable whether all full-fledged candidates are notable, but it's certain that all people competing for candidacy are not. Hairhorn (talk) 03:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is it "certain that all people competing for candidacy are not" notable? What guideline is that based on? The distinction between nominated candidates and persons seeking nomination is just an arbitrary line in the sand that you seem to be drawing. WP:GNG is the proper standard to apply... some candidates for nomination will pass, some (most) will fail. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, I meant to say that "not all people running are notable", not "all people are running are not notable". I often rag on people for making this very mistake. As for the line in the sand, it doesn't look arbitrary to me: it's the difference between running in a primary and running in an election. Have a look at wp:politician; notability is demonstrated through third party coverage, not through the simple act of filing election papers. Hairhorn (talk) 03:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a clear distinction that can be made, but I think an unhelpful and arbitrary one as far as notability is concerned. For example, a genuine Democratic candidate for nomination in an open safe Democratic seat is likely to be far more notable than a Democrat who is the nominee in a safe Republican seat held by an entrenched incumbent. Do you agree that some candidates for nomination might be notable? I certainly agree that not all will be (the vast vast majority won't). It then comes down to the test of substantial coverage per WP:GNG, which I think Hastert Jr has in spades. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, as I tried to clarify, I don't think all people running for office are non-notable, that would be a farcical thing to say. But I will say — as the wiki notabilty policy says — that notability is demonstrated by third party coverage, not by filing election papers. Hairhorn (talk) 03:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No sensible person could disagree with that! --Mkativerata (talk) 03:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: No one seems to address his status as son of the former speaker of the house. One cannot deny the importance of family relations in this matter, since almost every member of Barack Obama's family has their own wikipedia page. Their notoriety comes entirely from their family relationship to the President, like this guy: here. Or this person: no one can honestly tell me that Maya Soetoro Ng is more notable than Ethan Hastert Titomuerte (talk) 07:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one's address his status as son of the former speaker of the house because it doesn't make him notable. Hairhorn (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Notability is not inherited from family members. Each article must stand on it's own merits. This AfD is about Wikipedia based notability (which both the Lolo_Soetoro and Maya_Soetoro article meet), not "real-world" notability. As stated above, the Hastert article does not appear to meet the Wikipedia criteria for notability. ttonyb (talk) 22:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I haven't decided how (or if) I'll !vote on this AfD, but I want to point out that the article as it originally appeared was a real hackjob. Also, to Titomuerte, notability is not inherited, and if you find an article of someone who isn't individually notable but seems to be listed only by virtue of a family relationship, well, I hear you but WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Bothered that it hasn't been nominated for deletion? WP:SOFIXIT. Glenfarclas (talk) 08:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't think Hastert has sufficient coverage yet to pass the general notability guideline. I added an AP article published by the Boston Herald about his primary campaign, but it's almost trivial coverage. The other mentions are typically in relation to other candidates that are offspring of legislators and Hastert gets fairly trivial coverage there. I think it's quite possible that he will become notable in two weeks time, and would be happy to see the article recreated then. Jogurney (talk) 23:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I disagree based on his previous coverage and the current potential of his congressional race, where I understand he's considered the clear front runner. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to say his article ought to be deleted in two weeks if he loses his race? Titomuerte (talk) 05:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Also you referenced Hastert's appearance in Google News as mattering to his level of notability. But I performed a google news search on a random person from the pages you've created (Cedric Faure) and Hastert has 3 times as many pages. Titomuerte (talk) 05:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I referenced Google News because it is an indication of whether the article would pass WP:GNG - and I missed the discussion above where someone listed 4 potential sources that would satisfy the GNG. I don't think those 4 sources quite pass GNG, but agree that it's close. As far as waiting 2 weeks to delete, I don't think that's appropriate and we have no way of knowing if Mr. Hastert will win the election and whether such victory would result in coverage significant enough to pass the GNG. As far as Faure, please feel free to take that article to AfD - I simply created a poor stub on him years ago - but I would be shocked if he isn't considered notable based on his exploits as a professional athlete. Jogurney (talk) 13:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edukids

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

Non-notable pre-K program. Declined the speedy because the article is technically about a school, but irregardless this has no place on Wikipedia. 2 says you, says two 22:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not convinced that child-care centers aren't businesses for db-corp purposes; but in any event this is a completely non-notable example. Glenfarclas (talk) 22:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This fails to meet WP:GNG. Not that this is the correct forum, but I'd agree this doesn't qualify as a school. Transmissionelement (talk) 15:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's good to know, I was trying to "play it safe" by moving the discussion to AfD because schools are such a hot topic within the realm of deletion. 2 says you, says two 14:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 23:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clinton Houses

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

Nomination on behalf of IP 98.248.32.44 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who completed steps 1 and 3 of the AfD process and left the following note on the talk page: "Fails notability criteria - has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. 98.248.32.44 (talk) 22:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)"[reply]

I am neutral and only listing this in good faith on behalf of the IP user who followed the instructions in the {{afd1}} template. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.

Discuses elevator problems in Clinton Houses
Details a family's life in Clinton Houses
Emporis link on page
It's a housing project that houses 1823 people. How many obscure towns have articles on here with less or no media coverage and less residents? mynameinc (t|c) 22:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - not just a housing complex, but virtually a whole neighborhood several large blocks in size, with almost 2,000 residents. Plenty of good sources have been found and can be found. Notable also because of Robert Moses' efforts to build this by knocking down a "slum". Will continue to be notable because of the Second Avenue Subway stops being built nearby. Bearian (talk) 22:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More than enough inline citations, plenty of opportunity for expansion. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Of the five references, three are published the owner of the topic (New York City Housing Authority), one is a user-edited site[13][14], and one doesn't mention Clinton Houses at all.[15] 98.248.41.72 (talk) 01:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources more on Google News that mention it directly, and the CB11M source is to prove it is in Spanish Harlem. Also, I couldn't find a way to edit the Clinton Houses article on Emporis. I am on WikiBreak for a few days and will implement the changes when I get back. mynameinc (t|c) 03:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google news search shows plenty of mention of them. Doesn't the mention in the New York Times in several places, make these houses notable? [16] Dream Focus 18:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are plenty of WP:Reliable Sources to back up this article. - FaceMash (talk) 15:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently notable. I have added a citation. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Amyraldism. Tone 23:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moderate Calvinism

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

This was a term coined by Norman Geisler, but the article has confused it with the "Four point Calvinism", or Amyraldianism. Geisler's views properly belong in the article about him. StAnselm (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge information into the section on Four-point Calvinism in the main Calvinism article or the Amyraldianism article. It may be under the wrong name, but it still is useful information and I see no reason to delete it. RawrMage (talk) 23:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Amyraldism. The coverage in Calvinism is probably about sufficient. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:CRYSTAL issue or !vote has been countered and does not apply. (non-admin closure) Dusti^SPEAK!! 16:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kung Fu Magoo

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

Non-notable film. Despite the notability of its cast and its subject matter, no reliable results can be found for the existence of this film. Several rumors seem to have floated around the internet regarding its existence, but even the IMDB entry seems hinky, with an "official site" that links to an anonymous IP address rather than a named domain. Prod denied by author. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NF, WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Google shows no apparent signs of notability: [17]. — Rankiri (talk) 23:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)^{(Rankiri (talk) 00:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC))}[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NF and also WP:NOTCRYSTAL as above. RawrMage (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements showing confirmation in reliable sources that the film s in post production and preparing for its 2010 release. In regards WP:CRYSTAL, I note "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced.". Considering cast, coverage can reasonably be presumed to increase, not diminish. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The newfound sources seem sufficient. Well done. — Rankiri (talk) 00:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn Per improvements by MichaelQSchmidt (talk · contribs). Kudos to him for finding sources that I could not. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clicking on Google news search up top, I see 20 results. They mention the series, so it must be notable, they not talking about it otherwise at all. Dream Focus 18:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft SharePoint Ribbon

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

Doesn't seem notable enough for its own article (the other Microsoft Ribbons don't have their own article), merge to Ribbon (computing) possibly. fetchcomms☛ 21:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Other ribbons don't have their own articles. Anyway, the article doesn't show why it is notable. It's short for even a stub. The Arbiter^★_★^★ 22:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somewhere else (either to Sharepoint or to Ribbon (computing)). Not notable for independent article. Simply Delete would be OK too. LotLE×talk 09:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think a WP:BOLD redirect to Ribbon (computing) would have worked here. I don't see the point of this discussion unless someone objected to the redirect... Pcap ping 09:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep; non-admin closure. Regard this as a unanimous keep after the article was expanded during the deletion discussion and referenced with reliable sources. Mkativerata (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rio (film)

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

Delete this unreleased film. The notability of which has yet to be determined, if it ever comes out. JBsupreme (talk) 21:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral, leaning~~ Keep per improvements. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 23:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC) Yes, it is somewhat crystalline, but it has actors/actresses that are widely known, and my google searches came up with this, this, and this somewhat-dubious source. The IMDb source already on the page says the movie is currently filming, so it looks like this movie indeed will come out. Final notability can be determined once it has been released. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 05:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since IMDb relies heavily upon user-generated content, we probably should not use them as a source. I know that it is specifically prohibited when dealing with BLP articles and frowned upon for all other articles in general. JBsupreme (talk) 05:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements. Ignoring IMDB, the film project has received significant coverage in reliable sources: Variety, New York Times, Hollywood Reporter, Sci-Fi Wire, Monsters & Critics, Cinema Blend, et al. Considering the companies and persons involved, it will be seeing more, not less. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ample news coverage found. Dream Focus 03:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per improvements made. -- Banjeboi 15:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Icewedge (talk) 04:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gay Blue Jeans Day

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

Delete. I see some press releases and mentions on a few university websites, but I do not see any significant coverage of this day being observed by any kind of reliable third party publications. [18] JBsupreme (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, some of the sources are down and none of them explain this topic's notability. Sorafune +1 22:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google search of the topic gives 15,000 hits. Many are University groups discussing their local celebration of the day. The protest was an important early tactic. That it refers to a Gay rights protest leads me to be doubly reluctant to delete the article under 'not censored'.

The protest is a historical event more than a current one. So unsuprisingly, those organizations that still carry it on are the only ones to report it. At the time there certainly were many references in third party publications. Of course, this was before the internet, and it was a news event.

It seems better to keep the article and provide some such sources if they're needed. For example, this [May 7 1981 discussion in the Cornell Daily Sun]. This paper has a 'history' column that mentions the protest [Outrider vol 13] I'm afraid I don't have a stack of college papers from the mid 1980's available at the moment, but I suppose I could go find some.

I believe this meets the criteria of 'Significant Coverage' (it's the focus of the article in many cases) 'Reliable' (commercial publishers) secondary sources (the book mention, for instance) 'independent of the subject' (it's easy to find negative references, and certainly the scholarly references should count)

The page is linked (to Gay_rights_in_the_United_States).

The protest was important enough that the LGBT Historical Archive in San Francisco included several flyers for it in a public display of artifacts of the LGBT rights movement.

The protest is mentioned in 8 different books in the Google books collection, for example Wolf, Michelle (1991). Gay People, Sex, Media. Binghamton, NY: Harrington Park Press. p. 248. ISBN 0-918393-77-9. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Finally, we should look at the 'would this be in a paper encyclopedia?', to which I have to answer yes. The article seems like something a student or researcher of LGBT history would find useful.

I admit the article has problems. It seems a better use of editor's energy to improve the article than to delete it.

20:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anniepoo (talk • contribs)

Keep. I had never heard of it so was dubious ... but there's a few books with the exact phrase and and over 20 GNews hits for a poorly named campaign. Tweaking the search phrase quickly doubles those results. If this is a continuous annual campaign it would be likely the longest running annual non-parade event for LGBT awareness. -- Banjeboi 22:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Benjiboi. Agree that sources exist, and notability - while a bit thin, given the history - is still there. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All the Google news results are for Penn State University. The Google book search results show this is notable. "Gay people, sex, and the media" and other books mention it. Dream Focus 13:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Enough coverage to establish notability. Defender of torch (talk) 02:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Schlittler

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

Non-notable recording artist. Ridernyc (talk) 21:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, indeed. JBsupreme (talk) 21:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable singer in a non-notable band. Joe Chill (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Band is not notable, and neither is this guy. The Arbiter^★_★^★ 22:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 22:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find significant coverage for this person (separate from his Kid Icarus band/project) in independent reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Gongshow ^Talk 23:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails WP:BAND. Armbrust (talk) 00:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is a stub and should be expanded, but the subject is notable. The discussion on the band leans toward notability. (Thx Gongshow.) He is also founder of a notable record label--notable because it includes notable acts. In addition, the stub gets 30-50 hits per month, so there ARE people referring to it for info. However, there aren't any facts here that you can't get from other articles; therfore I give it a soft 'KEEP' in the hopes that others will develop it. With some work, it could be a lengthy, refernce-free article like Alec Ounsworth of Clap Your Hands Say Yeah. (^_^) Kindofdavish (talk) 00:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 22:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bang Bang & Other Hits

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

Non notable compilation. Kekkomereq4 (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 19:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - the album is (briefly) reviewed at AllMusic which I'm pretty sure helps with notability in music-related articles. I only mention this to help others vote if they're so inclined. I can't find anything else about the album outside of retail sites, meaning it didn't make much impact with the public, not even with AllMusic given how skimpy that review is. It's surely a quickie budget compilation for casual fans. Perhaps notable because it's by Cher but probably not notable in itself. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cher is unquestionably a notable artist. If her bio article were to have all the worthwhile and properly sourced information about her, however, it would be far too long. Therefore, the editors of the article have properly used summary style. The main article links to a daughter article concerning Cher albums discography, and that article links to articles about particular albums. It's an excellent way to make available a rich level of detail about Cher (which some readers would want) without surrendering to clutter that would impair Wikipedia's value for readers who want less detail. JamesMLane t c 09:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 22:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I intended to find a reason to vote keep but came to the same conclusion as Doomsdayer520. Then was going to suggest redirect to Cher albums discography, but after seeing her other compilation albums, particularly Greatest Hits: 1965–1992 which was released in the same year and was certified at least gold in at least 8 different countries, I decided that the significance of this release is non-existent. J04n(talk page) 00:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The most "significant" coverage I can find is this tiny Allmusic review (edit: the same one listed above by User:Doomsdayer520). Unless more (and better) sources are presented, it appears this budget-priced compilation does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 01:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Straight Edge Society

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

Non-notable tag team. They have not done anything notable (at least yet), they have only teamed together twice in fact. They could possibly become notable in the future, but I don't think they are yet. TJ Spyke 21:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —TJ Spyke 21:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absoulutly nothing notable about these 2 except they #1 contenders to the Unified Tag Team Championship which like Jeri-Show (who actually won the titles) doesn't qualify them as notable.--C23 C23's talk Help solve the WrestleMania 23 dispute 23:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Add-on I can actually name a lot of teams that won tag titles (or at least were a contender to them) that don't have there own pages. 1. CM Punk and Kofi Kingston 2. Rey Mysterio and Batista 3. Jeri-Show 4. Batista and John Cena 5. John Cena and Shawn Michaels 6. MVP and Mark Henry etc. must I go on. Thoses teams are just like these 2 un-notable besides winning or qualifying for tag titles.--C23 C23's talk Help solve the WrestleMania 23 dispute 23:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TJ Spyke's assessment. The fact that the teams listed in Curtis's !vote makes this pairing even less notable. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 23:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly why should we have a page for a team that hasn't won the titles when we don't even have pages for teams who have won the titles.--C23 C23's talk Help solve the WrestleMania 23 dispute 23:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Is that even a tag-team name? The team has done nothing. Fails WP:N.--Truco ₅₀₃ 03:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Contains 0 notability. Afro (Not a Talk Page) ^{- Afkatk} 04:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete They have only tagged together twice that i know of and have not been in any major matches IE. Title matches.--Steam Iron 05:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I gotta give a vote of Keep, though with heavy editing. It's not so much a tag team, but a kayfabe movement, what with the bringing down of audience members to shave their head and whatnot. It seems to be a major angle and is getting a serious focus on SmackDown. If it turns out to fall by the wayside and be nothing then the article could be removed later, but it's notable enough to keep for now. Some of the arguments presented here could be considered invalid. For instance, the listing of teams like Batista and Mysterio and Jeri-Show as not having articles. It could easily be argued that those teams should have an article as well, not that this shouldn't. Plus, arguing that they're not notable because they haven't won tag titles seems ridiculous to me. Professional wrestling is a scripted form of entertainment, no one "wins" any titles unless the booker says so. Not to mention, the current Tag Team Champions, D-Generation X, didn't win those titles until 12 years after they formed. Were they irrelevant for 12 years because of that? Also, one of the listed examples, MVP & Mark Henry, also never won tag titles either. So yes, I vote Keep for now, as the "Straight Edge Society" has current notability and shows potential for long-term notability. -Josh (talk) 16:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know that they didn't win the titles for 12 years what I mean is those teams I listed they are un-notable as they didn't do anything also I think all of those teams except John Cena and Shawn Michaels were deleted through AfD which is your point I think anyway. Also DX they were actually noteable they actually did things that would catch people's eyes this team all they have done is shave people's head and are #1 contenders to the titles.--C23 C23's talk Help solve the WrestleMania 23 dispute 21:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to add that DX have won the tag titles before. The New Age Outlaws won the titles multiple times while part of DX, this is just the first time that Triple H and Shawn Michaels have held the titles together. TJ Spyke 21:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yah heres it from the page:

- WWF/E World Tag Team Championship (8 times, current)^[1] – New Age Outlaws (Road Dogg and Billy Gunn) (4),^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5] X-Pac and Kane (2),^[6]^[7] John Cena and Shawn Michaels (1), Triple H and Shawn Michaels (1, current)^[8]
- WWE Tag Team Championship (1 time, current)^[9] - Shawn Michaels and Triple H^[10]

So your DX argument is irrelevant. FYI i'm adding a reference section so you know i'm not lying.--C23 C23's talk Help solve the WrestleMania 23 dispute 21:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per all of the above. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in it's current form talking about a tag team. If the article was switched to the kayfabe movement it could be salvagable, but it's too early to tell. Also - either way - there is no claim to notability. !! Justa Punk !! 10:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this nonsensical wrestlecruft. Guy (Help!) 22:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As a faction they may become relevant later but not now. Even if they were to win the straps next week the kibosh should be put on it; the group - two steady "members" such as it is - in in its infancy and has no official name or notability.Papacha (talk) 10:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Schwarzchild proton

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

Crackpot theory claims to overturn the Standard Model, replacing the quark description of the proton by claiming it is actually a black hole with no internal structure. The sum total of supporting citation for this article is a single reference to an obscure "award" from a "Computing Anticipatory Systems" (not peer reviewed by physicists). CosineKitty (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FRINGE says delete. Cosmo0 (talk) 21:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete main reason: no significant coverage of this fringe idea outside the authors website and a nonnotable, nonphysicist conference. to make it here, we'd at least need evidence of controversy. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 21:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a theory, it has been published and it's intriguing at some level. I come to Wikipedia not only to read mainstream educational stuff but also for thought provoking stuff. Also, if you delete this page on the ground that's fringe science then why Time cube is still there? -- Femmina (talk) 21:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:FRINGE covers this topic well: the Time Cube is widely known and disparaged, whereas this theory has no notable coverage, not even ridicule. CosineKitty (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try to search "Nassim Haramein" on youtube. If you sum the views of the first four videos that come out you get 241118. Now, if you sum the digits of that number you get 17. That is exactly the number that comes after 16 which is exactly 4 times 4 which is the length of the word Keep. Seriously, he's not that unknown and unappreciated. -- Femmina (talk) 22:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable self-published crackpot theory per CosineKitty. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 23:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:FRINGE, per nom, and per total lack of coverage in credible, independent, secondary sources. Haramein isn't notable and neither are his theories. Yilloslime ^T_C 06:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... Let me try another tactic here. If you delete this article you planets will become disaligned and your sacred geometry will get all scrambled. Are you willing to accept this risk? Or maybe try not to think about this as something related to the field of physics but as something related to new age. If that helps. -- Femmina (talk) 08:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I for one am quite willing to take the risk of scramblage! :) Seriously though, I think you are missing the point about this deletion proposal. The primary problem is lack of notability as established by any reliable source. I support deletion of this article, but would not do so for say, Flat Earth Society or Plasma cosmology, because the Schwartzchild proton idea appears only in a non-peer-reviewed self-published paper and in various blogs and YouTube videos. To survive in Wikipedia, any topic must be important enough for established third parties to make note of it, even if they are just making fun of it. For example, suppose if Scientific American were to debunk the theory with a couple of paragraphs of ridicule, and we could include that here as a citation, the article might have a leg to stand on. So far, every attempt I have made to find anyone other than Haramein writing about Haramein's theory has yielded only YouTube videos and people on blogs asking "WTF?". If some day it attains any measurable following, even as a well-known self-parody pseudo-religion like the Church of the Subgenius, I would reverse myself and support the article's existence here, assuming of course that the topic was covered accurately, from neutral point of view, and based on reliable sources. CosineKitty (talk) 14:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking into adding something to the article, just to see if it was possible but I honestly don't understand mr. Haramein's theory well enough to describe it in my own words. I also agree with your reasoning. According to the rules this article can go but still I feel like we're about to give up on the last Dodo bird on earth. -- Femmina (talk) 15:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This isn't even "mainstream" for a fringe theory. It's evidently obscure enough that there's not even enough interest to bother debunking it, and no evidence supporting it. The "Well, (insert related subject here) has an article!" argument doesn't hold. This needs to be judged on its own merits. Or lack thereof. Bagheera (talk) 02:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There seems to be no independent support for this theory. The only readily available documentation is from the author of the paper. While not strictly relevant to this isolated article, it should be noted that the page for the author has already been deleted twice - this seems to be an attempt to "gain a toehold," and nothing more, as the article is so short as to be meaningless other than providing a link to his page. --Tharaun (talk) 17:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Tharaun (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Yilloslime ^T_C 18:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's right; I finally decided to make an account. Since I'm not the originator of the page in question, though, I fail to see how your comment affects my contribution... I could just log out and go back to commenting anonymously, but would it change the fact of my statement? Perhaps Wikipedia:BITE is relevant? --Tharaun (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if that was bite-y. It's standard practice to tag !votes from newly registered accounts with — [[User:|User:]] ([[User talk:|talk]] • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . I've done this probably dozens of times, and usually these accounts are obvious sockpuppets desperately trying to keep their pet article on WP. This is clearly not the case with you and your !vote, but I'm just trying to be consistent in my tagging of accounts.Yilloslime ^T_C 19:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The paper setting out the hypothesis (I personally don't think it rates 'theory' in scientific usage) allegedly won an award as best paper - at a conference for Computer Anticipating Systems, which puzzles me a bit. I can't find any official confirmation of this award or of the paper being presented there. Plenty of bloggish etc mentions. I also found this http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=32453 discussion of Haramein's work. I don't recommend reading the whole thread (I haven't).... (See also David Icke for background if you do go there.) No independent reliable references, and definite OR. Peridon (talk) 19:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To let everyone know, I am in no way affiliated with the resonance project. I just heard the theory proposed and explained in a youtube video, and I found the resonance project's webpage. I'm aware that few other sources cite the page, but the mathematics used in Haramein's paper just seem to make sense of the seemingly nonsensical "strong force." Please, if someone can just read through his paper, check the math; it all ties everything together. If you don't want to read the paper to get the math, watch the youtube video that brought me to create this page posted in the external links section. Please note the examples of public interest: Luke Fortune's Radio interview, Luke Fortune's lecture. Luke Fortune is a classically trained physicist who has written several books. If there's anything else I can do to keep this page running, please let me know. In the radio interview, Luke mentions attending a university lecture regarding the topic of the Schwarzchild proton. I'll see if I can contact Luke Fortune to get more information regarding the lecture he mentioned. Doc7777777777 (talk) 22:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Doc7777777777 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Yilloslime ^T_C 19:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At a quick glance on Google, Luke Fortune seems to be self-published via lulu.com, and connected with UFO and other fringe matters. He appears to be a 'certified paralegal' (whatever that is - they can cure a lot of things now...) ~~He is also on FaceBook (I think most people are, except me).~~ I can not find a reference to him being a 'classically trained physicist'. Could be further down the list. Peridon (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still working on e-mailing him, but although it would be much more convenient, I can't seem to find him on Facebook. Well, I can find several Luke Fortune's, but I can't seem to verify that any one of them is the Luke Fortune in the videos. All I know is that since the radio interview was from Vegas, most likely, he lives in Las Vegas, NV, or at least somewhere in the general area. Doc7777777777 (talk) 21:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try author@ufohowto.com or through http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-UFO-How-To-Scientific-Development-Trust-501c3/212231431245?ref=share The 'Luke Fortune' I noted above (and have now struck through) appears to be someone else. Peridon (talk) 11:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently this "theory" has convinced you, Doc, of its validity. The reality though is that it's not a mainstream theory and doesn't appear to have any support in the actual Physics community. The "award" for best paper was not from a physics journal, nor was the paper peer reviewed by physicists. If the article was presented in a way that reflected this was not a well accepted mainstream theory, then it would have a much better chance of inclusion. As it stands, there's virtually nothing that supports its entry. Cheers. Bagheera (talk) 19:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No strong argument for keeping, and the delete arguments include concerns about notability, WP:CRYSTAL, and indeed verifiability given some of the conflicting information. No prejudice against recreation if the film is released in some fashion and more info becomes available. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ullam

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

Unable to find multiple third party reliable sources that confirm this film meets WP:NF or even WP:GNG. I was able to find an IMDb entry for Ullam but the information in IMDb differs greatly from what is described in the article, creating doubt that this is the same film. This reference provided is from a 2008 article and the soundtrack was supposedly released in 2004; the film in the IMDb link is claimed to have been released in 2005. I'm not sure if several films are being mistaken for one another or if this film is one of those films in perennial production that is having a hard time getting wrapped up but I don't think it qualifies for its own article at this time. I'll gladly withdraw my nomination if proper sources can be found to show notability. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 20:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm finding lots of sources, that upon further review always refer to another film. With the soundtrack being released six years ago, this does sound like a perennial production delay, but, again, I can't find anything that confirms that! Bradjamesbrown (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak weak keep per edging toward the coverage allowed in WP:CRYSTAL... specially with a soundtrack pre-released in 2004 to garner funding [19][20]. The one film listed on IMDB as released in 2005 is a Malayam film by that same name. Sadly, IMDB most definitely lacks coverage of many Tamil films, and searches are quite often confused because of the Indian penchant for releasing so many films with similar titles and in several differnt languages. This will need input from the few editors familiar with that area. Screen India, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if deleted, redirect to Teller-Ullam as it is likely to be a reference to the nuclear bomb. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 05:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: usually (but not always), Tamil films that get stuck without release for such a long period (years in this case), don't get released. And in most cases this means the film has been a subject of financial dispute or it ran out of funds to be finished. And when some of them do come out, they go direct to satellite broadcast without theatrical release. The article can wait till the film comes out.--Sodabottle (talk) 08:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SitNGo Wizard

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

SitNGo Wizard is written like an advertisement, even though I have removed several peacock term filled sentences. It also has questionable notability as it is an obscure software product applicable to only one form of poker, and has been written entirely by one editor... DegenFarang (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep Texas hold'em is the most popular form of cards in the world, AFAIK. This article is about a notable piece of software that is essential to contemporary online poker players. Several software reviewers have reviewed the software and it is highly recommended on poker forums.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 02:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The software does not apply to texas hold em, not even online texas hold em, it applies only to sitngo tournaments which make up a very small portion of the overall poker and indeed, online poker, pool of games. DegenFarang (talk) 18:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It pertains to the end game of any tournament. Also, as I understand it SNGs are now the most popular form of online poker.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again with the peacock terms - you should work in advertising. I don't know how you define 'most popular' but a simple glance at the lobby of any online poker site will show you cash games are far more "popular", and it isn't close. I used to play SNG's a lot, I have used several of the SNG tools. And because of this I know that any software in this niche applies to a very small group of people, maybe 10,000 at most, who actually take SNG"s seriously. Misstating the notability of this tool is not going to help you here, you keep trying to make it sound more important than it really is - instead you should focus on making the article more neutral and maybe this part wont matter. DegenFarang (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure I have written the article in exchange for a free registration (which would cost me $99 after the 30-day trial ends).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. note that in critical review I showed both pluses and minuses to retain a neutral point of view.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed you owned it but yes, from reading it, it is very clear you were biased. Though I give you tremendous credit for admitting that when nobody could have proven otherwise. See CardRunners (which I created, with no incentive) for what a neutral and objective article of a poker product should look like, in my opinion. DegenFarang (talk) 18:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also wrote PokerTracker, which is a WP:GA. I am receptive to critical advice in regards to bias, but feel I have included both pluses and minuses.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PokerTracker is a very good article, other than the end where there is a huge paragraph of praise from other websites. When I'm not so tired I will go in and clean that up - or somebody else can. Other than that, you should strive for the neutrality of the PokerTracker article and not give so much background information on the SNG structure and the need for this software (that is all a sales pitch, if a subtle one). Just explain the software and what it does, don't explain the need people have for the software - that should be self-evident if it is notable enough for inclusion. DegenFarang (talk) 22:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Neutral. I don't see many reliable (non self published) sources cited, though I am not an expert on online poker. If somebody can prove that the sources are reliable, I'll change my !vote. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 22:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you consider reliable for poker software? I have included several independent software reviews.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Changed to neutral. I'm not completely sure that the software is notable, but some of the reviews seem to hint at notability. Changed to neutral. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 00:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in previous format. Article is now much improved but still needs work. I'm not positive the software is notable enough for inclusion but I'm not an expert on the notability of businesses or services, so I'll leave that for others to decide. Previously it read like an advertisement, there have now been major improvements in that area. DegenFarang (talk) 01:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: the version (by me) that DegenFarang referred to as "much improved" was reverted by TonyTheTiger shortly thereafter to hi$ preferred ver$ion. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 00:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I reverted because I have not seen anyone attempt to remove inline citations since about 2007 or 2008. Your removal of inline citations was destructive.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - As I wrote here earlier, I removed spam links and questionable sources—fairly standard procedure around here. None of the references are to news sites. Example 1: pokersoftware.com/sitngo-wizard/. That page ends with an invitation for readers to "Submit your own review"; user-generated content isn't encyclopedic. Example 2: Ezinearticles.com is on the spam blacklist (probably why you didn't link it),which should have said something about their reputation. Example 3: sngwiz.com itself. A vendor's website should not be used as the source for claims about their own product.
      If any of the "refs" had been to solid reputable sites, I would have left them.
      If you haven't seen spam removed since 2007, perhaps it would be a good time to re-read some policy pages: WP:RS, WP:COI, WP:OWN, and last summer's community discussion of paid editing. The {{review}} and {{uw-tdel1}} templates might be a good idea as well. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Sorry but this is promotional editing and should not be encouraged on Wikipedia, as per WP:NOT AND WP:SPAM. A truly notable organization shouldn't have to entice editors to write a Wikipedia article on their product. I also think Tony should refrain from creating similar COI articles in the future. Them From Space 01:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- They did not solicit me, I asked if they would give me a free registration for a copy of the software.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I tried to clean this up but there wasn't much left afterwards. Between the paid editing by the initial author, the zero Google news hits in English, and the lack of any reliable sources that cover the application, I don't see it as a keeper. The original version of the article had serious issues (such as violating {{review}}) which could be fixed, but there are no sources that cover this brand-new application. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 02:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know why you think removing inline citations improves the article. Your editing makes no sense.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply: I removed them as references because they aren't from WP:RS. If you can find any solid sourcing (from outlets such as PC World) for this product, add it—but I looked and couldn't find any (again, note the zero news hits). Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 02:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KeepBeing written like an advertisement is a valid reason for a cleanup tag, but it's not a valid reason for deletion. Being written entirely by one editor is not a valid deletion reason either. Multiple references provide evidence of notability, which was the only valid deletion reason cited. Rray (talk) 03:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete So because someone says, "Oh I got paid to do this and I'm being honest about it", then it's OK? What next for TonyTheTiger, there's any number of crappy poker tools out there that he could create weasely articles for. Hazir (talk) 05:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A few reviews is not proof of importance/notability, they merely confirm that the software exists.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 00:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC) Expand: We do not have articles on every musical album or every book that is published. Similarly, we do not have an article on every piece of software released. Simple reviews is not sufficeint to show that the item in question is notable---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 00:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article is currently protected. The deletion vote should be suspended until the article is unprotected, so references can be added, it can be made to word less like an ad, etc. Samboy (talk) 02:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, like any other protected article, if there is something to be added, a request can be made on the talk page and it can be added.

In addition, references missing from the article may be presented in the AfD to show notability and then re-added in later after the closure. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification Do the following count as WP:RS?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I've found so far after a quick look:

ontherail.co.uk: was referred to here as not counting as a reputable, third-party source.
pokersoftware.com: based on this press release the site is less than three months old, so it's too early to say.
parttimepoker.com: based on this, it doesn't sound promising.

If you search for each site on Google News, none are being used by news sources as a reference, which would have been a point in their favor. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 05:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure g-testing poker software is a fair test. Would any of the following show up in google news: Bluff Magazine, Card Player, Poker Road or Poker News Daily? If you look around you will see that there is no poker software on wikipedia and we know this is a scientific endeavor with people trying to gain advantages with technology. I think that traditional RS tests may just be biased against poker.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then how do you propose to demonstrate that these sites have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Someguy1221 (talk) 07:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is that what a google news tests for? I don't know that that is the case. In terms of the sources above, I am surprised On The Rail is not considered a RS. Personally, if it just lets Kara Scott write whatever she feels, I would trust her or whomever. It seems they rely on experts although they might not fact check. I was under the impression that new rules on blogging admit unreviewed commentary by experts. I think poker is getting shafted, because they may not use the same journalistic approach as other fields. I don't think the traditional journalism paradigm fits poker. Many sources that the public relies on may just be expert opinions that are not reviewed in traditional journalistic ways.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further on the On The Rail source. According to DoriSmith (talk · contribs) it is not a RS. However, look at the review. It is by the Managing Editor of Poker Player Magazine. This makes it as reliable as any blog by an expert at the very least and in the current environment, we do consider blogs by experts to be reliable sources if I am understanding WP:RS correctly. Can Dori comment on this?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SOURCE QUERY given the source above, I stumbled upon the following online mentions of the software and want to know if they are considered WP:RSs

Tony I think an article on the genre of this type of software would be more than acceptable, my problem is that *I* do not see this particular piece of software as being notable. Has it had some reviews? Yes. But a lot of software products, just as a lot of books get reviewed. Simply because a book is reviewed does not make the book worthy of an entry, similarly, just because a piece of software gets reviewed does not make it worthy of an entry.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I were to create an article for a book that you have never heard of that had been reviewed in RSs, wouldn't it pass at AFD. We should not be going by personal opinions on what is notable. If the managing editor of a major poker magazine reviews a software and several other reliable reviewers review it that makes it WP:N. My question, which it would be helpful if you would respond to, is whether you consider the sources above to be WP:RS.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poker Player Magazine is an RS - however all they did was a review. Even all books and cd's that are reviewed by the New York Times are not notable simply because of that review. When extremely notable poker resources like DeucesCracked and BlueFirePoker do not even have their own articles - not to mention the entire category of poker training websites - I find it a huge stretch to see how this software is notable enough to have its own article. An article on SNG software I guess would be better than this - though a general poker software or online poker tools article would be better, so the training sites and non-SNG software could be includedDegenFarang (talk) 16:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DeucesCracked has lots of discussion about this software, but they are a poker forum. I was told about this at 2+2, but did not view them as a RS.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TwoPlusTwo has even more discussion about it on their forums.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstood me. I was not saying DeucesCracked is an RS, I was saying they are far more deserving of an article than SNG Wizard. And there are probably 50-100 other poker products and services that lie between the two on the poker notability scale. DeucesCracked has a poker forum however the purpose of the website is to provide poker training videos to subscribers for a monthly fee, the same as CardRunners, BlueFirePoker, LeggoPoker, StoxPoker and many others DegenFarang (talk) 06:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A book review doesn't mean the book is notable. Take a little challenge. Goto Amazon.COM, select a word, any word, and put it into the search engine. Pick the Xth book, and then do a search for book reviews. I just did five books, and I was five for five on finding book reviews on those books. Having a review, even in reliable sources, proves existence, it does not prove notability. A book with just a few short reviews would likely be deleted. As for forums, no they are not reliable sources---but you know that.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I get the point that most published books have reviews somewhere. I also admit that although I have produced GAs for both software (PokerTracker) and books (Encyclopedia of Chicago and A More Perfect Union: Advancing New American Rights), I am not an expert on notability for either topic and am in a gray area that I do not understand on what constitutes notability. I am just not sure that the decision is being based on lack of notability. It seems that a lot of the problem is that I asked for a copy of the software in exchange for writing an article. If I told you I received two tickets to a show at the Chicago Theatre would it make that subject any more or less notable? I think not. What I need to understand is whether any of the extant or proposed sources is considered reliable. If Poker Player Magazine is a reliable source, I think we have at least three reliable sources for the article and two more than when this discussion started. Am I correct that we have at least three reliable sources for this article now?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not disputing that Poker Player Magazine is not reliable... I think it is. But having a review, does not make it reliable. When I lived in Denver, the local dinner theater always had it's shows reviewed by numerous notable sources---the Rocky Mountain News, Denver Post, Westwood Magazine, 5280 Magazine, etc. Does that mean that when the local dinner theater produces "WestSide Story" that their rendition of WestSide Story is notable enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia? Poker Magazines are very niche and are going to have a fairly low barrier to coverage because they are looking for esoteric things that fill their niche. It's a niche that I enjoy, but that does not mean that it conveys notability to it.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are saying that I have found some reliable sources, but you are comparing this to local theater. Why is it so prominently mentioned in the leading international poker forums such as DeucesCracked and TwoPlusTwo? It is even mentioned a few times at bluff magazine] and Poker Road.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, your lack of poker knowledge betrays you. DeucesCracked is not a 'leading international poker forum' - nowhere close - they are a poker training website. This doesn't change your point, it does however magnify the fact that you are a poker noob and most likely unqualified to objectively determine the notability of poker products and services (though nearly every single poker noob - other than Darvin Moon) - will vehemently disagree with a statement like that, it is perhaps this very trait that makes them all noobs). I get that you are an SNG player and that you were compensated to write this article: thus it is very notable to you. That does not mean it is in fact notable in reality. A poll of serious live and online poker players and people in the industry would likely reveal less than 10% of them have even heard of this product, though its 300,000 Alexa does point to a not-insignificant number of people using it. DegenFarang (talk) 06:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP is not about figuring out which are the most important topics and adding them in order. I work on a ton of athletes for example and probably none of the veterans that I have worked on will ever go to the hall of fame for their sports (

Tyrone Wheatley,

Cato June and

Tai Streets for example). I have spent a lot of time on Rob Pelinka, but almost none on Kobe Bryant. Pelinka is a virtual unknown. Probably less than 10% of basketball fans have heard of him. Since we overlapped in the Ross School of Business by a year he is sort of a classmate of mine and I decided to work on an article that hit home. In poker I have worked on the three poker tools that I use. Even if there are 50 other poker topics that are more important that does not mean that you should delete these to encourage me to work on the most important. The minimal compensation that I received is so off-topic in regards to the notability, that I don't understand why you try to cloud the notability argument with it. Yes I am a noob. I am approaching 84,000 hands of real money games. I have done a lot of fairly rare things for my level of experience, including ITMing 7 consecutive tournaments and playing profitably 8 consecutive days of at least a half dozen tournaments each. In my first 800 tournaments, I turned $50 to over $800. Part of my rapid learning has been good use of poker tools. The ones I use are widely-used. They are highly recommended at twoplustwo.com, which is an international poker forum. It is highly discussed at DeucesCracked, whether it is a poker forum or not. DeucesCracked does appeal to the international audience and as such its nuerous mentions of the tool is a relevant consideration.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never worked on athlete articles but common sense would tell me any NBA player with gets somewhat regular playing time would be notable. Simply being a poker tool used by some people is not automatically notable in the same way. People mention all sorts of things with regularity on poker forums - that doesn't make them notable. Forum postings are about the furthest thing from an RS I can imagine, and for good reason. DegenFarang (talk) 17:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What could be a better indicator that a poker tool is notable than that dozens of poker players use it and talk about using it on forums.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly Promotional and lacks reliable sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (but desperately needs cleanup). Reviewed by multiple independent sources that are cited in article. LotLE×talk 18:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatantly promotional and lacks reliable sources. TonyTheTiger's receipt of $99 worth of goods in exchange for creating this article is perhaps the most revolting instance of COI I have encountered in several years of editing. --208.59.93.238 (talk) 14:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do we still ignore IPs in AFD discussions?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - No. IPs don't count in RFA and RFBs. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 20:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I don't know much about the reliability of these sites, but three of the reviews [21] [22] [23] appear to engage in enough critical thinking, and only [24] appears a mere advertorial. So, despite the obvious WP:COI#Financial issues with the creator of this article, a NPOV version can be written. TonyTheTiger, who appears to be only financially motivated to edit this (in that he didn't seem to even understand the main market for this software at the beginning of the AfD) should definitely WP:DISENGAGE from editing the article though. The fact that we don't have articles on more notable Poker software is an argument to create those articles, not to delete this one. Pcap ping 22:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Perhaps Tony can create those articles too for $100 a pop? Might as well solicit some sports tipping sites and discount Nike shoe e-stores while he's at it. Hazir (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. This is blatantly promotional, and we're not an ad service. Unit Anode 03:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I do not believe the subject passes notability standards. Drmies (talk) 04:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reviews found by Pcap. Appears to meet WP:N. Hobit (talk) 05:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, horrible COI issues aside (and Tony really should have known better than to do this), I'm not sure that a handful of reviews demonstrate the sort of coverage that indicates notability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Do you mean non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources? I don't see why reviews don't meet that requirement. And COI, especially the (now) disclosed COI, isn't a reason for deletion. Hobit (talk) 13:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for a variety of reasons - COI, advertising, questionable notability - this one sets off every red flag in my book. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, came past here a couple of days ago and the COI aside the bar for notability is not met. Darrenhusted (talk) 02:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was not going to joint this discussion but the wrong buttons were pushed. I went searching for any notability guidelines that might apply for products in the area. There are none, but several failed ones. I don't see this article meeting the points suggested in those failed proposals. There is one essay that probably covers this and this article does not meet the criteria laid out there. It is correct that WP:COI is not a reason to delete. However WP:COI with WP:ADVERT issues is. Add to that the questions raised about meeting WP:RS and WP:N and deletion seems to be the wisest choice at this time. Maybe in the future when those issues can be resolved the article can be created, but for for now it should go. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for finding the software essay. That will give me something to look at in hopes of reformulating the article in the future.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete for both articles. Obvious consensus to delete Computhink, and only a "weak" keep vote for the software product with two other editors argue the sourcing is insufficient to establish notability. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Computhink

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

Non-notable business that provides Electronic Content Management (ECM) / Document Management solutions for secure information sharing and compliance. Already proposed for deletion (not by me) and contested. Google News finds a fair number of hits: but I see nothing more than press releases, routine announcements of personnel changes, or litigation documents. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the following page for a software product of this business:

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

That article's references are all to a single online publication, a Business Solutions magazine online, which does not sound like it represents the sort of broad readership needed to sustain an article on a commercial product. Google News results for the product are also not particularly helpful, either.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.

Weak keep for ViewWise, weak delete for the company. The software is covered a little in a book on GroupWise [25], and seems to be so in a similar books that are not viewable in google books. Also reviewed [26] in PCQuest and [27] Express Computer. Merging to GroupWise would be unwieldy since they also support MS Office more recently. Article in Chicago Sun-Times looks like it covers both the company and the product. There are a few more like this in that newspaper and in Daily Herald (Arlington Heights). Pcap ping 05:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete Virillion (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC), could not understand.[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as this article fails WP:SPAM. None of the source cited are reliable; they all orginate from the company's own press releases. Self-promotion is not the route to establishing notability in accordance with WP:CORP, nor are routine news reports evidence of notability in accordance with WP:NTEMP. Notability to come, perhaps. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Killswitch Engage Tour (2009/2010)

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

Non notable concert tour. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. No assertion of notability or reliable sources to support it. Nouse4aname (talk) 16:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't Rolling Stone and blabbermouth.net considered reliable? TheWeakWilled (T * G) 20:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References were added after the nomination. However, they do not establish notability for the tour itself. Only the band or the album. Little mention is made of the actual tour, which is required to satisfy GNG. Nouse4aname (talk) 14:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Intelligentsium 01:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: Not enough opinion have been expressed to gauge consensus adequately. Intelligentsium 01:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article includes sources that indicate notability of the tour.--Pink Bull 16:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a tour guide. What the hell is this? Why is there a 6 page list of tour dates for crying out loud? BURN IT WITH FIRE, PLEASE. JBsupreme (talk) 20:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crisantes

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

Non-notable entertainer. Does not meet WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC or WP:ENT requirements. Warrah (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. fetchcomms☛ 22:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Warrah. The Arbiter^★_★^★ 22:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep valid disambig page. I merged Drowning (disambiguation) to this page as they are really the same word and I see no point of both disambig pages. (WP:NAC) CTJF83 chat 08:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drown (disambiguation)

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

Is this disambiguation page really necesary? RadManCF (talk) 18:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ or merge with Drowning (disambiguation) I think it is necessary now, (I've just added two more entries - so it now has four as opposed to two when the AFD began) - but a merge would be OK. Ϣere SpielChequers 19:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep contains several entries, all of which are plausible connections to the topic. Entirely reasonable disambiguation page. Hut 8.5 19:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem with a merge. Hut 8.5 21:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks necessary to me. EALacey (talk) 19:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:DPAGES. This isn't a suitable deletion candidate. Holly25 (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Actually, creating this page may have been a mistake, since Drowning (disambiguation) includes people with the surname Drown. The plan now should be do make sure that the information is properly combined, and the redirect for Drown goes to the disambiguation page, and not to the Drowning article. --DThomsen8 (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I also notice Drown (surname), yet another disambiguation page. Holly25 (talk) 20:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Would it perhaps make more sense to keep this page, and merge Drowning (disambiguation) and Drown (surname) here? "Drown" being the common root? Holly25 (talk) 20:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That seems to make good sense to me, too. Holly25, would you do it?--DThomsen8 (talk) 20:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - It was just an idea in the case that a merge was definitely happening. The three pages are looking pretty well separated now. Holly25 (talk) 21:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  Drown (surname) is not a disambiguation page. It is an anthroponymy list article. The name holders should not be merged into the dab page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a mistake.
(Even tho from a technical and usability point of view the execution was botched. As noted by a colleague, embedded w/in their Keep argument, the two useful changes possible were:
1. Equal Dab'n, with the Dab at Drown instead of Drown (disambiguation)
2. Primary-topic Dab'n, with HatNote Dab using {{Redirect}} at Drowning (now added)
(As executed, tho, here was no link to Drown (disambiguation), and thus no way for most users to realize that a Dab existed, rendering it virtually useless. As the names suggest, the choice between the two approaches rests on whether "Drowning" is the topic most of the users who type in "drown" want -- and not just "the most users": just being in first place is not enuf. Unless the convenience -- to those who are seeking the "Drowning" article, when they get directly to it -- outweighs the inconvenience -- to all the others , when they have to read a HatNote and click on its lk before seeing the Dab page -- the Dab page should have the un-suffixed title so that everyone goes straight to the Dab.)

The problems in the details of the Dab's creation are irrelevant. The creator obviously opined that the affinity of "Drown" to "Drowning" is weaker than our previous arrangement acknowledged, and that would be a reasonable contention (not a mistake) even if the Keep opinions were not so dominant.
--Jerzy•t 21:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:Dab#Combining terms on disambiguation pages is not definitive, but it strongly urges against Merge, by giving all those cases where combining is worth considering, without including -ing and -ed. "Drown" is far less tied to "Drowing" than "The Cure" is to "Cure".
  --Jerzy•t 21:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 20:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are several entries and this is a valid dab. I wouldn't support a merge, as there are several on each dab. The surname page shouldn't simply be a dab, and hopefully in time it'll contain more info. Boleyn2 (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is, but should Drown redirect to Drowning? Other than that issue, I am quite content with the content after improvements by myself and others on the various pages involved.--DThomsen8 (talk) 21:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Drown should probably redirect to Drown (disambiguation), since that page most directly reflects the search term and it still has links to Drowning if that's what the user actually meant. Then, with Drowning no longer the primary target for Drown, the Drown (disambiguation) line at the top of Drowning can be removed (there are two disambiguation lines there at the moment). Does that sound reasonable? Holly25 (talk) 00:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That sounds reasonable to me. My problem is that I don't remember how to edit a redirect page, or I would do it myself. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done. When you get redirected, there's a line underneath the article title with "(redirected from {pagename})", if you click on the link in that line you get to the redirect page and can edit it. Holly25 (talk) 02:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Drown, as WP:DABNAME makes clear, has unacceptably been redirected to Drown (disambiguation). (Rdr'n between them must go in the opposite direction.) Rather than disruptively move the nominated Dab pg during the AfD, i have reverted the change & installed the HatNote {{Redirect|Drown}} that will, in place, read
  "Drown" redirects here. For other uses, see Drown (disambiguation).
Whether Drown should be the Dab (my opinion), or Rdr to the HatNote'd article (my interim solution), shouldn't complicate this AfD debate.
--Jerzy•t 21:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Disambiguates different articles than "Drowning". -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but merge in Drown (surname) as a subsection, unless there can be cncylopecid material on the surname apart from a list. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Once separated, there is no reason to merge an anthroponymy list article back into a disambiguation page. They should be separated, and usually the only reason not to is because no one has bothered to yet. Once an editor has bothered, the article and non-article should stand. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've now expanded the surname article, so it's clearly not a dab. Boleyn2 (talk) 19:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Drown (surname) is not an article of the normal sort, but a WP:Set index article, where more substantial prose is welcome but not required. The argument to merge it for lack of prose ignores the fundamental and thoro'ly discussed design decision to support the SIA page type. What i find a particularly pertinent point for that discussion is that Dabs exist to dab'ate topics that, but for competitors, could have had the Dab'd title. Frank Drown's bio (and others on the surname page) not only could not have been titled "Drown", each also is unimaginably far from being a person like Immanuel Kant, whose bio is entitled to a Rdr from Kant. They doesn't belong on a Dab, but that separate list including them is quite appropriate.
  --Jerzy•t 21:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and either move to Drown or redirect Drown to Drowning with a hatnote linking to both disambig pages. If there is no primary topic for the term "drown," the disambiguation page should be at the title Drown. If the primary topic for "drown" is "drowning", then Drown should redirect to Drowning. It's improper for the primary topic to redirect to a title with "(disambiguation)". See WP:D and specifically WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Propaniac (talk) 16:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. I'd mention in particular WP:DABNAME.
  --Jerzy•t 21:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are still worse problems on WP than the long neglect of the fact that the meanings of "Drown" are broader than those of "Drowning", but this one is worth fixing.
--Jerzy•t 21:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy close in accordance with WP:BEBOLD. Nominator blanked the page minutes before listing here. Article has existed as a redirect for 3 months. I will AGF on the nominator's part, restore the redirect, and relist at RfD shortly. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BR Class 152

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

Non-existent British Rail class of diesel multiple unit. Also this article is orphaned. Sunil060902 (talk) 18:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a placeholder. We don't do placeholders. JBsupreme (talk) 18:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing on the page... The Arbiter^★_★^★ 18:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Article is still being repaired, but foreign-language sources are improving. Notability seems established by links to movies it has been used in. Not completely promotional at the moment. Needs more work. closing as No Consensus to Delete (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cerebro (software)

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

Promotion for non-notable software product, article by single-purpose user with possible conflict of interest. I have been unable to find any significant coverage, and the article gives none. Haakon (talk) 18:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep - At the moment, all the articles about Cerebro so far only in Russian, i added more articles (three short of them in English) in the links section, give us a little time and we will have articles and reviews in English. Number of users (working under movies w/ VFX) that used Cerebro - already large enough! I also would like to actively participate in wikipedia life to add and edit all stuff about other software for VFX and CG.--Khar khar (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC) — Khar khar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

- There is no requirement that sources be in English, FYI. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Haakon (talk) 00:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources in English are preferable, but if the sources simply are in Russian, that doesn't make it non-notable in an international Encyclopedia. Some topics simply are not discussed primarily in English, but are still discussed. LotLE×talk 08:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Blogs are blogs, even if they are in Russian. Where is the non-trivial coverage by reliable third party publications? JBsupreme (talk) 18:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for remove the link to the forum, you're right, it was not necessary! Rigth now in the links section only 2 from 10 looks like blog. By the way, I see good text in 18 issue of Cinefex (russia version) in part about «Black lightning» (producer Timur Bekmambetov) it is normal paper journal, this short toc. How can I add it as a reference?--Khar khar (talk) 22:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I create ref. to Cinefex article--Khar khar (talk) 12:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 22:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Two Plates

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

Related to this AfD. I can't find any coverage in secondary reliable sources to demonstrate that this film is notable. The article creator, Indie Movies, is constantly adding (and, in some cases, readding previously deleted) non-notable films and has been brought up on the conflict of interest noticeboard twice now (the latest showing that the IP may be a sockpuppet), bringing to light that every other film is released by Maverick Entertainment Group. Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 19:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: These six AfDs are also related.

That's all of them so far. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 19:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sources have shown the person is notable. (Non-admin closure) Intelligentsium 22:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Wayne Hull

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

Although this KKK leader and convicted criminal has several media references, etc., this seems like a WP:BLP1E of a person who is not, in the end, encyclopedically notable. Glenfarclas (talk) 20:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is a cut and paste from its source. Bonewah (talk) 20:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multi-agency Joint Terrorism Task Force is focusing on domestic terrorists and Hull is one among the examples. This article was created less than an hour ago and the editors who want to delete it have not allowed time to flesh it out. For the record, it now has three sources; Glenfarclas does not know the history and is guessing without factual knowledge whether this person is worthy of encylopedic reference. Hull was preparing to blow up a clinic. Skywriter (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regrettably, fleshing out the article will not make this man more notable, sorry. I looked for sources, but they are either primary documents (like the very short mention in the FBI publication you provided), non-reliable sources like the ADL, or routine news coverage as would be expected in a BLP1E situation. It's not like I didn't give this deletion nomination a modicum of thought, and you'll notice I sent it straight to AfD rather than tagging him for speedy deletion. Glenfarclas (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The three sources only confirm that this is a clear BLP1E situation. Furthermore, it still contains large sections that were clipped from the FBI report. If you fix it I will be happy to change my mind. Bonewah (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are more than 8500 links to this individual even assuming some of them refer to others with same name. "Large sections from the FBI report" is one paragraph, which I will rewrite. There's discussion at the Ku Klux Klan article whether contemporary Klansmen are terrorists and whether law enforcement goes after them. The Hull article et al. is evidence of answers to both questions. By Glenfaclas logic, only when terrorist successfully kills someone are they noteworthy. I give law enforcement some credit for averting tragedy.Skywriter (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep major figure of historic importance, as shown by the references available. I do not see what is wrong with using language from the FRBI report--its US-PD. DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable, and not a BLP-1E situation. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What would you say are his other claims to fame? Bonewah (talk) 18:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable. Added another Pittsburgh Post-Gazette ref to the article. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, default to "keep". Jayjg ^(talk) 03:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prespa e Vogël and Golloborda

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

This page mentions two regions that do not exist in the Geography of Albania, but they do exist in the minds of the macedo-bulgarian nationalists. These maps are invented by dubious wikipedians and include Korce and Pogradec as places with Bulgarian and Macedonian minorities. The official census of macedonian minorities is 5K. That's it. This area includes populations of more than $200k. In addition this page will entail the creation of the page of Albanian Territories in the Republic of Macedonia, which the macedonians (and albanians) should avoid --Sulmues (Talk) --Sulmues 20:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While I do agree with some of the reasons outlined in your comment (like the fact that the territories are not linked geographically; the modest numbers of the minority populations etc.), I have to suggest toning your words a bit. Making threats to answer this article with another one is far from any reasonable behaviour around here. If you do not like the content of an article, you do not threaten to create the opposite now. It just should not happen. --Laveol ^T 23:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's not a threat and I'm truly sorry if you take it as such. I am referring to the risk that the Albanians start writing similar articles for their inhabited territories in Macedonia with some similarly invented maps. They will feel entitled to to it, because if 5k macedo-bulgarians live in Albania more than 500k albanians live in Macedonia. If the article is similar to this, i.e. including cities that have almost no minorities such as Korca and Pogradec, the mirror article will include half of Macedonia with a made up map that will be worse than this. And it will be done with the justification of the par condicio. Many administrators will have to agree with it because the arguments will be strong. Sulmues (Talk)--Sulmues 13:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment If it's just the map that's bothering you, why not just remove the map? One map/one sentence/one paragraph can be removed, instead of deleting the article, if there are no problems with the remaining material in the article.--Ptolion (talk) 14:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - CommentIt's not only the map: that would be a reason for a split if the maps were accurate, which they aren't. The regions are including areas that are inhabited by Albanians and have no macedonians whatsoever. Those areas include a total population of $200k (Korca is 70k, Pogradec is 25k) the rest is around 100k and only 5k out of that 200k are macedonians. And many of the places listed don't have a Macedonian population but are Vlach. Sulmues (Talk)--Sulmues 19:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do we forget that these small regions are separated because they, geographically, belong to the historical region of Macedonia? And also, the region has a good number of Slavic (Macedonian) speakers. We will see how much Macedonians are in Albania after the change of the census policy, do not fight about it. I would keep the article, for the well known historical and linguo-ethnological reasons. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 14:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- PS: If the reason for deleting is that these are two small regions, we can split the article into two and the problem is solved. Just we need to put tag for splitting--MacedonianBoy (talk) 14:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't know what historical region of Macedonia you are talking about. Could you please be more specific as to the time of that region?Sulmues (Talk)--Sulmues 14:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonia (region) --MacedonianBoy (talk) 23:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That whole article Macedonia (region) is based on the Greater Macedonia map ( File:Greater_Macedonia.png) that is not a historical map, did not exist at any point of time, but comes only from a file created by a Wikipedia user (in this case Wiki-vr. I also can create a map call it Greater Albania include half of Europe and build an article saying that there are some minorities other than Albanian. As a matter of fact that map is also to be deleted because it describes a region that makes no sense. It is just confusing and is staying there because both greeks and macedon editors want to make this Macedonia "Region" as big as possible so that both of your dreams of grandeur are bigger as well. If you check the other maps that are historical, both from antiquity and middle ages Macedonia is in completely different places that the Greater Macedonia map. So if you are claiming that Prespa and Golloborda are part of the Greater Macedonia map which was built by a Wikipedia user, you are just confirming my words that the whole Macedonia (region) is a phony invention and such is Prespa and Golloborda article. Sulmues (Talk)--Sulmues 14:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Sulmues, that perception of Macedonia (region) is dates back to the 19th century (see this map from 1885 for example). I admit, it is inherently aribtrary and random though, since no state, or any other historical entity for that matter, has ever existed with those borders. Nevertheless, that map does depict "Macedonia" as understood by Balkan Slav peoples; Albanians and Greeks understand Macedonia in a different way.--Ptolion (talk) 14:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two things that should definitely be changed in this article are 1) make clear that this "region" is just how Bulgarians/Macedonians have traditionally understood the area, and 2) change that obviously POV passage according to which the area is "primarily populated by Macedonians and Albanians but also by a small number of Aromanians..." which seems to be an attempt to give the impression that the 5,000 Macedonians are the majority in the region. Also, I don't think that the list of settlements is necessary since the article should be about the irredentist concept rather than pure geography.--Ptolion (talk) 15:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you are saying it is a map created by the Macedonian nationalists. The article should be deleted or linked to United Macedonia as it includes a nationalistic map, not a historical one. It is equivalent to Greater Albania's using this map [28] that confirms the National Renaissance of Albania aspirations of being within in a state within the four Albanian vilayets (Janina, Manastir, Skopje and Shkoder). And those WERE historical regions within the Ottoman Empire, so the maps ARE historical, contrary to the nationalist macedon map brought here: such map is based on XIXth century slavic dreams.Sulmues (Talk)--Sulmues 16:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Albanian vilayets", LOL :) To be fair, Bulgarians/Macedonians claim that their idea of Macedonia is based on the boundaries of the Ottoman Uskub (Skopje), Manastir (Bitola) and Selanik (Thessaloniki) vilayets. Same old rubbish.--Ptolion (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with you. Only that Manastir and Uskub were never in Christian hands until 1912. But it's irrelevant. That's why these maps should be in the nationalistic sites Greater Albania and United Macedonia, and that's it. Sulmues (Talk)--Sulmues 20:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is sourced and is also often referred to by this name by various Macedonian nationalists: [29], [30]. The article also provides information about the settlements with a Slavic minority in Albania, which is also sourced. I agree that the irredentist usage of the term must be made clearer, but this is no reason for deletion. Kostja (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that, if the article is to be kept, the list of settlements should be removed. This article is about the irredentist term, not geography, and there is no source that there is significant Slavic presence in all those settlements.--Ptolion (talk) 12:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The map at the bottom describes those settlements as having a Slavic population. Kostja (talk) 14:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, that map isn't actually supported by its sources, therefore there is indeed no reference for these settlements. In this case they should be removed along with the map. Kostja (talk) 14:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable irredentist term, what the article contains as being debated above is not a reason to delete - it should contain what can be referenced, just like any other article.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, default to "keep". Jayjg ^(talk) 03:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Treasure Raiders

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

Related to this AfD. I can't find any coverage in secondary reliable sources to demonstrate that this film is notable. The article creator, Indie Movies, is constantly adding (and, in some cases, readding previously deleted) non-notable films and has been brought up on the conflict of interest noticeboard twice now (the latest showing that the IP may be a sockpuppet), bringing to light that every other film is released by Maverick Entertainment Group. Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 21:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: These AfDs are also related.

That's all of them so far. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 21:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This film was primarily intended for Russian market and had significant coverage mostly in Russian sources. See news aggregators: Google News, Яндекс.Новости ("Форсаж да Винчи" is the localized film title). Notably, there are Kommersant review, Gazeta.ru review, Nashfilm.ru review, proficinema.ru review. Trycatch (talk) 05:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 23:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kid Icarus (band)

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

Contested Prod, non-notable band. Ridernyc (talk) 17:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 18:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7/band with no notability asserted. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Spin magazine found them notable enough to write about them. And about 150 views per month show that people are referring to the article for info on a regular basis. Kindofdavish (talk) 19:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One small article on Spin.com [31] falls a bit short for notability. Ridernyc (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find anything with significant coverage besides Spin, but one source isn't enough. Joe Chill (talk) 21:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Keep: Per Gongshow's links except for the Allmusic bio. Joe Chill (talk) 20:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this article is deleted album artiles would also be included under CSD A9. Ridernyc (talk) 21:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe there's enough coverage out there for this to meet WP:GNG and WP:BAND. In addition to the aforementioned Spin profile, there's an Allmusic bio (along with reviews of two of their releases -- [32][33]), and another album review at PopMatters. ~~I'll incorporate these into the article shortly.~~ I've expanded the article with these sources. Gongshow ^Talk 23:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very easily passess both general and subject-specific notability guidelines due to multiple significant coverage in reliable sources. The article already cited the allmusic bio (with 2 reviews on the same site a couple of clicks away) and SPIN article at the time of nomination, so the AFD is itself a little puzzling and the speedy delete !vote above is utterly mystifying.--Michig (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hear, hear. Drmies (talk) 18:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Another lazy nomination, proposer clearly does not understand that most articles need expansion rather than deletion. Reliable sources exist which proove notability. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Gong's good work.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michig's sensible comments. Drmies (talk) 18:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 01:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Casino Job

AfDs for this article:

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

Related to this AfD. This is sort of a pre-emptive strike to prevent re-creation (something the article creator has done before). Therefore, I'm removing the prods and bumping this up to an AfD. From my prod: "No indication of notability." The article creator, Indie Movies, is constantly adding (and, in some cases, re-adding previously deleted) non-notable films and has been brought up on the conflict of interest noticeboard twice now (the latest showing that they may have an IP sockpuppet), bringing to light that every film is released by Maverick Entertainment Group. Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 21:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I screwed up any coding. Twinkle fouled up the AfD and I had to copy-paste it from another AfD because I wasn't sure what would happen if I used Twinkle to nominate again. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 21:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources to be found. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 02:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NF. Johnuniq (talk) 03:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per coverage in Las Vegas Weekly, Review Journal 1, and Review Journal 2. Let's find some more. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note. This discussion was only listed today, as it was missed previously. --Taelus (talk) 22:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, MichaelQSchmidt's sources establish notability. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 02:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Schmidt's diffs. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 02:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but trim down and add the proper sources. --Reinoutr (talk) 15:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the sources look okay I guess, I'm willing to give this indie the benefit of the doubt. JBsupreme (talk) 18:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Salvatore Di Vittorio

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

Created and maintained by Sdvittorio (talk · contribs) who is suspected to be the subject, probable self-promotional article by non-notable musician. Italian article has already been deleted for this very reason. Jubilee♫clipman 23:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poorly sourced, no evidence of notability, apparent COI (self-promotion), peacock terminology. --Deskford (talk) 15:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Actually better sourced than others. Two third-party reliable refs were added on the 3rd ([34], [35]), and I briefly looked around and added this one today. Passes notability requirements per WP:Music. I tried to clean up for neutrality. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 15:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Could be a case of self-promo that could be cleaned op then? It is interesting, however, that even the Italian Wiki have voted him out: if he is going to be notable anywhere it is surely going to be Italy. This one might get interesting, given that the article is actually quite sustantial and people are trying to source/clean it. --Jubilee♫clipman 16:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the only valid arguments for deletion are a lack of verifiable notability, pure original reseearch or a hoax. Peacock terms, COI, etc. are not valid grounds for deletion They are valid grounds for cleaning up the article. AfDs should not be used for forcing clean up or 'punishing' peacockery. Voceditenore (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am not sure if it is technically copyvio—ie which came first?—but the following website appears to have very similar content: http://www.amc.net/SalvatoreDiVittorio The other websites I have found so far only make passing mention of this subject as Orchestra x featuring Salvatore Di Vittorio. Any better sources? --Jubilee♫clipman 13:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how I missed this before, but the entire text seems to be lifted from www.salvatoredivittorio.com/bio.html and thus a copyright violation. --Deskford (talk) 18:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. This article was under an edit war by the nominator and User:2005. The Deletion process has NOT been followed, as the article hasnt been tagged for clean up or expansion. (non-admin closure) Dusti^SPEAK!! 01:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steve_Badger

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable person. Has not had a significant cash in more than 7 years, prior to the start of the poker boom. Once un-sourced material was removed, article contains next to nothing about him.—Preceding unsigned comment added by DegenFarang (talk • contribs)

Delete - short, non notable. — Cargoking talk 17:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Article shrunk and attacked by editor with history of abusive edits to multiple BLP articles. Part of editor's wikihounding activities. World series of Poker winner with interviews, profiles online as well as quoted as an expert by the New York Times, etc. 2005 (talk) 23:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No valid deletion reasons given. The subject of the article is notable for multiple World Series of Poker wins, and a quick Google search shows significant amounts of media coverage. (The New York Times article alone demonstrates notability.) Length of time since a "significant cash" and word count for the article aren't valid deletion reasons. Rray (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well known player with a World Series of Poker bracelet. TheTakeover (talk) 00:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No RS's for much of the information that is/was in the article. Likely a self published article by User 2005. Subject is not notable in the way the article wording makes him out to be. If re-worded, only using RS's, I may change my vote. DegenFarang (talk) 00:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Either the subject is notable or not. AfD is not the place to discuss article content, but objective criteria of subject notability (existence of, not correct use of, reliable sources). That said, I was unable to find any evidence of the subject's meeting the inclusion guidelines after a good-faith search. ^Bongo_matic 02:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well known poker player and bracelet winner.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only reliable source given is NYT article. Article (which was republished elsewhere) does not provide any significant coverage of Badger (although it relies on him as a source). Does not meet inclusion guidelines. ^Bongo_matic 02:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the diff of the actual article, before DegenFarang's violation of the 3RR policy with his fourth revert of the day. It includes refs to the New York Times and Conjelco.com, the official online source for the World series of Poker from 1995 to 2000 (during which the refed incident took place). Additionally the Hendon Mob has been determined to be a reliable source because Cardplayer Magazine uses its data. In addition to the interview external linked, there are numerous profiles of the subject, Cardplayer Magazine article plus quoted in articles here and here and here and [36], etc. A quick search also digs up The San Franciso Chronicle and plenty of other quotes and references on poker websites. The new York Times, San Francisco Chronicle and Cardplayer are all reliable sources that easily establish notability. 2005 (talk) 02:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hendon Mob may be reliable, but stats do not constitute "significant coverage". One of the Cardplayer references is by, not about the subject—not independent. Two others simply contain a brief quote, and another a longer quote—no coverage at all. The last Cardplayer reference makes only passing mention. Of all of the articles, the Chronicle comes closest, but in my view it does not provide sufficient coverage to raise him to the level of notability. ^Bongo_matic 02:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When an independant reliable source chooses to publish an article by a person, that is a notable act. It is one step beyond simply quoting the person. Please refer to Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic_criteria, WP:ATH and Wikipedia:POKER#Biography article notability criteria where a WSOP victory alone is viewed as generally notable. In addition the New York Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Conjelco/WSOP and Cardplayer coverage etablish notability even beyond the WSOP win. 2005 (talk) 04:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. My main criterion for poker players in general is more than one major win or high finish. He's got some smaller wins/cashes, but to balance that, he plays Omaha, which gets very very little news coverage. It's a no limit hold'em world. I haven't seen him on any of the regular TV shows (hold'em of course), and there aren't any in-depth articles about him. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Tied for most wins in poker history is more than "one major win". His personal profile makes it clear he primarily played 1993-2000 and he doesn't play much poker anymore, so like all the dead or retired players he's not going to be on TV now. There is more to poker than No Limit Hold'em, and more to it than what is going on today on TV. Notability is not temporary. 2005 (talk) 04:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - How did this even get nominated!? Multiple cashes and plenty of reliable sources as noted by others in this discussion. Recent edits to this article should also be looked at, as it now has some ridiculous sounding text like the very first line, "Steve Badger is a poker player" - LOL. Hazir (talk) 05:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article is reliably sourced (cardplayer magazine, sf chronicle, ny times, etc etc) and the subject is a notable poker bracelet winner from before the "poker explosion" and increased online interest (and sourcing.) The article was gutted before being nominated - classy. --guyzero | talk 17:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep While it is not an official guidline/policy, it is the WP:POKER's stance that winning a WSOP bracelet makes one notable. By winning said bracelet, he has eched his name as one Poker's elites. See Wikipedia:POKER#Biography_article_notability_criteria.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 00:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep plenty of reliable sources, major championships. I see no problem with notability. The deleted text in the article's history logs right before this nomination is quite disturbing. Royal broil 01:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural Keep. No rationale for deletion is offered. The presence, or lack, of a category is not itself a policy-based rationale for deletion, as per our Deletion Policy. The AFD process, at present, differs from other processes (such as Templates for Discussion), in that it isn't a forum for non-specific discussion about the subject article; an AFD is very specifically a request to delete a particular article for a particular violation of our policies. There is no such request here. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 21:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Variations of magenta

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

There is no Category:Shades of magenta to go with this list. Georgia guy (talk) 17:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't see how lack of a companion category is a rationale for deletion. I also don't see why a category would be needed or useful in the absence of stand-alone articles to populate it. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Category:Shades of red category goes with the Variations of red article. Georgia guy (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if this is being considered solely on their not being a category "shades of magenta", then this debate should be around whether to add such a category (which i agree is not needed). nomination should be speedily closed, and nominator may take this discussion elswhere, or be bold and just create the category. i would note that the color categories tend to not be extra-spectral colors, and combination colors like magenta are classed in the spectral color they are most associated with.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Although I'm not convinced that the page meets the inclusion criteria, in my view, the nominator's rationale makes very little sense and has nothing to do with Wikipedia's deletion policies. If no one comes up with a better argument for deletion, I suggest a speedy keep per WP:KEEP. — Rankiri (talk) 18:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I want to know what's special about magenta that makes it so that this article makes sense; it treats magenta like a basic color. Georgia guy (talk) 19:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article is about a notable topic and there really aren't any scope or content issues that would necessitate deletion. I don't know when the idea that WP:CLN advocates that every category should have a list and every list should have a category got started, but that really isn't a useful way of incorporating their roles. Their functions overlap, but they aren't mirror images of each other. This article is a good example of a list that doesn't need a category. Them From Space 19:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please explain which of the 4 following things Wikipedia deserves:

Variations of pink article
Category:Shades of pink
Variations of magenta article
Category:Shades of magenta Georgia guy (talk) 20:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as per consensus. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 01:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Lucas

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

Some serious WP:BLP issues here. WP:N requires non-trivial mentions in independent, third-party, reliable sources in order to establish notability, and you won't find that for Stanley Lucas because, according to members of the Gerontology Research Group, he has tried to remain anonymous. First, let's look at the sources:

Mentioned in an article about an elderly gentleman to show that someone is older than said gentleman – Trivial
Mention that he's the oldest – Again, trivial.
One sentence about how he played lawn bowls at the age of 100 – Once more, trivial
"Stanley is 108 years young". Cornwall Guardian. 23 January 2008. – Unlike the other ones this, presumably, covers him, although to what depth I can't tell. One local source on an individual, however, does not in any way confer notability.

Only one of these sources actually covers the subject of this article; the other three are just a collection of the times his name has been mentioned over the past five years. Stanley Lucas has not tried to gain attention in the press and has does nothing of note except live longer than any other man in Britain. As a marginally (if at all) notable individual, there's no need for him to have his own article as WP:BLP tells us to respect the privacy of semi-notable figures, and even if we were to completely disregard WP:BLP, there's still not enough sourcing to meet the threshold anyways Cheers, CP 17:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CP, you have written that "according to members of the Gerontology Research Group he has tried to remain anonymous". Could you please elaborate on this, preferably by providing some links to verifiable sources to substantiate this information? Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 23:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the GRG message board, which I have argued against being a reliable source, but which is the only place he has been discussed has this message. For those who do not wish to sign up, it says the following:

I was finally able to talk to his daughter and get enough information to validate his age. Mr Lucas is a quiet man, and as yet doesn't want any media attention. According to his daughter he is in rather good health, and joined the rest of the family in going out for a Sunday meal this week! She is also happy for his name to go on Table E should he reach 110. He was born on the 15th January 1900 and is also currently the UK's 14th oldest person.'

Cheers, CP 02:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thats not him requesting anonomity, not having media attention doesnt make someone anonymous, anonymous just means no info is given, info has been given about him however, so no, hes not anonymous, even if he was, that wouldnt take away from his notability. Longevitydude (talk) 20:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep these sources are good enough, whats wrong with them, he is a supercentenarian, he reached 110 and hes the oldest man in the UK, how is he not notable? Longevitydude (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- hes also the oldest man in Europe, that extremely notable, not only the oldest of a country but also the oldest of a continent. Longevitydude (talk) 17:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being the oldest man in Europe is highly notable. If he is anonymous, then why was there a lengthy and detailed article about him in a reliable publication? References do not necessarily have to come from online sources, and it's certainly no ground for a deletion of an article. "One local source on an individual, however, does not in any way confer notability." - You might want to check WP:N before re-writing the rule book. It states that "the number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources". SiameseTurtle (talk) 17:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to the Cornish Guardian story, the Birmingham Post published a 900+ word interview with him in December 2004, with photographs. These two articles provide ample biographical information, and suggest that he hasn't minded people writing about him. EALacey (talk) 18:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If stanley lucas was anonymous we would know nothing about him, and there would be no sources about him, the fact that there is coverage about him shows that hes not anonymous. Longevitydude (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

a report on his 110th birthday, with a picture http://www.bude-today.co.uk/tn/news.cfm?id=1880&headline=Celebrations%20in%20Bude%20as%20Stanley%20reaches%20110

does this look anonymous to you, could this happen if he was not getting media attention? Longevitydude (talk) 13:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If he actively sought deletion, we might have an issue. But his claim seems highly notable and covered by the media Vartanza (talk) 09:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The comment that was quoted above was made (in a non-public forum) at a time when we were not sure if anything about Stanley had been in the media previously. The family were initially cautious about giving out any details so we moved slowly in accordance with this. Since that time a media story has appeared in the Bude and Stratton Post and he received many visitors over the past week. He never actively sought anonymity. Stanley is the oldest man in the UK, the oldest man in Europe and the third oldest known man in the world. Notable? I don't know - I don't have a detailed knowledge of your notability guidelines. --Mattpagezk (talk) 11:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Male supercentenarians are still quite rare. There are far fewer male supercentenarians than soccer players.Ryoung122 21:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Adding rationale, per DRV: Both sides generally made arguments they felt were policy-based, and on the raw count the !votes were 10 delete, 16 keep, and 1 "keep and merge". Summarizing them, the "deletes" felt that the sources were not nearly in-depth or detailed enough regarding the site to establish notability, while the "keeps" felt that mentions in reliable sources (perhaps combined with a large number of ghits) were sufficient to establish notability. The sourcing looked a little thin to me as well, but this is obviously, at least to some extent, a matter of opinion, and people of good will can disagree on these matters. Those arguing to keep were generally well-established editors, many with tens of thousands of edits (or in one case over 120,000 edits) to their credit - not WP:SPA accounts with little familiarity with Wikipedia and its policies and guidelines, and interest in only one article. I felt that I had to respect the consensus of that preponderance of editors, and their considered judgment in the matter. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Skeptic's Annotated Bible

AfDs for this article:

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

No reliable sources to establish notability. Only self-published and other unreliable sources. No mainstream or widely-known sources. Seregain (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In spite of the large number of "Keep" opinions in the 2005 discussion, this seems to meet none of the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (web). A single author has written two books devoted to criticising the website, with extremely limited library holdings (OCLC 55846448, 57003612). Other than that, Google News Archive and Google Books find only trivial mentions of the website, saying no more than what it's about. EALacey (talk) 18:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note - The books in question are self-published by the author as well. Incidentally, the person who wrote those books got himself banned from Wikipedia a while ago for an unbelievable amount of sockpuppeting. Seregain (talk) 18:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum to my above note: as can be seen here and here, the two books are authored by Jason Gastrich and published by Jesus Christ Saves Ministries. JCSM is an "organization" of one: Jason Gastrich. As to Gastrich's status on Wikipedia, see User:Jason_Gastrich and Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Jason_Gastrich. Seregain (talk) 05:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- I don't feel the need to revise my suggestion based on the sources that have been added, each of which constitutes "[t]rivial coverage, such as ... a brief summary of the nature of the content". These sources have not allowed the Wikipedia article to include any new information about the site's "achievements, impact or historical significance", but have only been appended to statements that "describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers", statements which were obvious from the site itself. (All these quotations from Wikipedia:Notability (web).) EALacey (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak ~~delete~~keep. Widely quoted in forums, widely criticized as irrelevant (therefore mentioned) on Christian apologetics sites (such as this one) but, according to Google, ~~not getting enough in terms of scholarly attention to pass WP:WEB.~~ References inserted are satisfactory, although the one in German would only qualify as trivial. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

COI disclosure: I've been familiar with this website long before I joined Wikipedia. (I used to make sport of those who would throw arguments from the SAB, as it is called in many forums, at me.) -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm prepared to WP:IAR on this, technically it just about fails WP:WEB perhaps, but it's fairly widely quoted in blogs and on usenet and there are books written about it to try to counter it (even if they are self-published books.) However, the fact that the multi-million selling The rough guide to the internet covers it confers notability, since this suggests that they consider it a key part of the internet.- Wolfkeeper 02:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Not much of a mention in that book it seems: The rough guide to the Internet. A tiny little blurb in a book that describes Jack Chick's website as "Hard-core Christian porn." Really? Seregain (talk) 04:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, they didn't have to mention it. It's a widely read book, and it's included.- Wolfkeeper 18:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Based on Seregain (an evangelical Christian)'s contributions, I doubt that this AFD was made in good faith and is likely an attempt to censor views that he finds offensive (and his posts in this AFD further enhance my opinion).

For the record, his 1st edit on Wikipedia was an AFD for Secular Student Alliance, and immediately after starting the AFD, he removed a reference to the SSA from Ken Ham using a deceptive edit summary. These are just a few of his disruptive edits, mind you. I have a thread on WP:AN/I that I would be happy to share. Thanks.--SuaveArt (talk) 06:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update - Mentioned on The Examiner.--SuaveArt (talk) 06:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you at least provide a link to that reference? That would help. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That source is on WP's blacklist. The Examiner is little better than someone's personal blog and there is no editorial oversight of the material they publish. See here, here, here and here. Seregain (talk) 20:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Examiner has been approved in specific articles on the Spam Whitelist page, and Seregain's statement is once again incorrect. The article from the Examiner simply establishes the site's notability further (content from the site would not likely be cited from the source). On another note, many sources which Seregain has a problem with here are more valid than those in Flywheel (film) and Sarah's Choice (evangelical films) which he insisted were legitimite during those article's AFDs, so his POV continues to shine.--SuaveArt (talk) 02:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please add the sources mentioned above to the article, at present it has no sources. Guy (Help!) 07:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found some sources and added them. There is also a section about it in Absolute Beginner's Guide to the Bible but Google Books only shows the headline. It starts with The Skeptic's Annotated Bible www.skepticsannotatedbible.com Every anachronism, contradiction, or otherwise difficult statement in the Bible can be found on ... --Apoc2400 (talk) 11:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addded a source from a non-profit Skeptic organization last night. Still waiting for the Examiner source to be approved on Spam Whitelist as a general notability source. ;) --SuaveArt (talk) 02:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep thanks in no small part to references added GTD 16:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based upon the same reasons as the four keeps above. --Mark PEA (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Still fails WP:WEB: C2 and 3 are right out, so far as I can tell, so all that we have left is C1 - "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself". The closest thing the article currently has is the opinion piece in El Nuevo Diario, and it's a weak reference at best - it's not even clear if the column ever appeared in print. (Here's the translation for those who'd care to take a look.) The German language page only references the site in a bio on its creator, and provides little information other than the fact that it exists; it's no more useful for determining notability than a google hit. And being featured in "The Rough Guide to the Internet" is not enough to confer notability under WP:WEB, because it's a trivial mention; we need reliable sources of which the site is 'the subject', not places where it's briefly referenced. -- Vary | (Talk) 19:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per added sourcing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per added sourcing. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable. The solution to an article on a notable topic lacking sourcing is to add the sourcing, not nom for deletion. Glad to see that Apoc has done so; kudos and gratitude to him. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 23:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, adequate sources now added to support what we already know, which is that this site is quite prominent in the war between fundamentalist Christian apologists and others. Guy (Help!) 07:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just so we're clear, the 'adequate sourcing' that's referenced in keep comments above includes two entries in internet guides ("Biblical studies on the internet: a resource guide" and "The Rough Guide to the Internet"), a one-line reference in a bio blurb for the site's owner, and a single opinion column? This is probably the most support I've ever seen for a web site with such bare-bones sourcing. Are there more sources that I'm not aware of that better establish the subject's notability? If this guide were so important and highly regarded, surely it would have attracted more interest from reliable sources? -- Vary | (Talk) 19:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we could use more, but the rough guide is a pretty significant indicator of notability. We already know from the lengths to which some previous people have gone that apologists view this site as uniquely inimical. The nomination was in bad faith, that is not really in doubt. It's also discussed in Tom Head's Absolute beginner's guide to the bible ad is cited in Cyber Worship in Multifaith Perspectives and a fair number of other limited interest books such as the anti creationism handbook. I look back at the various memes we've struggled to decide how to handle, this has a lot more traction in genuinely thoughtful discussions (and of course genuinely spiteful polemic) than most of them. I am never going to buy this book, for reasons that will be obvious to anyone who knows me, but I do think it is a significant piece of the debate. I'd be interested to know how significant people think this is: [37] - it looks weighty to me. Guy (Help!) 22:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That source, as a Wikipedia mirror, is not at all significant. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for not assuming good faith. Maybe instead of attempting to smear me, you should be searching for more sources. Please address the question below as well. Seregain (talk) 23:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tend not to assume good faith of POV-warriors who are obviously not declaring previous accounts. Call it a quirk. Guy (Help!) 18:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I and everyone else tend to not assume good faith for editors who continue to make baseless accusations with extremely weak "evidence" for no good reason. Seregain (talk) 16:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong evidence has been provided on AN/I about your POV-pushing and deception. The fact that you tried to hide the comments about this on your talk page is just further proof that you're editing solely in bad-faith with an evangelical agenda.--SuaveArt (talk) 19:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the attention that particular individual has paid the site is a good example of why we should use only reliable sources to determine notability. There are much more reputable people (should I say much less disreputable people?) who espouse similar views, and none of them seem to have seen fit to respond to the site - or, at least, their response has not yet been documented in the article. I disagree with the Rough Guide and other internet guidebooks as an indicator of notability based on the wording of WP:WEB, which, while not a policy, is a good description of how inclusion is decided in practice. So far we have only one source (the opinion piece) that is primarily about the content itself, and it's a rather weak one.
Whatever the source, I (obviously) think the nomination itself has merit. I think it's clear that the nominator has a strong POV, and may not be a new editor, but I don't think it follows that the nomination was made in bad faith. Incidentally, I think I'm just misreading your 'buy this book' comment, but are you saying the site's content has been or is going to be published in some form? I don't see any indication of that in the article, but if it has, that's of course very relevant. -- Vary | (Talk) 21:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Query: Are these two sources (the internet "guides") used anywhere else on Wikipedia to establish a website's notability, or just for this particular one? Seregain (talk) 23:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I got my Google-fu on and found out myself. There's only about four other articles that use the "Rough Guide" as a source and ZERO others that use "Biblical studies on the internet." If these are such great and reliable sources, shouldn't they be used a little more? Seregain (talk) 17:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure about this one. Don't rely solely on the internet search automatically provided above, just "skeptics annotated bible" or "skeptic's annotated bible" seems to turn up a few more (even ignoring the stupid Webster's ones), but still pretty paltry. link:skepticsannotatedbible.com/ might indicate some notability, if going through the results there are any RS that link to it, but it seems to be mostly blogs that do. I don't know if that search includes sites with links to subpages? Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 22:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources not great, but adequate. PhGustaf (talk) 00:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks sources and does not show notability. Until this article has more reliable sources I cannot vote to keep.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 00:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Can you explain what type of sourcing the article would require in order to meet your standard of notability? I'm not sure that comment was made in good faith, since the article clearly does not "lack sources".--SuaveArt (talk) 04:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is over the line, SuaveArt. Coldplay Expert's rationale is perfectly valid - 'lacks sources' does not mean 'has no sources' but 'does not have enough sources.' As the article does not have sufficient sourcing to pass WP:WEB, that makes perfect sense. With all these accusations of bad faith, I'm having trouble at this point believing that you are acting in good faith. -- Vary | (Talk) 14:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~because of newly added sources.~~ and merge to Biblical criticism which seems to be a good home for this. Allegations that !voting to "keep" are based on WP:ILIKEIT don't hold water for me: I'd not visited the website until now. But a cursory check to the article showed sources added and 600,000 + g hits so it has some notabilty, in my view. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Noting the complete lack of any mainstream sources, it amazes me that so many people are supporting keeping this article. Seregain (talk) 04:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I looked through the sources, and none of them establish notablity. They're not reliable sources, and the few that are reliable (such as from Google Books) are only a swift and passing mention. Not even close to meeting the WP:GNG. American Eagle (talk) 04:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete – Per comments above. No evidence of notability. Hellbus (talk) 06:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article actually establishes notability and meets WP:GNG extremely well, and includes many reliable and independent sources. I know that you and Hellbus are Eagle Scouts and evangelical Christians (as is Seregain), but please don't let your religious WP:POV compromise your neutrality on this AFD, as we are not censored and do not delete articles simply because they offend right-wing evangelicals. I also noted that the votes for the (now deleted) Tracy Goode article were flooded by evangelical spammers (not sure if Seregain or these other two were involved in it, but just recently Seregain mentioned the Tracy Goode AFD on his page, and linked this AFD complaining that it will be kept), so I'm seriously questioning the good faith of these users (Seregain in particular, as this isn't his 1st dubious AFD either). Please just keep this in mind.--SuaveArt (talk) 07:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It has now been learned that Seregain and American Eagle (and possibly other evangelical voters) have attempted to stack this AFD with 'delete' votes. This was also done recently during an AFD on Tracy Goode (which was flooded by evangelical spammers), so I ask that administrators keep this in mind. I have notified administrators of this disruption and will leave it at that.

In addition, this comment by American Eagle conflicts with his vote above (ex. "Tracy Goode should've been kept, and the skeptic Bible shouldn't be."). This furthers my suspicions about bad faith POV and the involvement in the vote flooding in the AFD for Tracy Goode.--SuaveArt (talk) 08:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SuaveArt, it's very clear that you yourself have a strong POV where it comes to 'Evangelical Christans', so perhaps you should tone down the accusations of bad faith? Weren't you and Seregain told to steer clear of each other anyway? Now, I see no evidence of vote stacking in this afd - the comment you linked to was about a completely different one, and I beleive one that both parties were already aware of - so I am going to respectfully request that you provide better evidence or strike your accusation. I think we're at odds in our interpretation of the notability criteria - I'm not satisfied that one brief pinion column qualifies as 'multiple non-trivial reliable sources' - but either way, the mudslinging has to stop. Make your case with policy, not by trying to discredit those who disagree with you. -- Vary | (Talk) 14:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can't believe I missed this - American Eagle's comment on this AFD was at 04:43 and Seregain's comment on AE's talk page was at 04:47. I admit I should have thought to check the timestamps before commenting on the merit of the canvasing accusation, but there's really no excuse for failing to check them before making said accusation. -- Vary | (Talk) 02:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per the comments above it regrettably seems that this nomination was not made in good faith, regardless the sources do establish the notability of the Web site in question as a Web site Ajbpearce (talk) 12:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I reversed a self-defined "bold" NAC that ignored the Delete !votes while claiming that notability was confirmed. It was not confirmed, by any stretch. The sourcing of the article is atrocious and Google News searches bring up nothing that would enable this to meet WP:WEB standards. I would ask that the closing admin please review the sources in the article carefully. Warrah (talk) 01:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In your dreams. You're just wasting everyone's time. This is a web resource that has seen adequate coverage in a reliable source print media in a popular book, and the reliable source indicates that is an important website; thus this is never going to be deleted here. For this review, it's a question of whether the sources constitute notability and the general consensus above is certainly that they do, therefore this is a keep.- Wolfkeeper 05:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So does that mean any and every website mentioned in that book meets WP's stringent notability bar? And incidentally, from my understanding, AfD's are not decided on "consensus" (aka the number of votes). Seregain (talk) 05:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On simple questions about things like whether something is notable or not, yes, it really does rely on consensus.- Wolfkeeper 13:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "9th ed" for the "Rough Guide." I see on Amazon that the book is up to at least the 14th edition. Wouldn't that make the 9th edition outdated? Seregain (talk) 06:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. My library has the 13th edition (2007), so I'll try to see if the site was still included in that. (Wikipedia:Notability (web) excludes directory entries and brief summaries anyway, but some editors clearly consider this source important.) EALacey (talk) 09:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Yes, the 13th edition contains an identical entry for the site, with the same eight-word description. EALacey (talk) 11:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question - If the site is non-notable why does it appear in the appendixes of the 'Absolute Beginner's Guide to the Bible' as noted by Apoc2400 above ? I assume it's there by intelligent design. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As has been mentioned before, guidebooks like that one are not used to determine notability. It's a trivial reference, and thus does not contribute to the site's notability per WP:WEB. -- Vary | (Talk) 15:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG AND SPEEDY KEEP This is rediculous. I closed this quite awhile ago, and another non admin opened it. I dont have a problem with a healthy debate, don't get me wrong here, but when it comes to someone trying to make a Point someone needs to draw the line. Sources have been established, citations have been made, references added, but those who wish to destroy the article don't like them. I would like to closing admin to also take a look at the attempted deletion history of the individuals who have asked for prior articles to be deleted. We are an encyclopedia, articles should be KEPT, NOT DELETED. Whomever wrote WP:DELETE and added something along the lines of "why don't you try to FIX an article instead?" was a fucking genius. Dusti^SPEAK!! 10:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This was closed on 24 January, one day before the discussion was supposed to run its seven-day course - for that reason alone, the reversal of the NAC was justified. Furthermore, this is not a question of WP:IDONTLIKE but a question of WP:RS and WP:WEB. It is impossible to fix articles when appropriate references are lacking. Warrah (talk) 13:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am not trying to make a point and I did try to find sources. As evidenced by the sources - such as they are - subsequently added by others, it's painfully obvious to anyone without some bias in favor of this website that there aren't any strong sources to support this article's inclusion on Wikipedia. People are obviously supporting "Keep" because and only because they like the website. I could care less one way or the other about whether there's an article about it or not. What I do care about is the obscene level of support in the face of the extreme lack of widely known RS. Any other article with sources as weak as this one has would've been deleted without this level of debate, conflict and hostility. In fact, articles with better sourcing actually have been deleted. Seregain (talk) 17:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my !vote to Keep even though I think that website is a complete waste of bandwidth. It meets WP:GNG, and I was actually surprised that I couldn't find any sources about it myself. So much for WP:ILIKEIT. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see no substantial, non-trivial independent coverage of this website in the sources quoted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whilst it may have been mentioned by other sources, these are not in depth coverage. Most of the pertinent information is sourced to the site itself. If that was taken away there would barely be anything left. Quantpole (talk) 13:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet the general notability guideline by any stretch of the imagination: of the current refs, 1 is the site itself, 2 is a self-published website and has not been established as a reliable source, 3 only mentions the site in passing, 4 is a copy of the Wikipedia article, 5 is an opinion piece and thus not a reliable source, 6 is again the site itself, 7 is not significant coverage as noted above, and 8 is a four-line mention that is again not significant coverage. Ucucha 14:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per added sourcing. --Kbdank71 16:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article does not seem to be notable in and of itself; it reads in a sort of self promotional way. Perhaps if there was not a complete lack of criticism of the SAB it wouldn't sound so POV and promotional. It might be notable enough to be a part of a larger article on the same basic subject, such as having a section in the Criticism of the Bible article, or if the keepers are intent on it having its own article then it might have to be userified for a time to gain better resources which focus more on the SAB directly instead of just briefly mentioning it. Invmog (talk) 00:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reference and quoted in several podcasts on iTunes most downloaded list, significant exposure. -M^ask? 00:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the grounds of adequate sourcing for the purpose. NPOV and balance problems can be best dealt with by editing, not deletion. DGG ( talk ) 02:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Metallica: The Game

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

The article lacks the notability to merit its own article and fails to be encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a collection of ideas that have never came to fruition. Despite a proposed merger, I would still question its inclusion within the main Metallica article. Kerαunoςcopia^◁_talk 15:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I can find is [38] TheWeakWilled (T * G) 16:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This could only maybe! be a part of a list of cancelled PS2 games GBK2010 (talk) 07:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert E. Finch

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

Can't find any significant coverage for this individual or his company. While the tone of the article is more or less acceptable, it still has a promotional tint and it was clearly written by Mr Finch himself. For the same reasons, the user page User:Refinch should also be deleted. Pichpich (talk) 15:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete random dude with a blog, very clearly self-promotional. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above — Cargoking talk 17:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, in fact I would suggest A7. Subject hasn't done anything noteworthy, no coverage in third party reliable sources, and it was clearly written by the subject as some sort of self-promotion exercise. Doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Hut 8.5 19:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator, and clear consensus to keep. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FLOSS Weekly

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

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

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

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

"Lack of third party citations or notability I refer to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/This_WEEK_in_FUN for precedent on this kind of thing andyzweb (talk) 15:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many wikipedia-notable people have been on this show, and the show is in active production, unlike TWIF, so the comparison is unworthy. --Randal L. Schwartz (talk) 15:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB. Podcast which has had a few notable techie-type guests but isn't notable itself. Also, "Randal Schwartz" is the name of the host, so this appears to be a self-promotion/advertising attempt. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I presumed it would be obvious that I'm talking about my own podcast. No attempt to hide here... I edit with my name here and my name is on the list of hosts there. --Randal L. Schwartz (talk) 20:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, "few" is misleading. 57 wikipedia-worthy individuals in 104 shows. "Few" doesn't do that justice. Google searches also show many thousands of links to the show, particularly by the participants and their communities. --Randal L. Schwartz (talk) 20:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just pointed out to me that episode 7 interviewed one Jimmy Wales. Notable enough? :) If nothing else, that makes FLOSS Weekly relevant to the history of WP itself. --Randal L. Schwartz (talk) 23:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is pretty damn funny that Andrew Lenahan complains of "self-promotion" here when he has a 370x600px studio portrait of himself on his user page. Jeh (talk) 23:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think that Andrew Lenahan's (Starblind) userpage should be deleated due to being over the top selfpromoting along with not having any significance in mainstream media. Rovanion (talk) 12:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How to start user delete process? Starblind is using his page for promotion. --Noma4i (talk) 23:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. After looking at Andrew Lenahan userpage, it's hypocritical to accuse Randal Schwartz of self-promotion for updating FLOSS Weekly show details. --Poobal (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no compelling reason to seek out this article's deletion any more than there would be for a television show. There is a different audience—FLOSS Weekly is not a show targeted at the mainstream audience as, say, a show like Bones or House, but it is notable in the free software world. If this article is to be deleted, we must at least assume that this means that various other articles, such as those on Lunix (not a typo) or the Ion window manager should also be deleted because the articles cover subjects which are also not targeted to mainstream. —Michael B. Trausch • Talk to me 20:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One additional comment: Why did the proposer for deletion not also propose this Week in Tech for an AfD? It targets a larger audience (technical people as opposed to the subset of technical people who are interested in free software), but I fail to see why one should be proposed for deletion while the other one is not. It seems that perhaps there is something else going on here—though that should not be read as an accusation, just curiosity. —Michael B. Trausch • Talk to me 20:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TWiT (both the podcast and the network) probably gets a lot more media attention, definitely enough to satisfy the first criteria of WP:WEB. I would love to see the article for the podcast stay as I'm a great fan, but I don't believe it satisfies any of the two last criteria on that page, and I don't know of any media coverage of FLOSS Weekly that meets criteria 1, so according to the rules, it sadly wouldn't be considered notable. --Sakurina (talk) 21:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Schwartz's notable quests comment, and Trausch's point on notability within it's group. --Falcorian ^(talk) 21:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. FLOSS Weekly is one of the most popular free software/open source podcasts out there, with many famous guests on the show. The article itself is also pretty mature, so I see no compelling reason to delete it. -- Sunny256|✎ 21:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable netcast, relevant to open-source and community contribution, interviewed Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia founder, among others.Dagmon|24:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Mshook|✎ 21:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't understand the rationale behind the reason to delete this article. The shows has had very significant guests and a simple google search will reveal the number of links back to the show. Even if the reason is true, it not but, the reasoning is inadequate to delete the article. --Poobal (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's true that there are only few Googleable external references to FLOSS weekly, none of them worth mentioning. How do you respond to that? Hedgehog83 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Define few. Is: Results 1 - 10 of about 29,600 for "FLOSS Weekly" -site:twit.tv -site:leoville.tv few? Arenlor (talk) 15:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This podcast has had some of the most notable and biggest names in the open source community! Gmcintire (talk) 22:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have to concur that it is no different than a page for any number of television shows, except that it lacks the IP related risks. As I am typing this message there are more references sited than many pages (so I assume that issue is resolved). If the issue is a matter of who edits, then I am sure we can fix that as well. As for notability, the podcast is a wealth of information. The guest list includes many (perhaps most) of the big names in the Open Source community. His guests have included Linus Torvalds, and Tim O’Reilly. The Community Manager for Ubuntu is on the show so often that they have just given up and declared him as a kind of host. These names may or may not be notable in the world at large, but they are notable to much of the core group that keeps Wikipedia (and MediaWiki for that matter) running, both financially and manpower wise. Emry (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Don't be silly. - David Gerard (talk) 01:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Greater than 50k downloads an episode. Several famous people as guests. (Famous as in have been on mainstream news as guests.) Linked to from Sun, has won an award. Honestly, what is the problem here? Arenlor (talk) 05:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Upon further consideration I'm changing this to Speedy Keep, as it was done in Bad Faith. As per the Guide to deletion this should have been given the notability template. Arenlor (talk) 15:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. FLOSS has been a major contributor to creating a historical record of some of the major opensource projects. Sloarch08 (talk) 22:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. FLOSS Weekly is a very notable podcast, with interviews with very significant guests from the open source community. Onkyo604 (talk)
Speedy Keep. Nominator cites Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/This_WEEK_in_FUN as precedent but he in fact voted "Keep" there, and also stated [39] "if this AfD passes I am going on a witch hunt for any other poorly cited or referenced podcasts on wikipedia and nominate the them for AfD". "Witch hunt" clearly shows this is simply being done out of spite - obvious WP:POINTy Bad Faith. Jeh (talk) 17:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Many good reasons have already been explained above. I also agree with the Bad Faith assessment. --Hapa (talk) 18:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's no reason to delete the article. ptrlow 02:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Keep. There is no good reason to delete this article. The podcast is very notable in that is covers open source issues and projects and has produced notable interviews, even with Jimmy Wales himself!. The original proposer appears to have an alterer motive in suggesting this article be deleted, given than his own page ([40]) is a rampant example of self-promotion. SimonZerafa (talk) 14:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ptrlow (talk • contribs)

Keep: I can't believe this is even an issue. Either there is some willful dishonesty in the person proposing this deletion, or else the policies under which this deletion might seem reasonable are seriously broken. This kind of article is exactly what Wikipedia is good at, and why we created it in the first place. --LDC (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This long-running podcast is quite nearly the de-facto nexus of the FLOSS world. It relatively a-politcally interviews the authors of some of the most pervasive FLOSS software in the world along with some of the most influential publishers and pundits. We're talking about giants like Linus Torvalds (Linux), Rasmus Lerdorf (PHP), and Guido van Rossum (Python) and industry luminaries like Tim O'Reilly (O'Reilly Publishing) and Rob Malda (slashdot). This podcast serves as the periodical of record, giving the proverbial inside scoop into the history, motivations, and future direction of the FLOSS movement in a well-rounded fashion. If you are not familiar with the names I've just mentioned and what their direct and indirect impact has been on both the IT world, the Internet, and the computer industry as a whole, please excuse yourself from this conversation and leave FLOSS Weekly's entry alone, you are certainly out of your depth.--CraigHernAnderson (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Given the nominator's previously cited promise to "go on a witch hunt" to delete articles referencing other podcasts, when taking into consideration the relatively high level of notability of the subject of this article, it is apparent that this article was nominated simply to prove a point WP:POINT -- and therefore done in bad faith. Tylerl (talk) 04:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems that this article has been slated for deletion without proving any one of the 13 deletion criteria. The statement concerning lack of 3rd party citation seems to fall flat with a simple Google search ("floss weekly" -twit.tv). I think someone may have jumped the gun on this thinking, "Hmmmm...I've never heard of it so it must not be notable." I think that it is; maybe not 'Flip Wilson' notable but notable enough to maintain an entry.Kenegray (talk) 05:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC) — Kenegray (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Speedy Keep. The logic behind marking this article for Deletion seems to be Deleting entries based on the fact that they are not in traditional old media and as such this is not a valid argument for deletion. This entry does not promote a single person and the show itself is an important record of many notable people[41][42][43][44][45][46] and projects[47][48][49][50] in Open Source. FLOSS Weekly's main focus is on interviewing people (notable or otherwise) involved in Open Source world. It is not focused on self promotion therefore the self promotion argument in this case is inappropriate. To say that this entry is worthy of deletion would seems unusual and unnecessary .Sparthir (talk) 10:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC) — Sparthir (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Looks OK to me, except for perhaps needing to find some non editable or bloggy references. Peridon (talk) 12:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "You're an ass, Andrew Lenahan". now (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.86.249.202 (talk) — 212.86.249.202 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep Uzytkownik (talk) 19:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? Haakon (talk) 19:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are third party citations now, and I'm unsure how it would not be considered notable. Most of the guests are notable, and the hosts are published authors and/or televison and radio personalities. I realize the notability of a person does not automatically transfer to their creations, but in this case it does at least make non-notability non-obvious to me. And their is the concern that this proposed deletion is in bad faith. SteveLetwin (talk) 21:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep flies to this article with love from Russia. There're a lot of people interested in this project.93.157.162.109 (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC) — 93.157.162.109 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Speedy Keep. The case for the article meeting any of the criteria for deletion has not been proven. You cannot argue for deleting an article based on the idea that mainstream media or scholarly sources have not mentioned it. Given the notable guest on the show and notable web sources that mentioned the show I think it clearly meets the criteria for keeping. --Cab88 (talk) 02:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list of guests and projects who have appeared on FLOSS weekly is testament to the program's notability. Nearly all of the projects and many of the guests have Wikipedia entries. Since the episode list links to the show itself, the content of the article is easily verifiable. Nickaubert (talk) 06:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a well-established podcast with notable hosts and a long list of notable guests. To address WP:WEB directly, though the criteria seem completely arbitrary, biased heavily towards mainstream media, and extremely incomplete for establishing notability, FLOSS Weekly fits both #2 (nominated for a Podcast Award[51]) and #3 (distributed by TWiT.tv_(network)). Nasarius (talk) 07:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just a note about WEB #1, Sun and CNET both list it. I believe that should suffice. Arenlor (talk) 08:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above --Ilya (talk) 13:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This podcast is very well established. It's value goes beyond the individual host or the TWIT network - it is part of the web - the interviews provide important information that will provide unique history referencing the various show topics. Joemoraca (talk) 20:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is crazy, you have to keep this page. FLoss Weekly one of only three podcasts I listen to every week —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.169.9.225 (talk) 17:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep FLOSS Weekly is one of the places on the Internet that epitomizes the principles of Wikipedia. redfearnb —Preceding undated comment added 23:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy Keep The page does not clearly violate any of the points in the deletion policy and sheer participation in votes is more than enough to indicate the subject's significance. Also, see previous votes for indication of bad faith and WP:Point. Pjdkoch (talk) 01:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is notable and does not qualify for deletion Raffen (talk) 11:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable podcast, and no convincing reasons have been given for deletion. This seems like a nomination made in bad faith. -- Stephen Gilbert (talk) 11:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, per lack of notability. To the creator of the article, recreation would be a possibility if you can find reliable secondary sources that establish the notability of Ms. Wilson. An article on "Big Writing" is also a possibility, though there again you would have to demonstrate notability via coverage in third party sources, and the point below that "Wikipedia is not a webhost" is something to keep in mind. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ros Wilson

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

Non-notable person. Assertion of notability relates to founding the "Big Writing" technique, but this technique is not itself notable. No significant news or web results found. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Big Writing" is a strategy implemented in thousands of Primary Schools throughout the UK. V.C.O.P., "Ros Wilson", "Punctuation Pyramid" all result in thousands of hit in Google. What searches have you run?— Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrellEd (talk • contribs) — AndrellEd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete Non-notable per WP:BIO and WP:ACADEMIC, ~~highly promotional tone per WP:PROMO~~ (rather better now following cleanup by WikiDan), clear WP:Conflict of interest by creator User:AndrellEd, signing himself "Curtis" on article talk page, apparently company director: [52]. MuffledThud (talk) 15:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing has been hidden or done surrepticiously, but honestly and ethically. Delete if you wish. Used Pie Corbett's wiki page as an example because it was cited in an email to us asking for a page on ros. Hardly a promotional tone, but that is your opinion. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Weak Keep Certainly the technique is widely used in UK schools - to the extent that Education Authorities run courses on it e.g. [53] but whether it's the technique that has a notability or the creator I'm not sure. Certainly most of the hits I found go mention both. On that basis I'm in favour of keeping it as meeting criteria #1 & #2 of WP:AUTH. I don't think WP:ACADEMIC applies to this case as it's not involvement with scholarly research or higher education. I do agree with MuffeldThud about tone and COI. NtheP (talk) 15:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think the "Learning Excellence" course offering denotes notability as much as it does the fact that the company that promotes this technique is willing to sell it to local educational insitutions. Note that the instructor for the course is a consultant from Andrell Education, the company that is promoting this technique (and, not incidently, the company that created this article). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply It doesn't work like that in the UK. Education providers (normally the councils) can commission services. The example I highlighted was a council promoting a course to teachers in it's own geographical area. They (the council) aren't going to procure a service off the company for a course unless the teaching methods are used in its schools. I agree about who is presenting the course, my point is that it is the council, who have responsibility for education in their area, feel it is appropriate to offer training on this teaching method. That an education provider use Big Writing as a literacy teaching method in their schools confers a degree of notability on the method. NtheP (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I have to disagree with NtheP. A single educational council deciding to use this method does not indicate notability. If only a single company bought IBM computers, IBM would hardly be a notable company. Notability of this company would arise from independent coverage of the company or their "Big Writing" product in independent sources such as education journals or mainstream newspapers. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I quoted but one example. I can google and find several hundred references to individual schools all over the UK that use this method. The point you make about reliable independent sources is the exactly the same as I have made to the creator of this article. Without those a 'cast iron' assertion of notability is hard to achieve but all the small sources provide what I said before a degree of notability. What I was refuting was your assertion, as I saw it, that the reference I gave was self promotional by the company. If I misunderstood your original point, my apologies. NtheP (talk) 18:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first article I have tried to submit, in response to requests from teachers around the UK. I appreciate any help advice with regard to making less promotional, as I felt it was simply statement of fact. As for a conflict of interest, I could understand if anything contentious, but I could submit the same information from a diferent email account surrepticiously and there would be no question. So why is there a problem now?(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC). Video of work at Leeds Met. [54] (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Andrell/Curtis please read the essay on conflict of interest, you'll find that answers many of your questions. NtheP (talk) 16:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The problem with the article is not primarily conflict of interest. The problem is primarily lack of notability. Other than some few primary sources (Wilson's bio at the Andrell Education site), there are no references available via a Google search to hang one's hat on. The article can't be improved by other authors because there's no information with which to improve it. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would it help if I were to include a number of external references here or on the proposed page, from primary schools, other councils etc?(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC). This page was intended to be the first of several pages in response to requests from teahcers to offer definitions and descriptions of those elements that Ros Wilson includes in her strategies, such as The Punctuation Pyramid, V.C.O.P., "Big Writing", "WOW Words", "Power Writing" etc. Though there are descriptions in the forums of The TES (Times Education Supplement), the Andrell Education website, OFSTED Reports citing the techniques as succeeding in schools, some people do search Google, Wiki etc and there are no definitive listings. The logical location in my mind is Wiki. This isn't about promotion validation or anything, simply clarification.">AndrellEd —Preceding undated comment added 10:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

If teachers want information about this technique (which is essentially a "product" of Andrell Education), then Andrell Education should provide that information at their own website. Wikipedia is not a webhost. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article seems to be primarily promotional. WP:Prof is not passed in any category. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Delete Largely pormotional. His work might be notable but his biography does not apper to meet notability guidelines. RadioFan (talk) 14:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cadwork

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

A non-notable CAD package. Wizard191 (talk) 14:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, weakly; while the article isn't very good, software created in 1980 and still in use has a fairly strong claim to actual notability; and this package even has some books hits that appear to be relevant. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. But please find some 3rd party sources too. LotLE×talk 19:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not terribly notable but keep nontheless. I have a feeling reliable sources exist but nobody can be bothered locating them because a CAD product for the timber industry isn't terribly sexy. Szzuk (talk) 20:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per [55], [56], and the snippet views on the search results above. Joe Chill (talk) 21:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Joe, what are you getting from that book search? I have the feeling what you and I are seeing must be very different. I am withholding my delete !vote until hear back from you, but as of right now I see no indicators of notability. JBsupreme (talk) 22:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - From the snippet views, it looks like the books have significant coverage of the software. I'm surprised that me and Smerdis actually agree on something. Joe Chill (talk) 22:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not getting any such indicator from the snippet views that I can see. :-/ JBsupreme (talk) 00:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - The 2nd book [57] appears to have an entire chapter about it. Pcap ping 06:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Well you both are obviously seeing something I do not see, so I'll just abstain from this one. I get a small snip of the page and "Where's the rest of this book?" at the bottom. Do you two participate in the Google Books Partner Program [58] or something? Maybe that is why you're seeing additional content. JBsupreme (talk) 07:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        We see the same thing as you. Snippet views can give you a very good guess as to their content if you study them. For instance, the second link has a big 11 for chapter 11 on cadwork and the parts of the snippet view have pages 375, 378, and 384 which all say cadwork at the top of the page which many books do in chapters. This source is all about cadwork which you can tell from the title. The sentence on cadwork in this source shows that there is more coverage with it especially because the software has to do with the timber industry and the title of the book is "Proceedings of the 1991 International Timber Engineering Conference". You can tell from the short snippet in this source that the information about cadwork continues for a while. Joe Chill (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Also gets a bunch of gscholar hits. One of them descibes it as "Cadwork, standard software for timber construction". Also has a paragraph in this survey paper, on par with Autocad (pretty much with the same description of focus as the other paper). I found a tutorial paper for the letter of GNG too. Pcap ping 07:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain. I cannot view the sources directly, but I see that this article is going to be kept anyhow. If someone can somehow manage full access to the articles found and cite them accordingly the article would be in much better position to resist a future nomination. JBsupreme (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, default to keep. Clearly not a consensus to delete here, and additional sources provided by Cunard pushed the consensus closer to an outright keep. However there is arguably still some validity to the WP:NOTNEWS argument, and a merge was another possibility discussed, so "no consensus" seems to be the correct close. Editors interested in a possible merge should discuss it on the article talk page. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heart Kun

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

Notability for inclusion into a encyclopaedia of this dog/company/product is questionable. NJA (t/c) 13:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Such as? Grsz¹¹ 22:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The LA Times is a reliable source but the article needs to be rewritten. I see inconsistency in the name, a radon "what does -kun mean" part, and various other structural and tone issues. fetchcomms☛ 05:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've cleaned it up a bit, but need to know where the references go, as I don't have the links to them. fetchcomms☛ 13:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E (or BLD1E in this case). This is a fairly standard quirky human interest story. Note that the LA Times citation in the article actually refers to an entry in a blog hosted by latimes.com; this was never in the paper. Chick Bowen 02:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS -- this kind of thing is not uncommon in Japan, but it should tell you something when the Japanese Wikipedia has no corresponding article. armagebedar (talk) 06:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's been an ongoing international news story for more than two years with coverage in media outlets in numerous countries. Mainstream coverage in English includes (for example): BBC and the LA Times. An editor with Japanese language abilities noted that the name can be rendered "ハート君" or "ハートくん" in Japanese and that Google news for ハート君 and Google news for "ハートくん" provide numerous sources such as: [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], etc. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Neutral This article is no different than creating an article about Shady the cat in nova scotia who needed to get down from a tree from the fire department. Yes there were about 4 to 5 news articles on that cat in Canada. My point is is that its In the news and falls under WP:NOTNEWS, and just because it appears there doesnt make it notable forever, it may pass on. Some stories out of asia do not appear in western media for two years after. That is just my feeling of this, if consensus steers otherwise Im fine with that. I just dont think this is notable as a stand alone. Ottawa4ever (talk) 10:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought merging here; Animal markings would be appropriate Ottawa4ever (talk) 12:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of merging there seems like a reasonable proposal. I'm not opposed to it. But I don't see how deletion of something that's received this level of news media coverage over this time period is useful. Certainly it's not a hard hitting historical or science article, but so what. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Id perfer a merge most of all to Animal markings. The two key sources to me are the bbc and LA times. I think the local media comparitively the local media is just examples of in the news. The LA times article appears to me to be resemablance of a blog which if true isnt that high on notability (but i may be wrong here that its not a blog). The BBC artical has merit even though it is targeted towards kids. We have alot of negative articles though in the world and this is an example of positive outlooks on life, and yes that is encyclopedic in a way (at least to me). Additionally this is a young article. It hasnt been given time for it to improve (I can see it as in progress in a way and sources are coming) I cant see keeping it the way it is, The way the article stands needs fixing (prose, sourcing, veribablity). But thats not to say it cant be fixed, So Ill stand final at neutral on the article, Id perfer a merge, but i see your points above. and will not support deletion Ottawa4ever (talk) 11:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the sources you mention above, there are several lengthy non-English sources that demonstrate that Heart-kun is notable. See this article from gazeta.pl, this article from Primeira Edição, and this article from Rede Globo. Coverage in these sources is from 2007–2009, so WP:NOTNEWS does not apply. Cunard (talk) 00:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOT#NEWS Secret ^account 13:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. This is just a flash-in-the-pan story that will have been totally forgotten about within a few months. --DAJF (talk) 15:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a good human interest story and important in Japan in particular.Billy Hathorn (talk) 15:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Being a good interest story doesn't meet the WP:NOT#NEWS concerns of this article, If we have articles on every good interest story, wikipedia would be loaded with articles. Secret ^account 19:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Billy Hathorn. There are lots of sources, including this news story from Brazil, this listing at Snopes.com, and this story at the Huffington Post. Also, although I know this is not a reason, the dog is cute. Bearian (talk) 02:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete of course, per WP:NOTNEWS SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 21:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as long as it includes some more WP:RS's--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 22:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources and per the fact that WP:NOTNEWS does not apply. WP:NOTNEWS was designed to eliminate topics that garnered only coverage for a short period of time. This is not the case here. Coverage from multiple news organizations that span several years and that are from different countries (Australia, Brazil, Poland, UK, US) indicates that Heart-kun is notable.
1. This article from BBC was published on July 11, 2007.
2. This article from Reuters was published on July 16, 2007.
3. This article from Rede Globo was published on July 17, 2007.
4. This article from the Daily Telegraph was published on July 10, 2007.
5. This article from gazeta.pl was published on January 18, 2008.
6. This article from Science World was published on February 4, 2008.
7. This article from WGHP was published on August 17, 2009.
8. This article from Primeira Edição was published on August 6, 2009.
9. This photography from Xinhua News Agency was published on August 6, 2009.
10. This blog from the Los Angeles Times was published on August 10, 2009.
Because there has consistently been coverage about the subject, and because news organizations from all over the world deem this dog to be worthy of reporting, Heart-kun easily passes the notability guidelines. Cunard (talk) 00:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Due to repeated independent sources listed above. Miyagawa (talk) 10:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Stories from over two years span mean that WP:NOTNEWS does not apply because there is continuing interest. The list of sources above clearly demonstrate passing WP:N. For those who mention the dog's cuteness, possibly that's attempting to apply WP:HOTTIE? —Quasirandom (talk) 16:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability established by Cunard's long list of sources, which confirms lasting, significant coverage in reliable sources. Ucucha 16:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Heart-kun is clearly notable, as evidenced by Cunard's list of sources. -BloodDoll (talk) 06:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Argument against a redirect is convincing, though no prejudice against creating one if an article on the league is ever created. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grandview Comets

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

Non-notable sports team. Competitive in a local amateur league, which is part of the Manitoba Amateur Hockey Association. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hockey Manitoba. Powers ^T 13:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A redirect would only be appropriate if the Hockey Manitoba page mentioned the Grandview Comets. It does not. It does mention their league, (the North Central Hockey League), but clearly that article has not yet been written. When (if) it is, a redirect from this page to that page might make sense, but as things stand, a redirect to Hockey Manitoba really doesn't make sense. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per A7. Non-notable group makes no assertion of notability. --Smashville^talk 21:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Chipmunk discography. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For The Fun of It

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

WP:NALBUMS states "mixtapes are in general not notable". Nothing indicates that this is an exception. Author contested redir to artist article. I42 (talk) 12:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 13:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chipmunk discography, not covered in any independent sources, does not meet WP:ALBUMS or WP:GNG. J04n(talk page) 13:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to artist article. The solution to "Author contested redir to artist article" is not to delete it surely? If it warrants further discussion that can be done on the talkpage. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 21:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Epic duel

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

Epic duel is a new multi-player MMORPG game released on December 5, 2009. In my opinion, the game doesn't appear to be notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. The article itself is quite a mess and contains a lot of in-universe information. There are no references in the article either. Only two outbound links to the game's website, and the game's own MediaWiki. Phynicen ^"Chat" 12:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google News Archive finds only one article, from a local newspaper. Seems not to meet our notability guideline for web content. EALacey (talk) 12:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per EALacey - so far not notable. Una Laguna^Talk 14:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is very new, and is unfortunately being worked on by some very inexperienced users. The game itself is also less than a month old, with not a lot of material to write about. The fact that newer, inexperienced writers are mainly editing this article, and the fact that it is brand new means that there is not a lot of sources or material to be written. It might be more useful to wait a while, and make constructive edits or suggestions to the article instead of deleting it just because you don't like it.--Jakkinx Talk to me! 02:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't misunderstand - I haven't nominated the article because "I don't like it". The main reason for nominating the article is because there simply isn't enough information about it for inclusion at the moment. As per EALacey, there seems to be only one news article about the game indicating it currently isn't notable enough. Phynicen ^"Chat" 13:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to remain purely statistical, please try to keep your opinions out of the matter then, unless they are called for. I recently did some clean up work on the article, removing some of the unnessecary in game imformation, and I believe that this and thisrefers to the game? And the primary reason there are not many sources is less than a month old, as I said before. Since you are all outsiders, you can't know that this is the most popular game produced by Artix Entertainment. I advise you to wait a while, then see how it is doing. --Jakkinx Talk to me! 21:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those two examples you gave do not count as reliable sources. The problem with the article, as I said in my assessment, is that right now there aren't enough sources to warrant the existence of an article right now. We don't want to delete it because we don't like it, or we don't care: we want to delete it because the article doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability criteria right now.

You say that the game will receive adequate coverage in coming months - but what if it doesn't? We're not going to leave the article around waiting for the coverage to arrive, because that might never happen. Also remember that being "outsiders" does not disadvantage us - encyclopedia articles are written specifically for "outsiders". If "outsiders" cannot see what makes the article notable right now by reading the article, then there is no reason the article should exist right now. Una Laguna^Talk 23:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jakkinx you seem to not be properly understanding why the article has been labelled as deletion. It is nothing personal at all. It is to do with notability as UnaLaguna has just explained. The normal procedure on Wikipedia for articles like this is to delete until they are notable. Then you may recreate the article when the notability issue has been solved. Basically, it's too soon. Phynicen ^"Chat" 00:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. You don't understand me at all. I suggested those two sources, however, I was not able to check up on them myself. And this article is not just written for outsiders, but also for insiders. And whenever I read a game article on Wikipedia, I find it sadly lacking. There really needs to be more information on all of them. Maybe it doesn't meet notability criteria, or proper encyclopedic definition, but surely it is too narrow minded to class all subjects under the same rules. I could go on for a long time about that subject, but I shall leave it at that. I do understand why the article has been labelled for deletion, but I do not think the deletion proceedures are up to date anymore. Also, you say you don't care, but why would you respond to my objections in such length paragraphs then? I have met other users like you before-you are like vultures, circling young new articles, just waiting for your turn to strike. Though you may not admit it, it gives you pleasure to delete articles, to blatantly display the full extent of your power, as you play administrator. Some of you even are admins. Admins are supposed to keep order on the Wiki-not enforce the laws for one's own gain or self satisfaction. One of the reasons I am so upset is this is a very new article. You did not really give it time to be properly edited and revised. And should it be deleted, that will always be a mark on it's record. Editors like you will always look on and place it lower than other articles, because it was deleted. It will always be more likely to be deleted, because it was deleted before. The notability criteria might not be met, but for goodness sake, the notability criteria and guidelines and all that is in pretty bad shape right now. You have probably heard of the Constitution of the United States of America. It was created to uphold the law of the land, but be flexible enough to change with the times. Two hundred years later those laws are still upheld, and more importantly, they are current, up to date. Wikipedia's rules and regulations are already out of date, and it's hardly been five years since it was made! The point is, too many articles are being deleted these days, too many newcomers are treated harshly, and in turn, treat harshly. Of all of you who wish to delete this, either you where treated like this when you first joined, or you never knew any other way. It gives you pleasure to act on the side of the law, you feel pride when you casually, with a flick of you finger, erase all the hard work a newcomer put into an article. And you believe you are in the right! Wikipedia needs to be adaptable for all viewers, not just the narrow dogmatic ideals of editors. Wikipedia is an Encylopedia, which is supposed to include important facts and information. But who is to say what is important? With the very minimal restrictions of the guidelines, it is those in power. Those who have the power can do whatever they wish on Wikipedia. Also, consider this. How many of you are adults. How many of you are in your twenties, or thirties? I'm still a teenager. Yet you hold me to the standards you live by, the standards only one who is twenty or thirty may live up to. No matter what the guidelines say, that is wrong. Period. There is no excuse for that kind of action. And if it is adults you need, if you say that if I want to edit here, I must be more mature, I have to live by your standards or go somewhere else, that is wrong too. You cannot allow anyone to make an account, and then say they have to live by your standards. If you want adults and others to edit, then you need to have a restricted application process. Now, if you're finally done reading this massive paragraph I have written, which only took me about five minutes, don't reply to this at first. Think about it. Think how I feel. Think how all the other people you've deleted feel. Really think about it. Don't just think: "Oh, my article wasn't notable enough, so it was supposed to be deleted." No one thinks that when their article is deleted. I know you probably won't do that. Even if you try, you'll fail. It's because you can't. You're too narrow minded. I see that there are reasons for the article to be deleted. That is part of my problem. But my main problem is the way the system is run and the way people like you act. About the system, towards other users, towards everyone and everything on the Wiki. See, I've accepted your point of view, that the article should be deleted. You can't claim any kind of mental or moral superiority to me until you accept my views. This does not mean saying, "Oh yes, we understand how you feel, but it has to go." That means that when I am the one arguing for this article to be deleted, and you are the one's who wish to keep it, then we understand each other. If we get to that point, then we can reach an agreement. But then, why should you? You have the power. Forget about me, I'm just one editor, there's three of you. Go ahead, use your power. Abuse it. It doesn't matter who you step on on the way up, 'cause you ain't comin down. If you go ahead and delete this article, good for you. You've completely ignored a fellow Wikipedian's ideas and effort, as well as his time, thought, and everything else that went into this article, including his feelings. You've just made Wikipedia a little bit worse, since there's a little bit more information out there that should be in here, but isn't, because of you. You've contributed to the chaos and anarchy that is the society of Wikipedia today. You have caused hatred, anger, chaos, resentment, anarchy, distrust, and all you hat to do was make on little edit, maybe two. And you do this every day. Good for you. I hope you're happy...--Jakkinx Talk to me! 04:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One obscure AfD is not the place to complain about Wikipedia policy - you can do that on the specific Wikipedia policy pages. And making personal attacks isn't very smart, either. I'm sorry you feel so upset, but the policies are in place for a reason. Plenty of content I created when I was new has since been deleted (sometimes by myself months after), but I looked up the relevant policies and after a year went from filling pages with original research to writing two good articles. We're not trying to take you down a notch or cause hatred, anger, chaos or whatever, we're just trying to help you understand what's wrong with the article. We're trying to help!

And I'm a teenager too :) Una Laguna^Talk 07:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or possibly merge to Artix Entertainment. I don't think it's notable yet, and I couldn't find any reliable sources on it. –MuZemike 05:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Artix Entertainment per WP:PRODUCT. Marasmusine (talk) 13:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promotional page for a non-notable game. EeepEeep (talk) 17:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of circumcision

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

Article is unverifiable. This situation is unlikely to change as the subject does not appear to be discussed in reliable sources, hence the subject also fails notability. Jakew (talk) 11:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is already treated with much better sourcing at Circumcision#Modern circumcision procedures. There's probably not enough to be said on the topic to justify a separate article, and the lack of sources here is unacceptable for a medical topic. EALacey (talk) 12:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article was created on January 12, and on that day I placed a refimprove template, since none of the content was sourced. Since then I've made a good faith attempt to locate reliable sources, but none appear to exist. I also suggested a merge strategy but after considering the matter in more detail that seems not viable either since there is no context in which this unsourced material can be inserted without simply moving the problem to other articles. Attempted Proposal for Deletion, but the template was deleted by an IP user who appears to be the original author, yet no attempt was made by that user to correct the sourcing problem. There is still not a single inline citation, though I have placed numerous fact and dubious tags. Johncoz (talk) 12:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snip. Subject is already covered at Circumcision, no need to duplicate. I thought about a redirect, but I'm not certain this is a great search term; so, deletion looks to be the way to go. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete enough information exists at the main article, and the references listed are not, i believe, reliable enough for this subject. this may also simply be too trivial for encyclopedic mention, if the issues involved are purely cosmetic. ps IP removing afd is a habitual vandal, and is reported.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Draw by agreement#Different scoring systems. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BAP System

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

Seldomly used scoring system in chess, very little independent coverage, and what I can find are blogs, or brief mentions during interviews with Clint Ballard, the system's inventor (and the initial contributor to the article). The fact that no high-level international tournaments have used it indicates that it remains a very obscure way of discouraging draws (compared, for example, to Sofia rules which doesn't have an article despite being used in several top-level tournaments). Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For those unfamiliar with Sopia draw rules, see Draw by agreement#Only theoretical draws allowed (Sofia Rules). The nominator is correct about the system being invented by Ballard, named for himself, and perhaps never being used outside his tournaments. He also initially wrote about it for Wikipedia. (see User:Clint Ballard.) Ballard directed four United States Chess Federation tournaments over a period of less than a year and hasn't directed any since the 2006 GM slugfest (mentioned in the article). The point of that is that the system probably hasn't been used since. Bubba73 ^{(Who's attacking me now?)}, 19:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and redirect to Draw by agreement#Different scoring systems, since there is more than one paragraph about it there. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 06:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect to Draw by agreement#Different scoring systems. Though the system is an interesting way to discourage draws for White, it is not sufficiently important to have its own article. Also, as stated by both Bubba73 and the nominator, the system is barely tested. Perhaps, in the unlikely event that this point system reached international useage, I would support this article. Grand Mattster 21:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to ~~Elo or Draw~~Draw by agreement. BAP system should have a mention somewhere! SunCreator (talk) 22:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any relationship between BAP and Elo. The BAP system does have two paragraphs under Draw by agreement#Different scoring systems. Bubba73 ^{(You talking to me?)}, 00:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and that's probably all it deserves. Grand Mattster 20:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Draw_by_agreement#Different_scoring_systems is what I was thinking of. The reason I thought of Elo is that taking draws makes your Elo less accurate so thought the problem of draws could of been covered in that article. SunCreator (talk) 00:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, there is a relationship between draws and rating. However if a player is very concerned about their rating, they will avoid a draw with a lower-rated player if they think they can win. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 00:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merik Voswinkel

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

I removed the {{db-person}} tag because notability is asserted. However, I have been unable to find any coverage in reliable sources about this individual. A Google News Archive search returns no results. This article appears to fail Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Cunard (talk) 09:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 09:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article was translated from the Dutch Wikipedia article (see nl:Merik Voswinkel). Cunard (talk) 09:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, both founder and his company appear to be non-notable, per nom: see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knoware. MuffledThud (talk) 09:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing significant on google news, books or scholar. Polarpanda (talk) 14:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable founder of non-notable company. Joe Chill (talk) 23:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply not notable 146.203.128.75 (talk) 12:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

S-Preme

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

Delete. Ugh, non-notable studio gangster. JBsupreme (talk) 08:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails WP:BAND Armbrust (talk) 11:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage in reliable sources found.--Michig (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrbution (Kuniva album)

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

Delete. WP:CRYSTAL? Either way this unreleased mixtape is hardly notable. JBsupreme (talk) 08:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think this fails WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOTABLE, and on top of that the release seems to have generated limited-at-best coverage (though Runyon's site being under construction probably isn't helping this). At best, this should be limited to a mention on the artist's page until such time as it achieves independent notability.Tyrenon (talk) 10:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NALBUMS Armbrust (talk) 11:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Football at the 2010 Islamic Solidarity Games

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

Games apparently canceled: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/17/islamic-solidarity-games-cancelled —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, cancelled, but there is chance of it being moved to another host country in 2010. Druryfire (talk) 08:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not for things "having a chance to happen". Blodance (talk) 09:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As of now, this event will not occur. It may or may not occur in 2010,'11 or'12, that's WP:CRYSTAL at this point. This has already been moved (and redirected) from Football at the 2009 Islamic Solidarity Games, it needs to be deleted for now; it can easily be recreated when and if the ISG ever gets off the ground again. Given the current climate, I won't hold my breath. Wine Guy Talk 09:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unlikely to happen, and if that should change there's nothing here that can't be re-created in a couple of minutes anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Postpone decision until the current situation is clarified. It would be silly if the event were confirmed 24 hours or so after Wikipedia had deleted its article. Wikipedia is not supposed to assume that an event won't happened, before a final decision is announced. Aridd (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose If it is confirmed then there's no problem with recreating or even undeleting it. But as long as this one is not confirmed, it does not belong to Wikipedia. Blodance (talk) 01:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Easy enough to recreate. The creator should consider saving the source text to use if it does come back. References should have been in anyways. 2010 Islamic Solidarity Games should probably be merged into Islamic Solidarity Games as well.Cptnono (talk) 09:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if it's not going ahead. I would vote delete even if it was going ahead until a source is inserted into the article. I have no prejudice to recreation if it is rearranged and a source or sources are added. WFCforLife (talk) 02:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The information indicates that the event was cancelled last year. Nfitz (talk) 04:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 00:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. I still disagree, but the consensus is clear. (non-admin closure) Pcap ping 04:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tama Kurokawa

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

Doesn't seem to pass WP:BIO as the wife of Edwin Arnold. Pcap ping 07:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. She seems to have attracted considerable public attention in her own right. I am particularly interested in the reference from 1924, in the magazine or newspaper of a group which advocated for votes for women in the United Kingdom, that she would be participating in an international event organized by Princess Mary Karadja, founder of the White Cross Union. She belonged to the Japan Society of London. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All this needed was references, which have been kindly provided by Eastmain. She must have been quite notable; a Japanese lady, married to an English noble, living in London... and the Chicago Tribune writes an article about her in 1898? Yes, that's notable. Wine Guy Talk 10:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - coverage shows she was notable in her own right long after her husband's death, even if you assume the articles about her during her life were due to her marriage (which I'd argue against). —Quasirandom (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That coverage is trivial like she took part in a meeting and voted. Pcap ping 18:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. The information given about her is enough to warrant keeping the information. I'm not as convinced there's enough information of her independent of her more famous husband to warrant a separate article, but that's another debate. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - At present this seems to be the only reference to Tama Kurokawa on the internet in either Japanese or English. There aren't many notable Japanese woman on the international stage from this time period so I think she is worthy of interest. Just because she was first famous as somebody's wife shouldn't be held against her. There weren't many avenues open back then to fame and fortune for young Japanese women! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwatebud (talk • contribs) 23:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Banked by author. Discussion here indicates that it is unlikely to become an encyclopedic list. Tikiwont (talk) 09:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Winter cars

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

It's an indiscriminate list ~DC _{Talk To Me} 06:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Important topic, but an encyclopedia is for facts not opinions. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Brothers

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

no sources, fails WP:CRYSTAL. ~DC _{Talk To Me} 06:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NPOV, this is not a blog or an essay for people to state their opinions, this is an encyclopedia. --FredZ (talk) 06:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per G11 and tagged as such. This article is apparently written by a member of that band (if not copy & pasted). Blodance (talk) 06:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I declined the speedy. I think this discussion should be combined with the band's AfD discussion and both articles can be deleted together. If by some odd chance the band article is kept, this can be redirected there. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 07:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found zero sources. Joe Chill (talk) 21:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources found to verify notability TheWeakWilled (T * G) 00:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RÓ

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

non-notable band, couldn't find any sources ~DC _{Talk To Me} 06:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 07:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along with album Battle of Brothers. (The two AfDs should be merged.) No evidence that the band has attracted significant independent coverage; indeed, they have not even released an album yet. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 07:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources found to verify notability TheWeakWilled (T * G) 00:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to David Bowie. If the creator continues to revert the redirect, some disciplinary action is probably necessary here. (X! · talk) · @915 · 20:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Konrads

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

The entire text of this article is "David Bowie's first band." That information is already in the David Bowie article. I keep trying to redirect, and keep getting reverted without explanation. NawlinWiki (talk) 04:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Simple as that. You surely don't need an Afd for this.--Pam Soda (talk) 05:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I did redirect, twice, and you reverted me twice. Are you willing to stop reverting me? NawlinWiki (talk) 05:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A3, the situation is confusing though... nom tried to r/d the page and Pam Soda (talk · contribs) reverted it twice, and now he calls for a r/d himself... I'm rather puzzled. As such, I'm !voting speedy rather than r/d. Blodance (talk) 06:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to David Bowie. now that Pam Soda is blocked indefly as a sock , I think it's safe to simply r/d it. Blodance the Seeker 09:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I don't really see any reason for a deletion here; it seems both the nominator and creator are in agreement with a redirect, and I see no reason to argue the redirect is implausible, so I'd say go for it. I'm a bit confused of the circumstances of reverting the redirect and then going for the redirect, but that is neither a discussion for here nor is it a discussion that is necessary. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 08:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to request for Pam Soda's clarification. If the redirect is uncontroversial, why on earth is he reverting it? Blodance (talk) 10:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and throw a redirect in for good measure. The band seems totally non-notable on its own, there's no real reason to give it a page apart from Bowie, and as the information is already on Bowie's page there's no need for a separate page in. On top of that, the article is...sparse would be putting it mildly, and calling it a stub seems to be an insult to stubs everywhere. There's really no reason not to get rid of it quickly.Tyrenon (talk) 10:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Speedily, if possible, under Wp:CSD#A3 (there's very little, if anything, on there worth saving). (It seems strange that the person who keeps killing the redirects wants it to be redirected.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 14:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I created this page and in my opinion I don't believe this page, charting a milestone point of David Bowie's career should simply be deleted. Pictures of him in this band can be sourced from http://www.bowiewonderworld.com/tours/tour58.htm

If The Quarrymen (early incarnation of the beatles) is referenced and has it's own page on Wikipedia then surely Bowie's equivalent should be as well. There are also official recordings from this band on Davie Bowie boxed sets.Vox Teardrop I intend to list a discography and a color picture at some point in the near future.Vox Teardrop

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and protect. Article as it stands is very much a speedy candidate, and precedent for early bands being redirected to their only notable member is pretty clear. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and protect. I can't find enough sources to give this band notability independent of David Bowie. There seems to be some misunderstanding about speedy deleting though - a) it would be pointless to delete the article and then recreate it as a redirect...b) we want to preserve the page history (however minimal as it is). Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 23:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Girish Wagh

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

Non-notable person Mayuresh 03:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep significant coverage of this person [65]. LibStar (talk) 06:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The brain behind the world's cheapest car .Extensive coverage. The nominator has provided no reasons for considering Girish Wagh non- notable. Shyamsunder (talk) 10:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies general notability guidelines per significant coverage cited above. Jujutacular ^T · C 19:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Gnews search shows extensive coverage all from national and international media (both financial and non financial). i dont know how the nominator arrived at "non-notable" person conclusion!--Sodabottle (talk) 08:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 02:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Bjorklund

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE, simply being a news anchor does not mean automatic notability. no in depth coverage [66]. LibStar (talk) 03:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article has remained unreferenced for three years. The 2007 unreferenced tag lead me to the article last week and I was unfortunately unable to find any siginificant coverage of this individual. As per the nominator's rationale, Bjorklund does not currently meet general or specialized notability criteria for inclusion. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 17:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — This NBC article gives some indication of notability; in particular the Golden Mike Award in 1993 from the Broadcasters Foundation of America. I'm not sure how to judge the weight of that, however.—RJH (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per RJHall's link which I think may be enough to establish notability but, as yet, I see little else so the closing admin should treat this as a weak keep. HJMitchell You rang? 23:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources don't exist to construct a proper biography of this local tv figure. It's unwatched and unmainained, but with a much higher than likely chance of drive by vandalism by school kids in LA.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Black Thunder

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

PROD'ed for notability, but had already been deleted once via PROD. I agree it fails WP:NALBUMS Jclemens (talk) 02:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does, indeed, fail WP:NALBUM. TheJazzDalek (talk) 02:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks substantial coverage required by WP:MUSIC. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 07:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of coverage makes it appear that the project died on the vine in 2008. Yappy2bhere (talk) 03:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Michelle Obama. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 23:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Melvinia Shields

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

Michelle Obama's great-great-great grandmother. Not notable. —Chowbok ☠ 01:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not sure what the guidelines on ancestors of prominent people are, but I'm very strongly inclined to think that beyond one's grandparents at the most, independent notability would be needed outside of the odd case of a link between two prominent people.Tyrenon (talk) 11:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Michelle Obama. The information provided there seems to suffice. A relevant guideline here is: WP:NOTINHERITED. Jujutacular ^T · C 19:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Listing there because she's related to a politician. — Jujutacular ^T · C 19:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Michelle Obama per Jujutacular. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 00:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect She is a likely search term Vartanza (talk) 06:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Veterans of the Spanish Civil War who died in 2010

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

Waiting for people to die doesn't seem right. The now-empty list seems to run afoul of WP:CRYSTAL. Warrah (talk) 00:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even if this is only a placeholder for the time being. Looking at ages listed Surviving veterans of the Spanish Civil War the chances are unfortunately pretty good that this list will need updating this year :( -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 00:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with above. Also, see WP:IAR. RadManCF (talk) 01:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't make sense. Why should we be "ignoring all rules" when this gruesome list does not improve our project? JBsupreme (talk) 19:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, it doesn't seem right, and it gives Wikipedia a bad name to be waiting for veterans to pass away. As a less distasteful alternative, see [67]. Nobody has created an article yet about World War One veterans who died in 2010, and that link remains red. List of verified supercentenarians who died in 2010 at least has a name on it (the article was created two days before the 110 year old lady passed away, kind of tasteless). Mandsford (talk) 01:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It doesn't further the wikipedia per WP:IAR It's easy to recreate when the time comes. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 02:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not really neccessary, and if I interpret the policies correct, in cases like this one, it is either a snowball keep or a delete per WP:CRYSTAL. No, I dont think this is a snowball - who can guarantee that the veterans are going to die this year? Blodance (talk) 02:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, I agree that Wikipedia shouldn't be waiting for respected people to die, but I also feel that this is a necessary article. Maybe recreate it after a few months pass? smithers - talk 06:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an intersection of two things. Notable veterans of the Spanish Civil War of course should be listed. Notable deaths in 2010 also. No reason combine the two lists in this way. (I don't care if other wars and other years are listed the same way. Nominate them too and I will also advocate deletion.) Steve Dufour (talk) 07:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a pointless list. JBsupreme (talk) 08:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Perhaps WP:USERFY the article until it can be filled, but for now, the placeholder/crystal ball argument is compelling.—DMCer™ 08:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The odds are, regrettably, that two or more of the people on that list will die in the next year. However, with that said, perhaps with groups this small pages dedicated to their year of death are somewhat counterproductive...odds are that annual pages from here on out will include no more than 5 veterans, so possibly simply making a post-2010 deaths page (or even just one for 2010-2014) in the vein of the 2000-2005 one (and possibly also rolling the others together) might not be a bad move.Tyrenon (talk) 11:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See below. ~~Strong Delete~~ - there is no content, and fails WP:CRYSTAL as mentioned. True, it is (unfortunately) statistically likely that there will be content for this list, but there currently is not. It's also in extremely poor taste to forecast deaths among a group of people, however statistically accurate it may be, but I'm not aware of any policy against such an article in particular. Ivanvector (talk) 13:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Inappropriate bordering on downright creepy. Wikipedia isn't a dead pool. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Change to list of veterans of the Spanish Civil War who died in 2006-2010 65.0.53.189 (talk) 18:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

or better yet, make it list of veterans of the Spanish Civil War who died in 2000-2010 do the math and you would only find 70 deaths. 65.0.53.189 (talk) 18:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it seems that the consensus, by existing articles, is not to anticipate such events, and be conservative in this kind of article creation. we dont have articles on surviving ww2 veterans by death year, which we could do. i wonder why not, and if we did, would we automatically create a new article jan 1 of each year, as there is absolutely no doubt some would die that year. i dont see anything creepy about it, though. its just not our standard practice, thus it feels wrong to me.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- only 70 of them died this decade, i think its reasonable to just have one article listing 70 vets who died in a decade instead of a few stubs listing around ten vets. 65.0.53.189 (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - if we just make a list of the veterans who made it to 2000, wed have 103 veterans, that's gonna take up a perfect amount of space for the article length to be just right. 65.0.53.189 (talk) 19:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not merge all of the articles on Spanish Civil War veteran deaths by year with the list of surviving vets, and just have one list of known Spanish Civil War veterans, whether they be alive or dead? By my math (not checking for duplicates) there would be 103 names on that list, which is hardly too long by Wikipedia standards. Is there some value in sorting these vets by the years of their deaths? Ivanvector (talk) 23:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like Ivanvector's idea so merge. There aren't enough names to justify having one for each year. (I wouldn't go low enough to make List of members of the 2009 New York Yankees born in 1970, List of members of the 2009 New York Yankees born in 1971, etc. This is a direct parallel) TheWeakWilled (T * G) 00:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 06:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and all the other articles in this series. These lists obviously aren't complete, and if they were they'd be lists of mainly non-notable people. Nick-D (talk) 06:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTMEMORIAL. The idea of articles for Veterans of X War who died in X year, for every war and year is odd. It's a shame WP's search functions are complete crap. If it had an advanced search similar to IMDb's (which isn't even all that spectacular), people could search category:Spanish Civil War, date of death:2010 and find everything they wanted, if in fact anybody wanted to search for that. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 22:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I hope that Wikipedia will, someday, be able to have something similar to imdb.com's search engine which allows a person to see where two items intersect. If I'm not mistaken, what Wn3om6n is referring to is something where you can type in the names of two actors (say Bette Davis and Sammy Davis Jr.) and see whether they've ever appeared together in the same film. Ideally, we'd have something where we'd see where two categories intersect, like Category:Supercentenarians and Category:1890 births. I think there probably will be something similar in the future, at which time categories may be more useful than they are. Mandsford (talk) 14:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Ivanvector. At this point, individual year articles really are redundant.Tyrenon (talk) 08:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reiterating my merge suggestion since it's buried in a comment above, and I originally suggested deletion (now struck out). It seems the only war that has lists of this sort (besides this one) is World War I, which lists more vets on each page than the pages for this war list all together. In fact, the lists for this war only go back to 2000, and several are already grouped together into a multiple-year list. The information has encyclopedic value, but there's not enough for separate lists. They should all be merged into a new List of known veterans of the Spanish Civil War, with one of those notes that the list can never be completed. I could go ahead and make that list now, but I'll wait for this AfD to close. Ivanvector (talk) 14:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment i suggested delete, and unfortunately i often forget to consider merge, redirect. i just think this stand alone article is not necessary. interesting: some people become notable over time for having been older veterans, so the concern that this list is not "complete", while wrong, also raises a subtle point. at this time, there are no ww2 veterans notable exclusively for being alive. in the next couple of decades, they will start to become notable for this reason, so previously nonnotable people become notable for nothing they do, and the list of surviving veterans, or the category, starts to approach completion.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 21:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ "World Tag Team Championship official title history". WWE. Retrieved 2008-01-20.
^ "New Age Outlaws' second World Tag Team Championship reign". WWE. Retrieved 2008-01-20.
^ "New Age Outlaws' third World Tag Team Championship reign". WWE. Retrieved 2008-01-20.
^ "New Age Outlaws' fourth World Tag Team Championship reign". WWE. Retrieved 2008-01-20.
^ "New Age Outlaws' fifth World Tag Team Championship reign". WWE. Retrieved 2008-01-20.
^ Cite error: The named reference xpackane1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Cite error: The named reference xpackane2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ "Michaels & Triple H's first World Tag Team Championship reign". World Wrestling Entertainment. Retrieved 2009-12-13.
^ "WWE Tag Team Championship official title history". WWE. Retrieved 2009-12-14.
^ "D-Generation X's first WWE Tag Team Championship reign". World Wrestling Entertainment. Retrieved 2009-12-13.

[1] "World Tag Team Championship official title history". WWE. Retrieved 2008-01-20.

[2] "New Age Outlaws' second World Tag Team Championship reign". WWE. Retrieved 2008-01-20.

[3] "New Age Outlaws' third World Tag Team Championship reign". WWE. Retrieved 2008-01-20.

[4] "New Age Outlaws' fourth World Tag Team Championship reign". WWE. Retrieved 2008-01-20.

[5] "New Age Outlaws' fifth World Tag Team Championship reign". WWE. Retrieved 2008-01-20.

[xpackane1-6] Cite error: The named reference xpackane1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[xpackane2-7] Cite error: The named reference xpackane2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[8] "Michaels & Triple H's first World Tag Team Championship reign". World Wrestling Entertainment. Retrieved 2009-12-13.

[9] "WWE Tag Team Championship official title history". WWE. Retrieved 2009-12-14.

[10] "D-Generation X's first WWE Tag Team Championship reign". World Wrestling Entertainment. Retrieved 2009-12-13.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]