Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 January 2

< 1 January	3 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 delete. Tone 00:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hellshock

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

seems to fail WP:ATHLETE and WP:BIO; he has never competed at a "high" level, nor won any particular award, and I cannot find sufficient reliable coverage for his career. Ironholds (talk) 23:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

obviously this person did not read the note at the bottom of the Hellshock page about the changes and he didn't or couldn't read the original rebuke nor was he privy to the discussion in chat with some moderators about those changes. and he apparently didn't read about the new name for the page which is clearly stated as the pages last entry. and since the page has been nominated for deletion i am not allowed to officially change the name until this matter is resolved. and furthermore instead of being able to update or change the page or even to prove my notability i am forced to defend myself from attacks by people who have 0 notability outside of Wikipedia. ---- Hellshock70 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellshock70 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm getting a strong whiff of WP:COI here and, in any case, the article cites no sources. This could be an article worth saving if these issues were addressed. Eddie.willers (talk) 02:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I have gathered from my conversations here in the talk pages and the moderator chat is that We as independent pro wrestlers are not good enough to be included at wikipedia because we are not current or former talent of the WWE or TNA or any former top level organization like the AWA, WCW, NWA, etc. They also claim that former enhancement talent like Colt Steele and Rob McBride for example shouldn't be listed because even though they where on-air-talents they never competed for the World title. And yet WWE Smackdown, WWE RAW and WWE-ECW are loaded with talent who have never competed for a world title. But they are an exception because they are "CURRENT" on-air-talent. And we also are disqualified from being included even if we have been on TV or competed for an unofficial World title if there is no on-line search evidence even though some of these organizations existed and/or ceased to exist before the internet was available for public use. Just an observation but the Von Erich's World Class World title never recieved "official" status till a few months before the company folded if at all. And to my knowledge this and a few other "World" titles have never been or very rarely was defended outside the United States. And since the current recognized World titles are not defended outside their company against worldwide competition how can that be considered a World title. For that matter how many times has a Japanese or other non-american or non-canadien baseball team been competing for a spot in the "World" Series? And while all pro wrestlers from my trainee Justin Myers to Hulk Hogan are athletes we cannot be listed in the same competitive breath as a Super Bowl team. Why? They compete for their title, we are predetermined. We are selected by either being talented or we had someone pulling backstage politics to get us there. And i have on-air proof from the final WCW Monday Nitro where Ric Flair was VOTED to be World Champion by Vince McMahon, Sr. back in the 80's. Hellshock70 —Preceding undated comment added 03:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

And to address the conflict of interest: I didn't have a conflict till I was slandered. And why should I cite sources for my article when I've already expressed the desire to change the topic and the content? Hellshock70 —Preceding undated comment added 03:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. Hellshock, a conflict of interest doesn't mean a clash of personalities, it means writing about yourself or something you're closely associated with. People generally have a tough time writing truly neutral, objective articles about themselves, not to mention press agents writing about their clients and so on. Second, the question isn't whether independent wrestlers are "good enough" to be on Wikipedia—we have articles on not just Mother Teresa but Adolf Hitler too, and that doesn't imply a judgment about which is "good enough." The issue is just notability for inclusion in a general encyclopedia. And unfortunately after looking for sources I just don't see evidence that this article is going to meet WP:BIO or WP:ENT. Glenfarclas (talk) 05:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the article is furnished with references showing significant coverage in reliable sources. As it stands, the subject of the article doesn't pass the notability guidelines. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 06:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AGAIN: Why? Why do I need sources for this topic when I have PLAINLY STATED my intentions to CHANGE the TOPIC and CONTENT to something else? AND by the way: what is in my SOON TO BE FORMER TOPIC that is a conflict of interest? If I wanted to make myself bigger I could have claimed to be a 10-time European World Champion (which isn't true), I could've claimed to be related to Cyrus McCormick (which is true), I could have claimed to have pinned, beaten up or teamed with Matt & Jeff Hardy, Hurricane Helms and Joey Abs (false, but we were in the same indy company 13-15 years ago). I didn't do anything to warrant this being blown out of proportion the way its becoming. i can scan a copy of my college i.d. card to verify I'm in college and my curriculum to show I'm taking accounting courses. But all of this is irrelevent because I'm changing the topic and the only reason the content hasn't been changed YET is because I CAN'T CHANGE THE NAME OF THE PAGE until either the page has been deleted or someone unfreezes it to allow me to change the name. While I can adjust the content I'm not allowed to change the name and it would still fall under an article for deletion cause the new topic wouldn't match up with the old title. (example: title- hellshock, content- the life and times of civil war colonel Elmer Ratliff) No match. So either delete it now or unfreeze it so i can take it into another direction or delete it myself. It's that simple DELETE IT or ALLOW ME TO DELETE IT OR CHANGE IT. So i can quit dealing with people spouting policy and apparently not reading anything I've wrote about changing it. You're beating a dead horse, you've won, now shut up and let me change it or let me delete it or delete it yourself. And by the way I keep getting this message that says I can post my signature by clicking the signature button but that button is not here for me to use.Hellshock70 —Preceding undated comment added 06:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

If you don't see the button (it's pretty vague-looking) you can just type four tildes, like so: ~~~~. That will be turned into your signature when you hit Save Page. Glenfarclas (talk) 09:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you just start a new page on the new topic, with the new name? Then you'll have your new page and we can let this discussion run its course. Please try and remain civil in your responses too. Thanks. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's easier to remain civil when someone reads and responds to you what you have said when they address the whole statement instead of picking and choosing from it. Until you not one person responded to the expressed desire to change the page name and content. And further more because of the athletic requirements for pro wrestling we can't be bound by entertainment standards. mild example: Triple H does not have a stunt double LOL. But, because of the predetermined nature we are not Sports. Which is why on the books in a legal forum (a new jersey court and you can look this up on any search) Pro Wrestling was dubbed "Sports Entertainment". So in truth, we don't have a genre or standard cause i guarantee if you're not one of wrestlers who have crossed over into music or films like Dwayne Johnson or John Cena or you where not a former pro football player like Wahoo McDaniels you will not meet all of the wikipedia requirements for inclusion. One in particular point is a requirement to have competed at the top level for the world title. How can you compete for a predetermined title? Frank Gotch won the world wrestling title. Ric Flair was voted in by the NWA board of directors in the 80's. And when Vince McMahon bought WCW Flair stated to Vince on live tv that his father voted for him to be world champion (and you can see that by searching for "the last WCW Monday Nitro" and/or "Ric Flair's Shoot"). Hellshock70 (talk) 18:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Hellshock70[reply]

Delete The more that an article creator rants and raves, the less he/she takes time to listen to what's being said here. No matter how glowing a future this wrestler/accountant has, there is no evidence given of any present or past notability. Bear in mind that this is an encyclopaedia and not a soapbox for prophets of future glory. If the article is deleted, come back with the evidence. Take time to get it all together, or we'll be reviewing it at AfD again. May I suggest requesting deletion and starting again? But you must have the third party reliable sources to back up the article's claims. Don't put in things about the future. WP:CRYSTAL will tell you why not. Also, articles about other wrestlers are not relevant here. If you think they shouldn't be there, tag them. Peridon (talk) 19:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

future glory? LOL It's clearly states 2011 as year of retirement. LOL. Hellshock70 (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Hellshock70[reply]

As we (in the UK at least) are only in 2010, that comes under WP:CRYSTAL too... Peridon (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So I guess that means when someone like let's say Mark Martin says he will retire at the end of the year you can't list it?Hellshock70 (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Hellshock70[reply]

I left a general reply on your talk page, but to answer that question specifically - we would need a reference from a reliable source that shows the person saying that. Biographies of living people are awkward areas, and most, if not all statements should be referenced. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it was in the moderator chat area that there was a statement that the wrestling companies listed on my page had 0 coverage or notability. Obviously they didn't check since New Dimensions Wrestling has plenty of coverage and this was a google search and that they claimed to use google. Hellshock70 (talk) 03:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Hellshock[reply]

I cant speak for anyone else, I can only give my opinion on this specific article. Its not prudent to start talking about other articles on other subjects. This AfD only concerns Hellshock, and as far I'm concerned, notability hasn't been demonstrated. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 03:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no reliable sources covering the subject of this article. If the article author wishes to start a new article on the history of indpendent wrestling, he can do so, or contribute to the sxisting article at Independent circuit. However, that has no bearing on this article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. LibStar (talk) 01:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Aside from the obvious COI, subject definately fails WP:ATHLETE. Has never wrestled in a top level promotion. (Note: Wrestling someone who did wrestle in one of them doesn't put you there. Terry Bradshaw threw me a ball once, that doesn't make me a NFL receiver). Or if you want to look at it another way, he fails WP:ENT. Take your pick. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:45, 8 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. Tone 00:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Jiancheng

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

Is this professor sufficiently notable? Nothing I see indicates that he is. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I just added a footnote to prove that he is one of Distinguished Contemporary Chinese Jurists. Notable enough. --Pengyanan (talk) 01:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 03:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I remind our nominator that deletion is supposed to be based on the merits of covering the topic -- not on the current state of the article. Wang was a visiting scholar at several institutions, was a Fulbright Scholar, Deputy President of the China Procedural Law Association. It took about thirty seconds to find this out. Nominators who don't conduct a cursory web search, prior to nominating articles for deletion let down the rest of the project's contributors. Geo Swan (talk) 04:58, 5 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 Kin'iro no Corda. A redirect is a reasonable closure here since it refers to the topic. I'll keep the history in case there's anything useful to merge. Tone 00:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tsukimori Len

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

This individual does not pass WP:N and I can find no WP:RS to indicate true notability. Further, notability is not inherited Basket of Puppies 23:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pretty straightforward per BoP's rationale. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 00:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Kin'iro no Corda, although if he's "one of the male leads" of Kin'iro no Corda as claimed, it's especially surprising he isn't mentioned in that article at all. Anyway, this article is complete fancruft. Glenfarclas (talk) 05:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 13:23, 3 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 Gargoyle (band). The parent album is a redirect at the moment, redirecting to the artist then. Tone 00:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Satori (single)

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

Fails WP:NSONG no significant coverage found that would indicate that this single passes WP:NOTABILITY RP459 (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 23:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect song to album per WP:NSONG: "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." As there seems to be absolutely nothing about this single that could support a reasonably detailed article, the guideline applies. Glenfarclas (talk) 05:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, a redirect to the parent album is appropriate as per the notability guideline for songs. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 06:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per User:Glenfarclas. Rlendog (talk) 21:27, 4 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. Tone 00:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Werner

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

This person is completely non-notable. The only possible reason is that he was a minor politician, but there is zero discussion of his accomplishments (because he isn't notable). This page was created by a relative who keeps using her own webpage as a source. She is even claiming that a scanned obituary, from the guys own local paper and posted on her website, makes him "notable" - this is just ridiculous. He doesn't meet the criteria in WP:BIO (holding such a minor position is secondary, not primary), few of the other holders of that office have their own articles, the sources are either broken or from a family member/wikipedia edtor - if someone wants to write up their family tree then they should keep it on their own website. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep "Vice-Minister of Finance in Poland" looks notable to me, and describing it as a minor position looks deceptive William M. Connolley (talk) 23:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. -- El on ka 23:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Interviews in the New York Times - Los Angeles Times – Milwaukee Journal – Berkeley Daily Gazette – Southeast Missourian , provided here [1] should meet our requirements for inclusion. Does this help? JAAG^Talk 23:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That "interview" in the New York Times is the same obit that was put up on Elonka's family website. I see she is calling in her friends though - I'm tempted to file an investigation over this meatpuppetry. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'meatpuppetry? - Do not understand. JAAG^Talk 02:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now I am beginning to wonder about the motivation behind the AfD. The original proposal is rather harsh (as in "this is just ridiculous") and now the nominator has made an uninformed accusation of puppetry toward someone who is trying to improve the article in good faith. What gives? Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 02:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first person to pop up and defend the article is a friend (on facebook) of the person who created the article (about her relative) - you can easily determine this by looking at his userpage and then clicking on his facebook link. See WP:DUCK.TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed additional ref. to the article, that are linked to the actual news achieve sites that I used above, rather than a PDF file that was used earlier. Regarding knowing the family, sorry to say, I have not had the pleasure of meeting or even talking to any of the individuals. Hope this eliminates the concern . Happy New Year. JAAG^Talk 17:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a "concern" it is a verifiable fact - click on Connolley's username and then his facebook link - it'll show Elonka as oone of his friends. Have you ever heard of "seed funding?" Basically, for fundraisers, a few predetermined people give money so other people are more likely to give money - this "seed money" is able to generate a lot more money - I see a similar situation here due to this meatpupptery. So far the main source is an obit - nearly everyone will eventually get an obit, that is not a good source, and this guy has done nothing notable other than possibly being appointed to a minor government position in a minor nation. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow - I have heard culture is different here and have heard of the term “…Six Degrees of Separation, but never thought the two would go hand-in-hand and that I would be involved. JAAG^Talk 21:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<outdent> 6 degrees? There is only one degree of seperation - why are you so defensive? You act like I'm accusing you of something, but so far I've only mentioned Connolley by name. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry if I mis-interperated your remarks. In that they were placed after my opinion, and not the other editor’s, I had thought that they included me. Sorry for any mis-understandings. JAAG^Talk 21:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Locust: You have insulted the nation and people of Poland in an odd drive to accuse William M. Connolley of puppetry. So what if he knows somebody? And I bet your legs are tired after that huge leap from an obituary link to a vast seed money conspiracy. Also, I have noticed that you and Connolley are both heavily involved in the talk pages of controversial topics in the climate change arena. If I were a fellow paranoid conspiracy theorist I would advise you to keep your dispute with that gentleman away from completely unrelated articles, like this one for Edward Werner. But I'm sure a person who wants to be an administrator would never act in such an unprofessional way. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And yet he has never before appeared to edit this topic - but oddly enough shows up, first thing I might add, to help defend the article created by his friend about her relative. Also, if you'd read my RfA I made it quite clear that I don't want to be an admin. If you were really a "paranoid conspiracy theorist" then you should be wondering why he decided to edit this article out of the blue. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't the same question be asked of you, TheGoodLocust? You don't normally edit in the Poland topic area, yet suddenly you decided to nom this article for deletion, and further, made the edit summaries personal towards me, even though (to my knowledge) we've never interacted before in any way. So, care to explain why this article showed up on your radar? --El on ka 21:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<outdent> Sure, I'll tell you exactly why, or better yet, I'll drop the entire subject if you swear, to God if you believe in it, that you didn't contact Connolley to edit this article - I'll believe you. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrap It Up - I am the guilty party here for calling out Locust's motivations and kicking off this pointless argument. My bad. And even though I started it, I recommend that nobody make any more responses to Locust's accusations. This page is supposed to be a debate about the notability of Edward Werner, a Polish politician who died in 1945 and who has nothing to do whatsoever with Locust's paranoia about the people who have edited the article in good faith. Every single other person here has said Keep so we have established that Edward Werner is worthy of his own WP article. The end. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's a pretty strong opposal - you don't want Elonka to swear she didn't participate in meatpupptery? That seems odd to me. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In an effort to put this pointless discussion to bed: I do solemnly swear that I saw the AFD on this article from TGL's contribs list William M. Connolley (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<outdent>Close, but no, that would not do, you could look at my contributions at any time and say you saw the AfD there. I'd preferably like her word, but yours will suffice if properly worded (e.g. swearing she did not influence you to come to this article). TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Beyond the items found by JAAG above, note that the Werner's possible notability was in the early 1900s which would explain the shortage of online sources that are not mere mirrors of this WP article. Knowledgeable people should work on adding references from books, etc. I agree also with Mr. Connolley above. I'm inclined to think that the article does not yet support the man's notability (especially #1 in WP:POLITICIAN) due to a lack of references. I have added the "refimprove" tag to the article, because that's what it really needs for now, rather than an AfD. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 00:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I did some cleanup. The article looks much better now. -- Poeticbent talk 00:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:POLITICIAN and above discussion. --MWOAP (talk) 00:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above, with clean up by Poeticbent. Grsz¹¹ 03:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Poland is a "completely non-notable" country. Other Polish goverment leaders of the same rank have entries on Wikipedia (check lists/links). So the question is should all such information be deleted? Who cares wbout Poland? :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.157.189.3 (talk) 04:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well referenced and obviously notable subject. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 19:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As notable as anyone else who has achieved rank in a government - of whatever nation.... Peridon (talk) 20:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obit in the NYT, which is unquestioned evidence of notability. DGG ( talk ) 00:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That same page lists a bunch of obits - obits are not "unquestioned evidence of notability." TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find one decision where it was rejected as evidence of notability? There might possibly be some question in the mid-19th century, but not in 1945!. DGG ( talk ) 04:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:POLITICIAN.--John (talk) 04:18, 4 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. The one reliable source on this has now changed their mind. As Ealdgyth notes, we are not losing much in deleting this - it can be restored later when we have more reliable information SilkTork *^YES! 16:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alric

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

This article was proposed for deletion by User:Scrivener-uki with the comment, "The article was created on information on the 2nd edition of the Handbook of British Chronology. After further studies, the 3rd edition does not list or accept this person was a bishop of Dunwich."

I suggest that, as a controversial question of historical study, this should be discussed by knowledgeable editors. As that leaves me out, I am neutral to deletion.

I am also nominating Husa of Elmham, which was also PRODed by the same user with the same rationale.

Cnilep (talk) 22:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Cnilep (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Cnilep (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I had no problems with the PROD, and figured it did not need contesting, as Scrivener's correct, the 3rd edition has removed both Alric and Husa from the lists of bishops. No real need for AfD, quite honestly. I noticed the prods, and left them in place. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also to note that anglo-saxons.net search of documents returns no documents mentioning either alric or husa. The 2nd edition mentions "Alric, probably bishop of Dunwich" and "Husa, bishop or dunwich or elmham", neither exactly ringing endorsements of the information. Note the 2nd edition was published in 1961, the 3rd was published in 1996 (a corrected edition). I can't get to [www.pase.ac.uk PASE] at the moment, they seem to be having database issues. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've managed to backdoor into PASE, which shows Alric as an "unidentified" bishop with one attestation as a witness on a charter (Sawyer 53 for those interested). Here is the backdoor for PASE, for those interested in searching him out yourselves. Personally, I'd say that without knowing WHAT bishopric he was a bishop of, we're better off waiting for more information to develop. It's not like deleting him is going to preclude the recreation of the article later if someone writes on the subject. And to reply to Deacon, PASE gives Haelric as something different than Alric (but they do tie Haelric to Sawyer 233. Just a note to those interested, when I created most of these early bishop articles, I only had access to the 2nd edition, thus why it was created. As I work through the bishops, I've been replacing the refs with the 3rd edition, and prodding those that are no longer considered bishops. Just hadn't gotten around to Elmham/Dunwich yet. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since this is adequate as an answer to "do we need these topics?" It would be a help if Bishop of Dunwich was annotated to note that current scholarship has updated older lists; this is a sensible measure against future queries. Redirecting and annotating would also be an acceptable way to do it. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: EHR NO. CCIIL—JULY 1936 may indicate why Husa has been removed. Alric seems to be the guy who left Signum Hælricis principis; so if I were to guess someone in the 19th century argued he was a bishop because he signs under Bishop Saxulf, and he was assigned Elmham because it was unaccounted for (you could be more sure by checking the entries on PASE under "Hælric", but it's down just now). I'd be more comfortable though seeing better evidence for the reasoning of HBC, as this source isn't always particularly reliable for matters this early. On the other hand, it is this source on which we are depending for our article. The article is non-substantial, and as it now rejects these guys we should probably delete them. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 07:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Alric and Husa are now no longer considered to be bishops. The 3rd HBC isn't totally reliable, but should go by that edition than the older 2nd HBC. To prevent future queries, I've added a footnote to the Bishop of Dunwich article about Alric and Husa being listed in the 2nd but not the 3rd. Scrivener-uki (talk) 14:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Of course, many such 7th century figures are surrounded by real uncertainty. Alric has some notability merely by being included in various published lists of bishops, such as Searle's Anglo-Saxon Bishops, Kings and Nobles (1899), p. 228. Moonraker2 (talk) 14:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I do not think that the decision that his dis-identification as bishop of Dunwich is sufficient to justify deletion. I am not sure that I can get at the Eng Hist Review article cited, but the "Signum Hælricis principis" suggests that he was significant. "Princeps" might imply that he was an earldorman, which would make him sigjificant. The problem is that we are not sure quite what he did do. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You'd like to keep the Alric article, yet you're not quite sure what he did do. The same source that once did list him as a bishop now doesn't list him one, and so anything as one should removed. But what put in its place? It is for that reason it should be deleted. Scrivener-uki (talk) 23:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is just a possibility. The EHR article was in relation to Husa. Anyway, surely if these guys are no longer what the articles said, then they don't exist? If "Alric" the obscure one charter princeps needs an article ... we can start one. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As for many early figures, we give what evidence there is . He was discussed in RS, and that is sufficient. , I would argue that anyone who is named as a witness in an anglo saxon charter should have an article, even if the information given the practice of having it attested by all the notable figures available. DGG ( talk ) 00:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But atm, my OR aside, these guys are just bishops of Elmham and Dommoc who never existed. They don't represent anyone else other than figures who didn't exist. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Alric mentioned in the charter is described as principis which is latin and could refer to Princeps/Principes (chief, distinguished, or noble / spearmen, swordsmen). In the same charter mentions a number of people who are described as episcopus or episcopi which is latin for bishop. If Alric were a bishop not a "prince", he'd surely be described in the charter as episcopus or episcopi. The name Alric is not a one off name for one person. In the Anglo-Saxon period there have been many people called Alric: Alric, third son of Wihtred, king of Kent;[2] Alric, son of Herbert, who was slain in 798;[3] Alric, one of William the Conqueror's thanes;[4] Alric the Saxon, Lord of the Manor of Cockington;[5] and another Alric the Saxon, who once lived in Lower Harberton;[6] In fact the first Alric, son of Wihtred, may be the same person described in the charter as Signum Hælricis principis. Alric, the so-bishop, and Alric, the chief/noble/swordsman, are two different people. This particular article is about the Alric who was once thought to be a bishop is now not considered to have been one. All I am asking for is to delete the so-called bishop Alric, not anyone else. Scrivener-uki (talk) 11:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Princeps would mean at this place and time "ealdorman", "royal" or "local king". Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right. and as for the others, I was a little puzzled that the name was unqualified, for I would have guessed that there might have a number of additional people of this name, as there are. What it seems is that we need more articles. We could have written them in the time is is taking to debate this one. DGG ( talk ) 04:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually (and not meaning to be snide here at all, just pointing something out) Deacon and I have both created a couple of articles during the time this AfD ran. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Furhter Comment -- I wonder whether we need to convert this almost into a dab page for all the Saxon people called Alric. Deacon of Pndapetzim is correct on the usage. The problem is that we really known nothing but the name and the title "princeps", along with the statement now discounted that he was a bishop. The fact that the claim was made but has been discounted is worth having in WP. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:13, 8 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 Kish Air Flight 707. SilkTork *^YES! 14:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reza Jabari

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

This person seems to have no lasting notability. He did a couple of very unusual things, and also served time in prison for one of them, but now he is just an ordinary person getting on with his life. Kitfoxxe (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kish Air Flight 707. Mandsford (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

weak Delete, more reliable sources must be provided to establish notability . Rirunmot (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I don't think there is any question about his existence or the facts of his story. I know WP, following the news media and general public interest and imagination, considers a crime taking place on an airliner to be much more "notable" than one taking place on the ground. His intention was not to harm anyone but just to escape from Iran. An article on the incident should be enough.Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe that the entry has significance in the broad context of the Iran-Israel relationship, which incidentally is far broader than what the general public is led to believe: people tell me that if one walks through an arbitrary neighbourhood in Israel, one is more likely to hear some Persian music coming out of people's houses than music from any other country --- this is certainly the case in such place as Jerusalem. The interested might like to watch this wonderful Persian dance, performed by Miriam Peretz in Haifa in 2005. But aside from this, the possibility of hijacking Iranian passenger planes and possibly diverting them to Israel seems to be a recurrent theme in the Iranian motion pictures. Two examples that come to mind are: Low Heights (2002) by Ebrahim Hatamikia, and The Outcasts, 2 (2009) by Masoud Dehnamaki. Incidentally, Jabari should be Jabbari (the word shares the same root with the word Algebra, which is the same as Al-Jabr, so that Jabari cannot be correct). --BF 21:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please write an article on it then. Maybe "Israel in Iranian pop-culture"? Kitfoxxe (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kitfoxxe: Good idea, but unfortunately at present I have no spare time to spend on such project. --BF 19:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Kitfoxxe (talk) 01:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge per Mandsford. Doc Quintana (talk) 23:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very interesting and very usefull info.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to Kish Air Flight 707 per WP:BLP1E. Sandstein 06:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. Adds no extra information to Kish Air Flight 707 which can be "merged". I think even redirect is not required. Geeteshgadkari (talk) 10:10, 10 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 (A7). –MuZemike 01:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Arant

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

Not notable. Bdb484 (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - A7. Not sure why this AfD was started, as the article was already tagged for speedy deletion... Singularity42 (talk) 21:49, 2 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 per nom/consensus. Talk page should have had the afd history on it though. WP:NAC TheWeakWilled (T * G) 01:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Know Pratibha Patil

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

This is an article on a temporary (and now defunct) website created by one political party to criticize Pratibha Patil, who was nominated was presidency of India by another political alliance. The article fails WP:NOTNEWS and arguably WP:COATRACK and WP:BLP (though, to be fair, it is written neutrally). See also G. N. Patil and Kisan Dhage, which were created during the same period, and which I have nominated for deletion too. Abecedare (talk) 21:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I didn't realize that this article had been AFD's earlier and the decision was to redirect it to Indian presidential election, 2007. That decision was undone by an IP, and I am fine with this AFD being closed early and the article being redirected (not closing it myself out of abundance of caution). Abecedare (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (not doing it myself this early just to verify consensus before doing this speedily) There is no indication that the article should remain, the IP user undid an edit which was the outcome of an AfD discussion without making any assertion that it should remain or change to make it a candidate for inclusion. No content edits have been made since the undoing of the AfD decision. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 21:33, 2 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 per G10 by Fastily. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kisan Dhage

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

This supposed biographical article is simply a coatrack for allegations against President of India Pratibha Patil and her husband, and fails WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. See also G. N. Patil and Know Pratibha Patil, which too were created during the contentious nomination of Patil for presidency, and which I have nominated for deletion too. Abecedare (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication that the subject is notable per WP:BIO. Valid news material, but Wikipedia is not news. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 21:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 21:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 21:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 21:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject certainly does not pass WP:BIO (at best a WP:BIO1E case), plus obvious WP:BLP problems here. The article reads like an attack page. Nsk92 (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails BIO, do we really have to wait 7 days to get rid of this crap? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this misuse of Wikipedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:51, 3 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 speedy keep - moved to WP:RFD (non-admin closure) Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 21:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Annual ryegrass toxicity

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

See below. — The Man in Question (in question) 21:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wrong place. I meant to nominate a redirect to this article. Close. — The Man in Question (in question) 21:02, 2 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. Tone 00:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The truth cookies

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

non notable work of fiction WuhWuzDat 20:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was about to PROD this when it showed up here. I'll point out that the correct title is The Truth Cookie, but even so notability is lacking. Glenfarclas (talk) 20:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non notable fiction. Rockpocket 21:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. This book isn't quite notable yet, fails google test. Wouldn't be opposed if created in the future passing WP:NOTE. Gosox5555 (talk) 21:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BK. Joe Chill (talk) 00:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, appears to be a non-notable book. Stifle (talk) 15:28, 6 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 (non-admin closure) Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 22:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Years of the 15th - 17th century in Italy

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

Links to a bunch of red links. iBen^discuss 20:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The user is working to remove the red links. I withdraw my AFD request after speaking with the user.--iBen^discuss 20:30, 2 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. Tone 00:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Insight

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP, WP:NOT, WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Digital Insight products. References given are to self links and press releases that do not count as reliable sources and do not confer notability. Others seem to be merely trivial coverage or mentions.
I am also nominating the following Advertisements masquerading as articles:

FinanceWorks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Small Business FinanceWorks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 20:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added some references that I think establish notability for the company and its software. One of the more significant lines in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion is "please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape." -- Eastmain (talk) 20:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the changes made by Eastmain. I would rather have an article in bad shape that hasn't been improved in years to be deleted if no one plans on ever making any improvements. I don't buy into the no deadline mantra, not one bit. Our reputation here is bad enough as it is. That said, THANK YOU EASTMAIN for making these improvements. JBsupreme (talk) 18:45, 7 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. And redirect to Wendy Wu. Sandstein 06:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Satans Rats

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

I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wendy Wu. Some coverage here, a self-written history here, one retrospective album released on Overground [7], and a few brief mentions here and there. A redirect to The Photos would have been the obvious answer, but that article redirects to the article on their singer, so redirect to Wendy Wu for now.--Michig (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Redirect or Delete due to blatant copyright infringement from even 2 years ago. Every revision I looked at was an infringement of [8]. Perhaps delete then redirect so as to remove the copyvio content from the history. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 22:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note as discussed on article's talk page, it's possible the copyvio is on last.fm's part, not Wikipedia's. I can't tell, either way. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 22:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and recreate as redirect, not notable and thus not qualified for an article, but perhaps a sufficiently likely search target for Wu. I suggesting deletion before redirecting to ensure that we don't have copyvio problems with its history. Nyttend (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note. I have expanded the Wendy Wu article with more detail about both Satan's Rats and The Photos (who had a #4 UK album and are clearly notable), and have proposed that the Wendy Wu article is moved to The Photos, which would also be a better location for all of the detail on Satan's Rats, so eventually this article should redirect to The Photos.--Michig (talk) 16:04, 9 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. Tone 00:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Platypus

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

Highly non-notable video game ship. Author attempted to contest the PROD by adding a hangon tag, so I've brought it here. The prodder suggested a possible redirect to GTA4, but I don't think this will be useful. Probably redirect to Platypus. Glenfarclas (talk) 19:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I had placed the PROD template. Agree with nominator. Nothing shows that the subject is notable. Cannot find any kind of online sources. Redirecting to Platypus should be the thing to do -- Raziman T V (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Very well known Cargo Vessel in game, No redirecting the mammal, has nothing to do with the ship. --Dian-Lou-Aopa25 (talk) 19:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redirect doesn't make sense as nobody will ever type "The Platypus" in the search box when looking for a video game. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can find no sources that would lead me to believe that this passes WP:NOTABILITY on Google or Google news. RP459 (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment may be possible to find notability if we know what game it was from... RP459 (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

follow up comment it is from Grand Theft Auto IV the only source I can find is an fan site... RP459 (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, just one second, hold everything users... [http://gta.wikia.com/Platypus information on the platypus galore... your telling me its not notabile enough it has its own wikia page on the gta iv wikia. jesus. Like I stand by and will vote for my Keep. Dian-Lou-Aopa25 (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment have a look at WP:NOTABILITY a fan site does not qualify as sufficient notability... Also please have a look at the message I left on your talk page. RP459 (talk) 19:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - redirecting to Platypus doesn't really make sense as it is unusual to include a definite article when searching. The video game ship clearly does not meet WP:N. --bonadea contributions talk 22:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. 58.170.83.117 (talk) 00:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. Otherwise redirect to HMAS Platypus. Pakaraki (talk) 19:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – That redirect would be ambiguous and not very useful. Otherwise, it's not notable by quite a bit. –MuZemike 17:36, 4 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. Consensus is that this is too broad to be a suitable topic for a list even if split into sublists and cleaned up. Sandstein 06:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of firsts

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

I propose that List of firsts be deleted because its coverage is entirely limitless and therefore is “content not suitable for an encyclopedia” per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion. It also appears to run contra to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. For example, the article currently includes such completely disparate entries as:

First law written in cuneiform
First de facto Prime Minister of Great Britain
First commercial airliner to be hijacked
First animal in space: fruit flies
First successful creation of soda water
First cloned camel

This article could just as well include such “firsts” as:

First woman graduate of a college.
First woman graduate of a college in the United States.
First woman graduate of a college in Michigan.
First woman graduate of a college in Detroit.

First printed image of a cat
First printed image of a group of cats.
First printed image of a Siamese cat.
First printed image of a sleeping Siamese cat.

First patented medicine.
First patented medicine for headaches.
First patented medicine in pill form.
First patented medicine in liquid form.

First published use of the name "The United States".
First published use of the name "Iowa".
First published use of the name "Des Moines".

See additional examples on the talk page: Talk:List of firsts#Delete or ?.

I propose, therefore, that this article be broken up into subsidiary articles, to the extent they might be deemed notable, such as List of firsts in polar exploration or List of firsts in computer technology See below Ecphora (talk) 18:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - very uneven, very amorphous, and lacking good citations. Racepacket (talk) 19:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not just lacking good citations, it lacks any citations. Not surprisingly, it's from those early days where a person would write something on the chalkboard, and the next person would write something else, and others would do likewise. I'm gathering that every once in awhile, someone would find a "furst" (i.e., something that has a claim for being the first thing ever in a group) and then copy it onto the "list of firsts". The idea is that you click on the blue-link to get the verification that this is a "furst", and maybe there's a cite to a book or something in the linked article. However, even if it were sourced, it's a big potpourri fun facts from politics, sports, entertainment, explorers, human achievements, and traffic lights. I think I'll save it to my hard drive, but our standards have improved in the last few years. Mandsford (talk) 19:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree 100% with the nominator. The article is a fine idea but untenable because if it listed all notable "firsts" it would just end up being way too huge for any sort of usefulness. Break up into subsidiary articles as suggested by the nominator. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too broad, indiscriminate, only a couple have references and lots are incorrect (Don Quixote is the first novel in Spanish? It's not even the first novel by Cervantes!), misleading (first actor to portray Superman on screen doesn't mention Bud Collyer's voice work in the Fleischer shorts), or generally debatable. I could go on, and on, and on. But ultimately many of these are complex cases that we shouldn't try to distill into bite-sized factoids: we're an encyclopedia, not the inside of a gum wrapper. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Split into multiple lists or distribute content to applicable articles. Much too broad and unfocused. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The commenters above are entirely right that this is an article of theoretically unlimited scope, and that inclusion is in fact arbitrary because it relies on contributors' own opinions of what is sufficiently notable to be listed. Why list "First nude scene in German filmmaking," and not "First topless scene in Thai filmmaking"? And so on. Glenfarclas (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clean up and keep. If sources are required for each entry, most problems will be solved. /Yvwv (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem isn't just sourcing. Even if you could find a source to say that such-and-such was the first oat-based cereal to be made with raisins, or the first steel-frame hospital to be built in Ocala, Florida, you can never really find a source to say whether that item should be included on this list. To me that's the issue: unlimited scope with no genuine criterion for inclusion, and that's not something that "requiring a source" has much to do with. Glenfarclas (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Random factoids. dude1818 (talk) 22:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this was on my watch list, and i was curious if anyone would nominate it. I agree that the inclusion criteria are way too broad and not well defined. if you narrowl down the "first" description, EVERY SINGLE NOTABLE EVENT in history becomes a first. michael collins was not the first man in space, or first to orbit the moon, but was the first to orbit the moon while men walked on the moon simultaneously. its fun, anyone can play. the first star wars film to feature ewoks, the first edition of "fahrenheit 451" published after ray bradburys death. any significant events on this list that are not mentioned in their linked articles could be put in other articles. if we have a seriously long list of firsts here that fall within an easily definable category, then maybe someone can userfy the list and create some new ones. they could be good if well thought out.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey...we could even add "The first time List of firsts was deleted from wikipedia". Assuming that this list only covers notable subjects, it would eventually list every other article on wikipedia, since all notability includes being the first in some extremely narrow category. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 02:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hitting the random article button 3 times gave me 3 new firsts:

Yamanaka Yukimori was the first samurai of the sengoku period, born under a cresent moon to serve as a retainer to the Amako clan.

Roman Catholic Diocese of Cuernavaca was the first Roman Catholic Diocese of Cuernavaca.

Orlando Pattersonwas the first historical and cultural sociologist at Harvard University known for his work regarding issues of race in America to serve as Special Advisor to Michael Manley, the then Prime Minister of Jamaica, from 1972 to 1979. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 02:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuild into a Lists of firsts and link to various other lists of firsts, with this being a list of lists. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 06:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#STATS and other core points of MOS:LIST. "Firsts" is so vague it could really include most anything. MURGH ^disc. 10:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On further thought, although I suggested spinning off some lists when I proposed this deletion, I now think it would be questionable even to save parts of this list because any spun off article would suffer from the same problem – its coverage would be completely unlimited. For example an article “Firsts in film” would include the following (all in the existing article):

First lesbian-themed film
First woman to appear nude in a motion picture
First nude scene
First fictional feature film shot with a mobile phone to premiere at major film festivals
First actor to portray Superman on screen

Significantly perhaps, there appear to be extremely few other such lists on Wikipedia today. The only ones I can find are:

(This excludes lists such as List of first overall NBA draft picks or List of the first female holders of political office in Europe, which have specific limits in the title and are finite and unobjectionable.) These lists all suffer from the same problem as List of firsts (example India includes first “Woman to reach 4th round (highest as of 2009) of a Grand Slam singles event: “ and “First One day Cricket captain”. I think it would be a mistake to proliferate this sort of thing and therefore this article should simply be deleted. Ecphora (talk) 16:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and split has necessary--should be extensively developed. . If the person or event has a Wikipedia article , it is notable, then the listing is not indiscriminate. We might indeed have to split it, but I see nothing unencyclopedic about a lists of first mayors of every american city (since they would all be qualified for Wikipedia articles) . I think of it as a navigational device, and it's useful for browsing. DGG ( talk ) 00:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree to delete this article, and vote to keep this article, with conditions

I also advocate a cleanup and split of this article to more relevant sub-lists, for one I agree there are very narrow topics added to this List since i last saw it (2007?), but I find wholesale deletion unacceptable

there are notable sections to this (entries linked to main articles must be kept, for example) and I volunteer to do primary cleanup, drawing up of limitable finite criteria and grouping to relevant topics/headings for split up —-— .:Seth_Nimbosa:. (talk • contribs) 07:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - omg kill it before it multiplies! This list is infinite, and if DGG's criteria is "if it has a wikipedia article" that does very little to threaten my argument. This list is so incredibly unmanageable, it would be of no use to anyone, and rife for problems of a number of kinds.

One possible exception: a meta-list of wikipedia "First" articles. For example, it could have things like "List of first Oregonian Americans to..." or "List of first Mongolians to..." "List of first people to summit a mountain...". That might be a manageable article, but the fact I can come up with this many topics off the top of my head should only reinforce the point that this list is absolutely endless.

Finally, I don't think the meta-list, as reasonable as it could be, is advisable, since the same goal is accomplished much more efficiently through categories. Shadowjams (talk) 10:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete despite brave offer from Seth_Nimbosa I don't see exactly how this can be made 'limitable'. pablo_hablo. 10:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Oh my god... inclusion for this article is infinite! Plus it's unreferenced and has some truly strange entries. Ryan4314 (talk) 17:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy to Seth Nimbosa's userspace, good luck my friend, or incubate if Seth Nimbosa so chooses. J04n(talk page) 17:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category and split lists. As is, the article is limitless, even with proper sources. And yet, firsts are very notable, and the article made a very brave attempt at organization. I have reference books with lists of first in space or medicine, so lists with a limited scope would be notable and manageable. So what we've got is an article attempting to be the Table of Contents to Wikipedia. I think a category will serve its specialized utility, and a central list would be a helpful wikilink to the information Wikipedia provides. But I cannot justify an individual first fact being on the page. MMetro (talk) 21:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but split into different list. List of firsts should list all the other list in it, they having their own articles. List of firsts in films, List of firsts for women, List of firsts for blacks, List of firsts in medicine, etc. You could have a List of firsts for civilization listing the first use of slavery, and the first time someone outlawed it, as well as the first written law, the first war that involved a significant portion of the world's population, etc. Dream Focus 21:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These subsidiary "firsts" lists suffer from the same problem as does List of firsts -- they are all infinite in scope. (If you have an infinite collection of items and eliminate every second item, you still have an infinite collection of items.) Because there are no criteria on what would be included, a "List of firsts in films" article, for example, could include "First film made in Guatemala," "First documentary film made in Guatemala," "First color documentary film made in Guatemala," "First film with an automobile," "First film in Italian with an automobile," "First film made by a director under 20 years old," etc. There are only four such open ended first lists on Wikipedia (see above). I caution about creating dozens more. Ecphora (talk) 00:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. People can use common sense to determine what belongs there, and form a consensus on the talk page. Any there are PLENTY of open ended list out there. In fact, I believe most of them are open ended. That is no reason not to have them. And many accomplishments get coverage. The first woman pilot, Amelia Airheart got plenty of news coverage, she famous, as did the first black Supreme Court Justice, Clarance Thomas. Dream Focus 01:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amelia Airheart was not the first woman pilot, and in naming her you've accidentally illustrated what's wrong with us presenting information in this manner. Depending on one's definition of "pilot", the first woman pilot is any one of a half-dozen or so different people: Marie Thible, Sophie Blanchard, Jeanne Labrosse, Almina Martin, Harriet Quimby, Baroness Raymonde de la Roche, and Aida d'Acosta all could be called the "first woman pilot", and I bet if one looked hard enough one could find at least one book citing each of the preceding persons as such. It would take a solid couple of paragraphs to compare each one and define how each is the first woman pilot in one way or another. Many first, perhaps most firsts, simply cannot be distilled down into a bullet-point factoid. History is rarely simple enough for that. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, history is that simple. You just have to check your facts before adding anything, something I didn't bother to do here, since it doesn't matter right now. You made a mistake also, spelling her name wrong as I did, it actually Amelia Earhart. Fearing a list might get too long, is not a valid reason to be against it. There are reliable sources in books and newspapers that would demonstrate each thing was in fact notable enough to be on a list. Dream Focus 05:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and what about pilot? you going to be sure and qualify your meaning via a link? Jack Merridew 06:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete FIRST PERSON TO MAKE THIS JOKE - seriously now - unmaintainable in present form. Splitting into the useful articles seems perfectly reasonable, so do whatever needs to be done to make that possible if someone is actually going to do it, but "list of firsts" needs to go. Hipocrite (talk) 22:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the irony of the categorization of this AfD debate: Category:AfD debates (Indiscernible or unclassifiable topic). And for all the good reasons presented above that amount to the same thing: this is an unencyclopaedic collection of indiscriminate information that is inherently subjective, infinite, and stupid. Jack Merridew 06:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep the discussion on this page. Tags have been added to the article stating that "It has been suggested that this article be split into multiple articles accessible from a disambiguation page", with a link to the article's talk page where people are duplicating this discussion. I have removed those tags so that the entire discussion occurs here. Ecphora (talk) 07:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nominator's reasoning is compelling, keep/split/merge/what not if and only if someone actually does the scutwork.--Tznkai (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Tznkai says, the nominator presents an extremely strong case — how could this be a proper encyclopedia article? We can verify that this thing or that thing was the first of its type, but there's absolutely no way that we can determine what belongs and what doesn't. Even if we split this into several lists, we couldn't determine what would belong in each one. Nyttend (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- unless all items are refed in which case maybe incubateI can see no way to rescue this without deleting everything that is inadequately refed, which leaves a very short article with much missing. I'll do this if people want me to.NBeale (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and reorganize, there are several books on firsts, so the topic is notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The fact that there are books like Firsts: Origins of Everyday Things That Changed the World (which is admitted to be 'trivia') does not necessarily mean that we should have an article which seeks to replicate the book. Pretty much anything is the "first" something (eg this is the "first comment in an AfD discussion about list of firsts which ..." you get the idea) and a list which has no chance at all of being even remotely comprehensive surely does not belong here. NBeale (talk) 05:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP is not a list of everything and this list has no clear criteria. Just saying they are "notable" first isn't sufficient. Notable to whom? I don't find all of those things particularly notable. (BTW, had to laugh as the "first half-white President of the US. Isn't he more notable for being the first half-black President?) Nom is correct, we could "first" it to death. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:58, 8 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. Tone 00:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Warwak

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

WP:BLP1E: person notable for only one event. He's a teacher who was fired for 'turning his classroom into a forum on veganism'; the only reliable sources are those reporting his initial firing, and the Illinois State Board of Education confirming it a year later. There are plenty more mentions of him on the Internet, but all of them are unreliable sources (blogs, YouTube, etc). Robofish (talk) 18:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that this is a classic case of BLP1E. The events of his dismissal and subsequent appeal received a fair amount of coverage, but it doesn't justify an encyclopedia article.--Michig (talk) 18:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E: "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." Dave Warwak seems very likely to remain a low-profile person, other than the firing incident, which seems to have been reported on primarily as a wacky human-interest-type story. Glenfarclas (talk) 21:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Not important. Not worth having on Wikipedia. I know we aren't lacking for space, but we should at least try to conserve here... --Tarage (talk) 07:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has also been the subject of vandalism, and not much else. This should be proof enough that it doesn't belong here. When was the last actual improvement made? --Tarage (talk) 07:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As clearly outlined by others above, coverage of Warwak centers on a single event and therefore falls under WP:BLP1E. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 18:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:BLP1E. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The article itself basically says that his firing is his only claim to notability – obvious WP:BLP1E. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per my original PROD, (although ideally correctly spelling "thing"). --kelapstick (talk) 16:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep because veganism is not a bad thing (I am not vegan, but I do not judge). PamelaBMX (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Your argument is a non sequitur – whether or not this article is kept is not related in any way to whether veganism is good or bad. You should probably familiarize yourself further with WP:AFD. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 23:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I am sorry, new here and I thought we just vote our opinion, After looking at other cases I see we need policy based arguments and it is not a vote... :) PamelaBMX (talk) 00:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A good way of operating is to lurk around a new topic for a while to learn its conventions before diving in as editor. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I give Pamela credit for admitting her error, which is hard for anyone to do and especially to be valued in a new editor. Welcome to editing Wikipedia, Pamela! Glenfarclas (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:BLP1E. Nsk92 (talk) 03:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as stated by other users, an obvious application of WP:BLP1E. CoolMike (talk) 23:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolute BLP1E.....and an unimportant event at that. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:04, 8 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. Interesting discussion. There has been some slight misunderstanding of WP:V. Verifiability is a policy which asks that we have reliable proof for questionable material – it does not ask for evidence of notability. Verifiability in this case is met for the existence of this person, and for some of what is claimed he has done by the reliable source of the New York Times. However, there are elements of the article that are questionable, are not sourced, and so those parts of the article under WP:V should be removed (without the need to discuss the matter). An example is “he developed the digital animation style that was used for the series Stickin' Around”. As verifiability has been met, the question is now if this topic / person meets our notability guidelines. There has been some discussion on which notability guideline has most authority. The guidelines are there to give guidance – they are the summary of consensus reached in previous discussions. The more precise a guideline, the more helpful it is. The GNG is a general guideline which covers most notability discussions. However, WP:BIO (and its sub-section WP:ENT) is a more precise guideline for topics such as this – therefore it is generally seen that where we have a precise guideline, we use that one. It’s not a question of authority or usurping, it is simply a question of using the most appropriate guideline. In this and the previous AfD people felt that WP:BIO had been met through the person having met WP:CREATIVE 3 by directing Little Rosie. It is a shame that the article on Little Rosie doesn’t assert or prove notability, but notability is assumed as we have an article on it, and a Google search throws up information. As this person meets our topic specific notability guidelines it should be kept – but the article does need trimming of all unsourced claims under WP:V. SilkTork *^YES! 13:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Hudecki

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

Unnotable person. Fails WP:N and WP:BIO and without significant coverage, can not properly meet WP:BLP. The only news coverage found mentioning this person was for a lacrosse coach, and not this Hudecki, which is particularly telling that a local coach got more press than this person. Prod removed by User:T. Anthony without explanation. Previous AfD closed after several folks said his directing a series made him notable, however, per actual guidelines it does not, and without actual significant coverage of Hudecki himself, per Wikipedia's guidelines regarding living people, his article can have almost no actual content or claims, so deletion is the better option. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:N and WP:BIO as a producer, director, and animator with a career spanning 3 decades. Pity that he shares the name with an sports figure, but OUR Hudecki is written of in a few books, and his career can be be sourced to meet WP:ENT. And no, WP:ENT does not also require meeting WP:GNG... if it did, there would be no reason for WP:ENT to even exist. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, EP:ENT DOES require meeting WP:GNG. WP:GNG can not be ursurped by a subject-specific guideline. ALL articles most meet WP:GNG. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm sorry to disagree, but if all subjects needed to meet the WP:GNG first, then there would be absolutely no reason for it or ANY of the many sub-criteria of WP:N to even exist. All the many sub-criteria of WP:N were written specifically to address notability of topics that might not otherwise meet the GNG, as guideline accepts and explains that there are other ways by which to measure and source notability. What is required under sub-criteria is meeting POLICY in being verifiable in reliable sources. However, you are always welcome to nominate any of WP:N's sub-criteria for deletion if you think that they are either unclear or poorly written or somehow usurp policy. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with MQS. The relationship of the GNG to the special guidelines varies. As the clearest example, WP:PROF is fully accepted as an alternative. Others one may be similar, or may be in addition, or as explanations, or giving more detailed interpretations. There is no general rule for this. In any case GNG is not basic policy--it's merely a presumption as one part of WP:N. And even WP:N is not policy, but a guideline. Attempts top make it policy have consistently failed. Thee is no "constitution" at Wikipedia to which other rules must conform, except possibly WP:FIVE, and even those are interpreted by more detailed rules. As I recall, 3 years ago when I had just joined there was a long discussion of this relationship, which reached no general conclusion, and attempts at a unified inclusion rule have consistently failed. for lack of consensus. Not only does collecteana's statement not have the necessary wide consensus for a general policy, but I think it's probably a minority view. Wikipedia is an empirical operation, and different subjects require different ways of dealing with them. (this is not a !vote to keep--last time round, in fact, I said delete. Now I need to think about it further.) DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The general consensus is that WP:ENT is inclusive, rather than restrictive: someone gets in if they meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG (though, realistically, there's enough media coverage of entertainment that it is impossible to meet WP:ENT without also meeting WP:GNG--I can't think of a single counterexample). It's moot in this case, because this guy does neither. THF (talk) 20:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Result of previous AFD is clear and convincing, particularly with regard to the Rosanne Barr project. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Hudecki is mentioned, but not written about in the books listed by MQS. Unsurprisingly, the article has zero references. Merits at most half a single sentence in the Little Rosie article, and wouldn't merit mention in any of the other articles in which he's credited as the rest of the article is essentially a resume of positions that don't meet WP:ENT, such as "storyboard artist." Perhaps the strongest evidence for deletion is the following WP:PUFF from the article: Most notable was lip sync and facial animation for the Bud Light commercial Smooth Monkey during the 2004 Super Bowl. It was in the top 10 of the Super Bowl advertising poll. If that's as notable as his work gets, that's not notable enough. Separately, strongly smacks of autobiography, though that's not a reason for deletion. THF (talk) 04:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included on the Talk:Inspector Gadget, Talk:Nelvana, Talk:A Cosmic Christmas, Talk:Rock & Rule page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
Strong keep well referenced article, meets all notability requirements. Ikip 16:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment. How is this article "well-referenced" when it has zero references?!? THF (talk) 19:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been mentioned on the Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:THF
~~weak keep~~ appears to meet WP:ENT, but I'm worried a bit about how much usable material we can find about him. Hobit (talk) 18:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment. What's the basis for claiming that this bio meets WP:ENT? THF (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm arguing for prolific and important work. So basically 1 and 3. It's a weak argument, but it does look like he's done a lot of shows (many of which I, a non-film person, recognize). File it as "ILIKEIT" perhaps, but being producer for Babar, and co-director for The Adventures of Tintin make me believe he's notable. Being the director for Little Rosie helps too. These are notable works and being director or producer for them seems to meet the letter and spirit of WP:ENT. Any one of them wouldn't put him over that bar for me, but all of them (plus faculty member, plus all the other credits) make it fairly clear to me. Hobit (talk) 16:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He was the "line producer," not the producer of Babar; and he was the "second unit director" for Tintin.[9] Neither are notable positions. The article exaggerates the biography; I've corrected that. THF (talk) 16:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Struck !vote based on link provided by THF. I don't know how notable "line producer" or "second unit director" is. Little Rosie credits might be enough, but not sure enough to comment at this point. Hobit (talk) 20:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability may not be policy, but verification is, and this article has absolutely none. In two lengthy AfD discussions, there's not been a single reference uncovered that provides independent verification of the notability of this person, much less any sourcing whatsoever that supports the subject's detailed accomplishments. There are no references, and the only external links are to user-contributed IMDB, dead links, a university bio page and a related company pages. Flowanda | Talk 06:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. On the face of it the article seems to make a reasonable claim to notability, but it fails on the complete lack of independent reliable sources, as noted by Flowanda above: the only significant coverage I can find is from his university page and Wikipedia mirrors. If he really was notable, there would be information about him in third-party references; as there isn't, he probably isn't. Robofish (talk) 17:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has had significant roles in many notable creations. Dream Focus 23:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete complete lack of third party coverage [10]. LibStar (talk) 11:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With respects, DGG summed up the application of GNG in such cases. While yes, its preferred that significant coverage be found, guideline shows other ways in which notability may be considered. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even when using your "other ways", the article doesn't stand up to anything, Wikipedia or not. Multiple editors have found no sources for the information already in the article or that provide any evidence of the qualifications for any of the subsections or niches listed. Flowanda | Talk 10:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Simply non-notable. I really dislike the way GNG has been over-used lately to try to shoehorn in non-notable people just because some writer, somewhere, once decided to write something about the person. That's just WP:ILIKEIT once removed. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Verifiability concerns are serious, but we dont delete articles for presently being unverified, but for being unverifiable. The difference between the two may just be work, e.g. finding this [11]. Same story with notability, the material question is if a person with this profile would likely pass. The answer is yes, also per the discussion at the first AfD. I'm concerned about the nomination. It's surprising and disquieting if an editor (the nom) with 90,000 edits under his belt, presents such a distorted wiew of the WP:GNG and the speciality WP:N guidelines. The original nom also cited a violation of WP:BLP which is also misleading, if not grossly misleading, as the article contains no harmful info, if anything, the concerns could be vanity. These guidelines produce much cover for poor deletion rationales. Power.corrupts (talk) 10:19, 9 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. Tone 00:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Loubert

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

Unnotable person. Fails WP:BIO and WP:N. Without significant coverage, can not properly meet WP:BLP. Prod removed by User:T. Anthony with note of "He's apparently shared several Daytime Emmies and Gemini Awards" however presuming this claim comes from IMDB, which is not RS, and further all awards listed were for various television series, not Loubert himself. Like most business executives, he's been quoted in various sound bites about his company, but that in itself does not confer notability to him nor is it possible to craft a valid article from that. As it is, such reports can only confirm his job titles. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article confirms one of his Daytime Emmy wins. Furthermore, the claim that the awards he won "were for various television series, not Loubert himself" seems like something of a non sequitur to me. Television producers achieve notability by producing notable television shows, so if a person wins awards for being a producer on multiple television shows, that tends to support the idea that the person is notable as well. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He did not win the award for producer, the series one an award for best series. Not the same thing, and notability is not inherited. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe there is enough found through a news search for this individual to allow the article to be expanded and sourced. There's no reason for it to remain an unsourced stub when it can be improved. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please actually point to SPECIFIC sources that give HIM significant coverage, not claims of sources based on a google news search, which I already addressed in my nom. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nominator misrepresents WP:NOTINHERITED, which is not a blanket proscription on associative notability, and is quite explicitly of limited applicability to creative works. Producing TV shows which have won multiple awards is generally sufficient to demonstrate notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep producers are notable because of the works they produce--as are all other professionals. It's the basis of notability for everyone in such a profession. DGG ( talk ) 00:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per DGG. Flowanda | Talk 08:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're suggesting deleting for the same reasons as DGG is suggesting keeping? Did you mean to say "Keep"? I'm confused. Nyttend (talk) 21:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks like he easily passes with those awards. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:14, 8 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. Tone 00:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

St. Omer-la-Basse

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

Place does not appear to exist but to be a misinterpretation of St Omer-La Bassée, an arena of military operations named for 2 towns in the Pas-de-Calais, not for the Saint Omer in Calvados, Basse-Normandie Yngvadottir (talk) 17:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable.Red Hurley (talk) 21:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it, could'nt find anything more to add for this page.Ryangiggs69 (talk) 11:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Duplicate, ~~I think the user was talking about the town of 'Saint-Omer' located in 'Basse-Normandie', (lower Bormandie)~~.

Looks like Yngvadottir was 100% correct, it has nothing to do with the town. Either way, it should be deleted. FFMG (talk) 12:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, aside from everything else, this article (whether intentionally or not) is entirely an error; its presence thus hurts the encyclopedia, so delete per WP:IAR. Nyttend (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to St Omer-La Bassée / Saint Omer-La Bassée, which currently lacks an article but has several mentions on Wikipedia. Mjroots (talk) 08:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea if enough info can be found on the area of engagement; it comes up in WWI also. But a new article would have to be written. It isn't one town and it isn't in Normandy. (I put a fuller version of my findings on the article talkpage; looks like you ran the same searches I did) Yngvadottir (talk) 12:02, 8 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. Tone 00:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Black Marilyn

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

Deprodded article which is unreferenced and comprised of speculation and rumor in violation of WP:CRYSTAL. When these concerns were brought up in PROD, the "fix" was to remove all indications that it is speculative without any actual content addition (like citations). Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note this diff may be more helpful in analyzing the changes done during the deprodding --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only speculative, but possibly 16 years late. According to ~~the~~ a Grace Jones website (and other hits), "Black Marilyn" is the name of an unreleased 1994 album. I feel a delete is in order on the chance that the 1994 album ever merits an article. Vulture19 (talk) 17:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit - the site I linked is not the official GJ website. Vulture19 (talk) 17:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - still way too speculative in its current form to merit an article, under WP:CRYSTAL. After searching for sources myself, I cannot find anything that would improve on the "may have" and "so far" and other speculations now in the article. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it if it can't be sourced. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 01:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Article's creator appears to contribute primarily unsourced and possibly invented content, including [12]. 99.12.243.20 (talk) 16:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Black Marilyn was the name of an unreleased Jones album but the track-listing and everything else here is completely bogus. Am86 (talk) 19:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also note how the author linked a couple of very popular current acts in an attempt to draw readers. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:16, 8 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. I think we have a very clear consensus here so we need not spend any more time debating this. Its clearly snowing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad and assassinations

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

This is an article by a single-purpose account who is edit-warring and using sockpuppets to ensure his preferred version of the content. The article is sourced from such peerless authorities as Ali Sina, Islam Watch, Answering Islam, Faith Freedom - well, you can probably guess the rest. A lot of it is a novel synthesis of published sources. It's a pretty blatant POV rant and fails to make the case for independent scholarship having made a significant link between Muhammad and assassination, in as much as it was pretty much a standard technique of politics in those times. Guy (Help!) 16:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is false. right when the article was made an admin checked it,because it was nominated for deletion by RazmanTv for copyright.The admin removed the removal tag. Also i am not a sockpuppet, i have only been accused of it and i have provided evidence for this. DO NOT COME TO CONLUSIONS

Secondly you say this website links to sites such as islamwatch and faithfreedom. that is rubbish. you are misrepresenting the information. The article has over 100 sources to books. but many users have been removing entire sections of the article.

The links to those anti islam website were added 10 minues ago. you make it look like its been there for a long time.They were added because users claim some of these are not assinations. So i added the POV of the cirtics of islam to show that some people do consider ti assiantions. I do nto consider those anti islam websites legit myslef--Misconceptions2 (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)--Misconceptions2 (talk) 16:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have used sockpuppets. That's a fact per this [13]. User:Български360 and User:Admit-the-truth were indefinitely blocked as your sockpuppets on December 8.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You also accused me of being a meat puppet/sock just because am his room mate. Furthermore from what i see those sock puppets were banned months ago, NOT IN RELATION TO THAT ARTICLE.Secondly people need to read the discussion page of that article.Because admins got involved regarding a consensus that hat not been reached--Mirroryou1 (talk) 17:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look Misconceptions2/Mirroryou1: They were blocked less than a month ago after an investigation found them to be your socks. You have variously said you are "next-door-neigbhoors" and "roommates" which reminds me of this essay wich you may enjoy. WP:BROTHER.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The term "assassinations" in this context does not seem to be neutral, and the entire premise seems hopelessly POV and withought solid academic bases. In the absence of reliable, neutral, scholarly sources, I don't see how the article can be kept. Kafka Liz (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What a coincidence, I was literally just adding an AFD tag myself. This article isn't integrated with the other articles about Muhammad or Islam, and it fails to provide any context on what tribal politics in Arabia in the 7th century was like. What it is, as Guy says, is a long and dubiously-documented rant, rather incoherent, and difficult for someone not knowledgeable in the area to understand. I suppose it could technically be improved by an expert in the area, but I really don't think it is worth it, for an article whose very title is POV, and which will inevitably involve long edit-wars. Brianyoumans (talk) 16:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the rticle has a lot of reliable sources to books such as "the selaed nectar", "when the moon split" and many other muslim and non muslim scholars such as Willaim Muir

Delete the ownership and edit warring problems could, in theory, be dealt with separately (though so far they are not). However, the entirely POV nature of this is the problem. It's a fork from Jihad, Mohammed, Opinion of Islamic scholars on Jihad, Jihad in Hadith, Criticism of Muhammad, Historical Mohammed, Criticism of Islam and many more. It's point appears to want to talk about times when Mohammed encouraged/supported the taking of a human life, in a variety of contexts and for a variety of reasons (almost none of the examples, by the way, true "assassinations.") The endless forking of information so that people can project their own rants via wikipedia is a problem and should be stopped. Some of the articles this is forked from are also problematic, but are at least better, and watched by more people who have an idea about how to write a fair article that seeks to reflect the consensus of scholarly sources.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You say it well. Articles like this, on important world figures, should grow organically out of the existing articles, by consensus of the editors involved. Brianyoumans (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an editor who tried to improve this rubish article I realise my time would have been better spent elsewhereCathar11 (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:COATRACK, WP:RS. The article is full of sources but I failed to find one secondary, reliable source fo any claim. I asked for just one proper source for every claimed assaination or killing attempt in the talk page but only a google search result was provided to me. See [14]. Sole Soul (talk) 17:12, 2 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. While an argument can be put forward that there are enough sources mentioning John Rosatti that he meets our notability guidelines even without the organized crime speculations, that notability is not sufficent to place Wikipedia and the subject under risk of poorly introduced speculation. Under WP:BLP we need to very careful and sure of controversial topics. Will WP:SALT as requested. SilkTork *^YES! 16:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Rosatti

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

This article is currently the subject of a BLP discussion here, in which some editors strongly believe that the sources tying the subject to organized crime are insufficient and should not be included. Sans that portion of the subject's life, the article fails notability, because it's then just about a car salesman who owns a fast boat. In the interest of protecting the subject from these ongoing disputes, I recommend salting the entry until such time as there are sufficient, undisputed sources establishing his notability. --otherl left 15:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Off2riorob (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete and salt' as per nominator. The subject is not notable, a car dealer who owns a a fast boat. The BLP discussion concerns allegations of the subject's links to organised crime. Statements about this side of subject's life have been removed from the article, along with citations. If left in they would perhaps establish some sort of notoriety or notability but at present there is only ownership of a car dealership and a boat and donations to a school. The article's creator User:Crackofdawn claims a close association with the subject and is clearly only interested in a puff piece. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: (change position) with the RS which clearly establish the crime links. I am having a very hard time assuming good faith with editor Off2riorob who has yet to post any convincing argumensts as to why VV, the Palm Beach Post and the Philadelphia Daily News are not RS. Likewise with User:X!, who posts mysterious comments allegedly from the artcile subject. Let the subject post here, I feel that no weight should be given to hearsay comments. As to the nominator's comment "but consensus isn't leaning that way" is not correct as a good look at the BLPN discussion will show. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Hearsay"? This is an encyclopedia, not a courtroom. Durova³⁹¹ 17:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To read the explanation of wikipedia salting please see.. Wikipedia:SALT#Creation protection . Off2riorob (talk) 16:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with restoration of the crime family association passages. That issue was supported by perfectly respectable sources (newspapers in Philadelphia and Palm Beach, in addition to the Village Voice). This AfD has been mounted with a false premise; Rosatti meets WP:BIO and it is disingenuous to delete the portions of the article that establish notability and then to claim that he is not notable. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It wasn't mounted with a false premise - I fully support including the crime family sources, but consensus isn't leaning that way. My premise is that if the sources can't be included, he's not notable.--otherl left 17:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, restore deleted content. This AFD, like the bowdlerization of the underlying article, is based on the entirely false notion that the Village Voice, a newpaper which won, inter alia, three Pulitzer Prizes and was widely respected for its investigative journalism, particularly regarding corruption and organized crime in New York, is somehow an unreliable source. That the quality of its journalism has declined over the last few years after corporate meddling doesn't magically render its previous decades of high-quality work worthless. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That POV seems to ignore the fact that newspapers, even the NYT, have to print retractions on a regular basis. Newspapers have printed things later shown to be false. They've been sued for libel and lost. Just saying that a paper is reputable doesn't mean everything they say about a person is correct. The NYT is "respected", but that didn't prevent Jayson Blair from getting fabrications printed. The New Republic and Stephen Glass? Hell, a Pulitzer was given to Janet Cooke for story that was later shown to be a lie. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the case at all, the fact that controversial content which has been cited to a single source and has been disputed is not a reflection on the overall reliability of the source but a isolated reflection on the single situation as regards specific controversial content. Off2riorob (talk) 18:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is either deliberately misleading or the product of faulty reading ability. I'd like to think it's the latter, but given that the additional sources supporting the contention in question appear in the first screen of the BLPN discussion it's hard to give up on the former. There are multiple reliable sources asserting a connection between Rosatti and the crime family. Why are people having a difficult time acknowledging this? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith Nomo, I will assure you, although I should not have to, my comment has no attempt to be deliberately misleading in any way and although you question the fact, I can read. This is AFD not the place to dispute the reliability of sources. Off2riorob (talk) 19:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That last point makes no sense to me. The reliability of the Voice was central to the BLP discussion, which is central to the deletion rationale. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AFD stands alone, if people still have issues as regards the disputed content then this should be discussed at relevant locations. Off2riorob (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should explain why you do not find the multiple sources reliable at BLPN then Jezhotwells (talk) 01:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete As per nominator, simply not notable (enough). --80.192.1.168 (talk) 18:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closing admin - The subject of the article in question has requested that in the case that this article is deleted, it be protected from recreation. (X! · talk) · @043 · 00:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless there is an OTRS number associated with this request, X's comment here should be duly ignored. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm simply notifying the admin of the fact - I'm not supporting or opposing the protection of the article. (X! · talk) · @057 · 00:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is not a fact, it is a comment from you that alleges that you have communication from the article subject. It does raise the issue that you may have a WP:COI with this, however. Jezhotwells (talk) 04:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, restore deleted content With reliable sources mentioning organized crime links and criminal history. Marokwitz (talk) 10:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Without the recently added and removed criminal accusations and rumours of his being a big mob boss, which were imo poorly sourced comments which turned the article into an attack page, without this accusatory titillation the subject is not notable as a buisnessman. Off2riorob (talk) 17:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per nom. WP:NPF applies here, and it is doubtful whether the sources are good and frequent enough to justify inclusion of the allegations in this BLP. Yet if the article exists, it will always attract this content (see article history). Given the subject's marginal notability, and considering the possibility of harm to him, having the article and policing it to make sure it is at all times "written conservatively", as required by WP:BLP, is just not worth our while. We should review the situation if more significant sources appear, e.g. mention of the allegations in several top-quality papers like the NYT. --JN 466 18:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly why do you think that a newsweekly which had won three Pulitzer Prizes wouldn't be "top-quality"? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the operative term is "several" in this case, not "top-quality."--otherl left 20:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even if that's the issue, the Philadelphia Daily News has two Pulitzers. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editors have several times presented the subject's being a member of an organised-crime family as an established fact in the article [15][16][17][18][19]. Only one source, William Bastone, who has since left the Village Voice and now runs TheSmokingGun.com, has presented it as such. The other sources (and there are only two or three) mention it as an (attributed) allegation. Editors also cited court records directly to suggest the subject had asked for someone to be murdered. Direct citation of such primary sources, if they have not first been published by a secondary source, is a violation of WP:NPF, the text of which I'll reproduce here with the relevant passages marked in bold italics:

Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, and omit information that is irrelevant to their notability. Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source. Material published by the subject must be used with caution. (See Using the subject as a source, above.)

Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care. In the laws of many countries, simply repeating the defamatory claims of another is illegal, and there are special protections for people who are not public figures. Any such potentially damaging information about a private person may be cited if and only if: (1) it is corroborated by multiple, highly reliable sources; (2) the allegations are relevant to the subject's notability and; (3) the Wikipedia article states that the sources make certain "allegations", with the Wikipedia article taking no position on their truth.

On the subject of court records in BLPs, also cf. WP:WELLKNOWN. I have no confidence that this article, if retained, has any chance now of a BLP-compliant existence in our project. The claims are out there on the web for those interested in them. Given the subject's marginal notability, we have more to lose than to gain by having an article on him. Lastly, the editors who are insistent on having these allegations in Wikipedia should reflect on the fact that if they had included them in a responsible, BLP-compliant manner in the first place, i.e. as attributed allegations, they might well have prevented this AfD. --JN 466 23:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other sources , the Palm Beach Post, Philadelphia Daily News, Village Voice, UPI, were introduced to support the allegations, but they were then removed by User:Crackofdawn and X!, so the above assertation is plainly untrue as a reading of the article history will show. Jezhotwells (talk) 04:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jezhotwells, those are the other two or three sources I was referring to above, and they are represented in the diffs I posted. As far as I could see when I researched these secondary sources, they all attributed the allegation to someone: either to Bastone in the Village Voice, or to unnamed law enforcement officials. None except Bastone presented it as an unattributed fact. The subject has never been charged with respect to these allegations, and they have never been tested in court. BLP policy, quoted above, is clear: if damaging allegations are represented at all, the article should "state that the sources make certain 'allegations', with the Wikipedia article taking no position on their truth." --JN 466 09:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those "court records" aren't primary sources. The testimony would be the primary source. The appeals court review of testimony is a secondary source. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a verbatim quote from WP:BLP: "Exercise great care in using primary sources. Do not use, for example, public records that include personal details—such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses—or trial transcripts and other court records or public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has already cited them." If you want to work in controversial BLPs, it would really make sense to read up on BLP policy. --JN 466 00:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're simply wrong here. You've reached the point of arguing that all "public documents" are primary sources, and can't be used as sources, and that all court documents are primary sources, and can't be used as sources. From WP:SECONDARY: Secondary sources are second-hand accounts, at least one step removed from an event. Secondary sources write about primary sources, often making analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about them. And that's exactly what we have here, an appeals court document reviewing primary source material (the trail transcript/record), therefore a secondary source. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're so caught up in truth that you can't admit that you're wrong. You keep citing a supposed court document that lists this man as having ties with the mob? Link to it specifically, but while you do this, make sure that you follow WP:V to the letter. So far, we have had a single person make claims(Bas) and present them as facts, without citing any source that is verifiable. We then have had several other sources cite Bas, but, guess what, they do not state what he has said as fact, but an allegation. Huge difference there. You're arguing to include poorly sourced material, in clear violation of WP:BLP. A single source stated it as fact, and the other sources stated it as what it was: an allegation. If you want to include the material, you can't argue about having it state the allegation as a fact, as you cannot argue that because source B cites source A, source A is right. You have to read the details, as it is quite clearly source B citing the statements made in source A as what they are: allegations. Nothing less than allegations, as we are not a rumor mill.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 05:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the content is clearly controversial, not covered nationally by major publications, and accusatory in nature, mostly unproven allegations that could well be extremely damaging in nature to a living person we clearly need to take care with such content. You can't discuss citations out of context without the content you want to support, this citation [20] appears to be a simple copy of a court record, there is no discussion, no analytic anything, it is a copy of a primary court report and imo unusable. If the article is kept then there are people that dispute the desired additions and people that want to include it, this will be discussed at more relevant places if the article is kept. Off2riorob (talk) 11:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pulitzer-prize winning newspapers aren't "major"; secndary sources are primary, reporting felony/criminal convictions is accusatory, and on and on. The consensus at BLPN went against you. Stop making stuff up. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about you stop making stuff up first? The consensus at BLPN did not go against him, 4 editors is not consensus.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 05:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Philadelphia Daily News is a struggling tabloid that has won Pulitzers for its cartoons (1992) and editorial writing (1985). The Village Voice is a free alternative paper; while it is an RS, its reliability is not on a par with that of a national newspaper that people pay money for. Bastone is known for tabloid-style reporting. His writing in the Village Voice is presently the only source that states as an unattributed fact that the subject is a member of a crime family. The other sources say it is said or alleged, and they say who says or alleges it. Our article, on the other hand, followed Bastone in making a bald statement of fact, and that is a problem per WP:NPF. So is accessing court records that have not previously been referenced in a secondary source, such as a newspaper or book reporting on the trial; particularly as the specific allegation quoted was not what the case was about, and the BLP subject has never been indicted, as far as I can tell, in relation to this allegation. The convictions you refer to are outcomes of court actions mentioned in newspapers; those aspects seem less of a BLP problem. I have no agenda here except BLP, which applies to everyone, regardless of their perceived merits or failings. If we can't get the article of a marginally notable person right, then it should go. --JN 466 17:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The standard for measuring the reliability of the Village Voice here should be the quality and reputation at the time the relevant material was published, 2010 years ago, when it was a nationally distributed newsweekly of great repute. One might as well argue that the work of noted scientist X is unreliable because the individual has since fallen victim to dementia. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Village Voice article is from 1998, the Philadelphia News one from 2004. --JN 466 18:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your critique of past versions, especially in re making bald assertions, and if this is kept I will contribute to "getting it right". Also on the court documents issue (I don't like the policy, but I agree that you are reading it correctly). I think you can count on similar cooperation from other editors here, and so I am more optimistic about "getting it right". I too have no agenda here except BLP, and my only concern is that certain editors (not you) are misusing it. In any event, I continue to think he is notable and am happy to contribute towards addressing other concerns. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --JN 466 18:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it didn't. We will see how it goes. Off2riorob (talk) 15:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing closing nominator please note, Jayen466 contacted two editors[21][22] with a non-neutral messages "I have some BLP concerns; the subject is of marginal notability", "another one of those problem BLPs...Apparently, the subject has asked for it to be salted". This two editors have never been involved in this article before. Ikip 18:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Perfectly true. One of the two users is Cool Hand Luke, a sitting arbitrator, who surely can think for himself, and the other, Durova, has let it be known that she has an interest in BLPs of this type. If you knew our history, you would also know that Durova and I have often disagreed, so I think it is unlikely she would do me any personal favours here. --JN 466 18:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Contacting a couple of experienced editors in the BLP field is not even close to canvassing. Off2riorob (talk) 22:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - My position on BLP is fairly well known. Unfortunately this comes at a particularly busy time regarding other commitments, so a quick question here: has the subject of this biography requested deletion? Durova³⁹¹ 22:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - The subject has, we are advised, ~~made such a request~~ requested that it be salted (but not specifically deleted) vis-a-vis one of the editors participating in this debate, but not by any formal, verifiable means. I'm not familiar with how such a request is made offhand, but it would probably be appreciated by the subject if the relevant link were posted.--otherl left 23:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        User:X! asserts that the subject has contacted them off-wiki, with such a request. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Without the mafia sources, this article does not seem to be notable (hence the previous deletion). The crime sources do not seem to be BLP-worthy; the article seems to have overstated what sources have actually said about the subject. I'm particularly disturbed that the article cited the criminal appeal of third parties in order to implicate this individual in a crime he was apparently never even charged with. For future reference: criminal prosecutors and defendants often construct alternative and motives and theories for crimes, and courts must often evaluate these theories in discussing a case on appeal. That does not mean the theories have any basis in fact—juries do not typically return verdicts about background information like this. They only find whether defendants (not third parties) are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore third-party background individuals should not be listed as mobsters in an online encyclopedia. I would also support salting with a requirement to DRV before re-creation. Cool Hand Luke 00:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: court documents would be primary sources when they are actually about the individual. For example, the criminal appeal of Louis Malpeso (cited here) is a primary source about Louis Malpeso. You could write "Malpeso's appeal was denied.[cite]" They are not even primary sources for this subject. The facts about John Rosatti were not determined by a judge or jury. They are therefore dangerously irrelevant. Discussion of background information from third partys' cases should be given no WEIGHT because they are unpublished in the editorial sense. Cool Hand Luke 00:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the subject's request. X! is a trustworthy Wikipedian so I'll accept that. Durova³⁹¹ 02:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please provide substantiation of a request from the subject. I am not at all convinced that such a request has been made. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed, personal opinions on editors' trustworthiness and off wiki converstations have no place here. Either the subject has emailed the OTRS team or they have not. Any thing else is hearsay. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - When people begin citing court procedure on hearsay as if it applied to encyclopedia deletion discussions, something has gone off track. Articles have been deleted by this rationale without any formal requirement to email OTRS. This is someone who has had damaging allegations against him published in major newspapers, yet has never been charged or given his day in court. It doesn't take much to see why he wouldn't want this, and outside our internal workings many people don't understand the OTRS system. We don't turn people away because they fail to fill out form 318A in triplicate. Durova³⁹¹ 17:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Are you saying (among other things) that you can't substantiate the claim that he has requested deletion? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I am saying that you are attempting to erect new standards for verification that never previously existed, when no reasonable grounds exist to doubt the desire of the subject. Has there been any BLP subject outside the field of professional rap music who relished being the subject of allegations of organized crime ties? Durova³⁹¹ 20:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The previous article was deleted as non-notable. The current article does not establish any greater notability than the deleted article. (Example: two sources are now cited for the supposedly huge donation by the subject to a school, but neither source verifies the claim; they simply establish that the subject was one among many donors to the school.) The only real notability of the subject is the variously sourced claims that he is a member of an organized crime family. However, the author of the article strenuously objects to inclusion of that information in the article. Without it, the subject is simply another retired business person among tens of thousands of other retired business people, not notable in any way, and the article is up for speedy deletion as a reposting without susbtantial improvement of a previously deleted article. --MelanieN (talk) 05:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

Additional comment Thanks to Nomoskedasticity for solid reporting here. It's clear that the sources establishing his notability as a figure in organized crime are far more numerous, and far more important, than the sources establishing his notability as a benign public figure (which amount to a couple of mentions in Yachting magazine). However, since all sources use some variant of "alleged" in describing his crime connection, the information is probably not solid enough to provide the basis for a Wikipedia article. Thus, my vote that the subject should be deleted as non-notable. --MelanieN (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

One more comment: The infobox lists "world's fastest yacht" as what he is "known for". But that is questionable. In a Google search for "world's fastest yacht," Rosatti is not mentioned - at least not in the first two pages of ghits. A boat built by his company gets two mentions, or rather the same mention twice, but it does not name Rosatti. Further evidence of his lack of notability. --MelanieN (talk) 04:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

additional sources, not (as far as I can tell) previously used in this article, that allege ties between Rosatti and the Colombo crime family: [23], [24], [25], and one available only via Nexis: Jonathan Nelson, "Christensen, New Zealand firm OK deal", The Columbian (Vancouver WA), February 14, 2008. Are we really going to continue to pretend that there are insufficient sources to write (in a measured, proper way) about this in an article on Rosatti? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see the Nexis source, but if it's not publicly accessible we should probably invoke WP:IAR and not include it in this BLP case unless it's unequivocal. I had looked over some of your other suggestions before nominating this, and honestly I think they fall short. If we wrote articles here with phrases like "authorities claim he has organized crime ties," "allegedl crime boss," and so on they'd be branded weasel words, and rightly so. The additional Village Voice article simply references the article that is being so hotly debated, so for that it comes down to whether an article that is written by a reliable source, but only uses sources we at Wikipedia would deem unreliable (like witness statements before trial) can be considered. Other than that, we have established that he paid a really big fine. The nature of organized crime is such that it's difficult to get a conviction for it, and labeling someone with it prior to a conviction can be a very big deal.

Notability can be established by as little as one source, if it covers the subject with sufficient depth. There is only one source - the Bastone Village Voice article - which really covers the subject and implicates him with organized crime, rather than saying that it's a rumor or allegation. I think the question really is whether or not that single source covers the subject in sufficient depth to establish notability.--otherl left 15:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it were an in-depth article in the New York Times, this might be a more difficult decision; but an article by a tabloid journalist, printed in a free tabloid, does not meet the standard of WP:NPF, which demands corroboration by "multiple highly reliable sources". The Village Voice is not highly reliable (see opinion at RSN). --JN 466 16:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I posted the extract of of the Columbian reference at BLPN, but as you missed it, here is the full text: Nelson, Jonathan (14 February 2008). "Yachts built by Vancouver-based Christensen Shipyards Ltd. set sail. The downturn in the U.S. economy has had little impact on the luxury-boat industry, a Christensen official said. Christensen Shipyards Ltd. renowned for its composite hull yachts, has hired a New Zealand luxury boatmaker to engineer its newest generation of ships to be built at a new manufacturing plant in Tennessee. Joe Foggia, Christensen president and chief operating officer, considers High Modulus to be the best company in the world to design and engineer the hull and chemical makeup of the composite material to be used on the newest line of Christensen yachts, which will stretch from 165 feet to 225 feet in length and cost up to $80 million. Christensen will be working with High Modulus' office in Hamble, England. High Modulus produces several sailing and power boats and earned its reputation in working with composite material in the 1980s when it designed New Zealand's sailing boat that raced in the America's Cup. The partnership is a major step in Christensen's efforts to increase its European presence. The first push east came in 2006 when it cemented plans to build a $20 million complex in Vonore, Tenn., a hotbed of boatmakers 30 miles from Knoxville. The plant sits on 55 acres with 2,000 feet of waterfront access to a deep water lake that feeds into the Tennessee River. Foggia said work on the building is expected to end this month. It will take the rest of the year to build the tooling and molds needed for the new yachts. High Modulus' expertise is especially needed since the larger boats are regulated differently than the ships built in Vancouver. The Vancouver-built yachts weigh less than 500 gross tons and require fire retardation construction to be focused on the engine compartment, Foggia said. The Tennessee-built vessels will exceed that weight benchmark and require fire retardation design for the entire ship. The interiors of the bigger yachts will also increase. A 160-foot yacht has about 6,500 square feet of interior space. A 190-foot yacht has 13,000 square feet. Christensen already has an order for the first yacht to come from Tennessee. John Rosatti, who owns two Christensen yachts, wants a 186-foot model that is expected to be completed by 2011. Rosatti is a multimillionaire who owns several car dealerships on the East Coast, and is also known for his past ties to the Colombo Mafia family of New York. Rosatti was also a previous co-owner of Millennium Super Yachts. Foggia said Christensen, which employs 450 people at its Vancouver facilities, is fielding numerous calls about the bigger yachts, but said the company won't actively market the vessels until the Tennessee plant is operational. Foggia expects 100 to 150 people to be working at the facility within the next 18 months and up to 450 people within five years. Despite sagging consumer confidence and an economy some suspect is in the midst of a recession, Christensen operates in an industry that is somewhat bulletproof. Its Vancouver plant builds ships that top out in size at 157 feet long. Foggia said companies that produce ships bigger than 130 feet long experience little trouble in attracting buyers. Those well-heeled consumers are flocking to Miami this week for the 20th annual Miami Yacht & Brokerage Show. Foggia, who is in the south Florida city, said Christensen has three of its yachts on display. The show is the ideal place for people to see the interior of the company's yachts and to get a sense of the craftsmanship. Foggia said that despite new hull engineering and slight alteration in styling, there will be no mistaking that the ships produced in Tennessee are Christensen yachts." Sorry, I forgot to sign this earlier. I underlined the interesting statement which is not qualified by the wrod alleged or similar. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

additional sources: This is copied from the BLP discussion (originally posted by user:Jezhotwells for convenience: Lambiet, Jose (24 October 2004). "Is John Staluppi Saving Riviera Beach?" (Subscription required). Palm Beach Post, archived at LexisNexis. The Palm Beach Newspapers. Retrieved 2009-12-31. Take John Rosatti, for example. Also a local business stalwart and a convicted felon, Rosatti was found to be a "career offender" by the New Jersey Casino Control Commission, based in part on testimony that he was a "made member" of the Colombo family. Rosatti is Staluppi's best friend and partner in many business ventures, including the Riviera Beach land investments. "They just grew up together," Richman said. Rosatti, too, declined to be interviewed for this story. And through his lawyer, Mike Burman, he denied being a member of the Mafia. "Mr. Rosatti has no idea why he was described as a career criminal and a Colombo soldier," Burman wrote in an e-mail. "He has no knowledge of why any individual . . . would make that kind of representation, except for their own self gain." Yet, previously unreleased details about Staluppi's history, and indirectly about Rosatti, came to light in 1992-93, courtesy of the Casino Control Commission. Staluppi appeared on the radar screen of casino authorities when his company, Dillinger Charter Services, applied for a license to shuttle casino patrons to and from New York City by helicopter. The license was denied on the basis of information that Staluppi was a member of the Colombo crime family, according to CCC records. Staluppi's name surfaced again a year later, this time as the CCC considered banning him for life from Boardwalk gambling joints. During that yearlong procedure, the CCC heard from law enforcement agents specializing in organized crime. One described how, in 1980, a Suffolk County undercover agent became Staluppi's limousine chauffeur and reported driving him to numerous meetings with high-ranking Colombo operatives, including then-boss Carmine "The Snake" Persico. The CCC also heard from an agent with the Jersey Division of Gambling Enforcement who obtained Staluppi's personal phone directory and appointment book. It contained the phone numbers of another onetime godfather, Victor "Little Vic" Orena, and of Colombo capos (or crew leaders) Theodore Persico Sr. and Pasquale Amato. The book showed Staluppi had been invited to the wedding of the daughter of another Colombo capo, Dominick "Donnie Shacks" Montemarano. Testifying in his defense, Staluppi admitted to meeting and knowing the Colombo leadership, but only in a business capacity. He told the CCC he sold cars to Orena, owned buildings with Carmine Persico's sons, bought carpets from Theodore Persico Sr. and was a close friend of Amato. But, Staluppi swore, he had no idea all were members of the Colombo family. "The Snake" Persico, Orena, Amato and Theodore Persico Sr. are serving life sentences in various federal lockups, while "Donnie Shacks" served 11 years for racketeering. Staluppi also brought his own set of character witnesses to the CCC. Among them was Palm Beach businessman and philanthropist Robert Cuillo, for whom West Palm Beach's Cuillo Centre for the Performing Arts is named. Cuillo appeared as a retired NYPD detective and a Florida car dealer who had done business with Staluppi. "John is a respectable businessman," he told the CCC, "and I think he is being stereotyped because he's Italian." In the end, the CCC denied the petition by the Division of Gaming Enforcement to ban Staluppi because there was "insufficient credible evidence" after FBI Special Agent Brian Taylor refused to reveal his sources. Then a strange thing happened: While the CCC was considering the ban on Staluppi, his name and that of his pal Rosatti popped up in FBI interviews of suspected mobsters. In the early 1990s, a war within the Colombo gang transformed Brooklyn into a battlefield. Eleven people, including an innocent bystander, were killed and 14 were injured. The gunplay between warring factions faithful to "The Snake" Persico and "Little Vic" Orena prompted the FBI to make a series of arrests. In transcripts of FBI interviews with some of those arrested and informants, no fewer than eight persons told the Feds on separate occasions that Staluppi and Rosatti participated in gang activities in one way or another. Several told the FBI that Staluppi and Rosatti sided with the Orena faction at first, then rejoined the Persico faction after Orena was arrested. In one of these interviews, Colombo enforcer Sal Miciotta, who was eventually sentenced to 14 years in prison, said in late 1993 that Rosatti had been asked by Orena to provide cars from his dealership to be used to carry out murders. Miciotta said Rosatti refused but gave Orena $50,000. Miciotta also told the Feds that Rosatti and Staluppi contributed another $50,000 for the legal defense of Orena and his lieutenant, Pasquale Amato, and that Staluppi lent his helicopter to high-ranking gangsters to attend a meeting in upstate New York. Another statement made by Colombo family accountant Kenneth Geller suggested that Staluppi and Rosatti were known to provide gangsters with "no-show" jobs in their dealerships - jobs for which gang members were paid $500 a week without working. Geller and his family are in a witness protection program. If there is anything Staluppi was ever guilty of, attorney Richman counters, it's growing up with people "who might otherwise have been investigated." Marokwitz (talk) 16:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These are large businesses with a major presence. He's a significant businessman, both with respect to automobiles and boats. The place discuss the content is at the BLP noticeboard, but my view is that if he is in fact a convicted felon for crimes involving stealing automobiles, that part at least can be mentioned. The original version of the article was unfairly negative, the present one hides sourced negative information. The principle of deleting an article because there is weakly sourced negative information that could be added is unreasonable and unencyclopedic. We have dealt successfully with much more difficult problems of the sort. DGG ( talk ) 16:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that material on the two attested and reported convictions (punished by five years' and one year's probation respectively, according to sources cited) could be included, and agree that the present article hides this information. However, the way you have characterised the principle some editors seek to apply here does not quite hit the mark. WP:HARM is an essay today, but BLP policy still requires us to consider the possibility of harm to a BLP subject. WP:BLP quotes Jimmy Wales advocating the Wikipedia principle that "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information". The harm in this case is not potential, it is actual. If you enter the subject's name in google right now, the second hit is the cached version of our article, stating confidently that the subject presently is a member of a crime family. One of the sources brought forth by those who added this information (underlined above) actually speaks of "past ties"; another, further below, describes organized crime figures demanding that the subject aid them in the perpetration of crimes, and the subject preferring to pay them money rather than doing so. For all I know, that may have been the only viable choice for him under the circumstances.

Comment: Google's second hit now returns the bowdlerized version of this article - the puff piece without any criminal allegations, but also without anything that makes him notable. --MelanieN (talk) 03:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

- This article, as originally created, was deprecated as a puff piece, and deleted as such. It is presently an orphan; nothing else in namespace links to it. Given that Wikipedia has already done the subject harm, is currently doing him harm, that we can't ensure that this harm will not recur, and that the notability of the subject is not such that we owe the public an article on him, I still think delete and salt is a decent thing to do. But I respect your view, and accept that you may see the matter differently. --JN 466 21:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP, WP:N. If the businesses are notable they can have articles of their own. Orderinchaos 20:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deletethese stories are all fabricated lies which has caused me to contact johns attorney . If these sources are used as reliable sources then wikipedian editors are supporting slander and defamation of character without proper research Crackofdawn (talk) 13:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, wait a minute here - Crackofdawn, aren't you the original author of the article? Are you now requesting that your article be deleted? --MelanieN (talk) 16:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

NOTE: The above comment by Crackofdawn about "contacting johns attorney" is under discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. --MelanieN (talk) 01:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

- - Comment: User:Crackofdawn has now been indefinitely blocked by User:Tanthalas39. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Subsequently unblocked per Alison: "Editor has now unequivocally retracted their legal threats" Orderinchaos 15:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. --John (talk) 19:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - Non-notable unless allegations are true, and there is no evidence of that, even so, we are not a rumor mill.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 05:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Borderline notability, problems with sourcing, and the subject has requested deletion. No brainer. AniMate 06:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i want the page deleted and protected Crackofdawn (talk) 10:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per strange attempts to remove reliable sources. Şłџğģő 15:10, 9 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. Tone 00:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hennekam Koss de Geest syndrome

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

There's no evidence that this is a genuine syndrome; OrphaNet lists it but says nothing about it.[26]. We can't have an article about every single case report ever, especially a 20-year-old report that's never been cited:[27] Fences&Windows 15:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 15:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem verifiable. Mrmewe (talk) 15:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's "the name someone gave to the syndrome"? Great. I did find list-type mentions here and here, but this doesn't seem like a notable, recognized medical syndrome. Glenfarclas (talk) 21:23, 2 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. Incubation should be considered. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crooked (film)

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

Notability? Sources seem like nothing more than gossip websites. In addition, according to WP:NFF, the production stage of this film, according to Imdb, is unknown. Mrmewe (talk) 05:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Incubate without prejudice toward recreation. WP:CRYSTAL instructs " 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." In searching "Crooked, Abhinay Deo" and "Crooked, Bachchan, Rai", I find enough speaking of the film's production so as to allow consideration for inclusion per the WP:GNG... including One India 1, The Hindu, One India 2, Search Andhra, ThaiIndian News, Real Bollywood 1, India.com, BollywoodHungama, Bollywood Mantra 1, Filmicafe 1, Real Bollywood 2, Bollywood Mantra 2, Filmicafe 2 and a number of others. Seems that per WP:POTENTIAL and WP:ATD there is plenty available to turn the current stub into a nice article for the project. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Schmidt. Joe Chill (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 23:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the name Crooked as actually the production title and is set to be changed prior to release[28]. I'm not familiar with the exact policy relating to movies, but if you don't know the name of an upcoming album, WP:HAMMER applies. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 01:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From reading the essay on future album titles, I can see it would be inappropriate to title this article Abhinay Deo's [nth] film. In this specific instance, it would seem prudent to use the title as proferred in current GNG reliable sources, it being the best currently searchable term in finding additional reliable sources in relation to the writer, director, and principals. If title actually does change, as was suggested as a possibility in Bollywood Hungama last April [29], an article can then be moved to the newer title. However, even as recently as December 26, the film is still being called "Crooked" in reliable sources... so it would be best to make it as easily searchable and sourcable as possible. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems like a lot of speculation though... Mrmewe (talk) 05:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is they way the seem to report their news over there... a whole different style from the west... but per WP:Crystal: "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." If the amount of coverage meets WP:GNG it is worth considering for an article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of news coverage. Dream Focus 12:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Incubate Too much speculation to Keep at this time. --DThomsen8 (talk) 02:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah.... it is exactly that "too much" speculation, as long as there is enough of it and in reliable sources that meet the GNG, that satisfies the caveats in WP:CRYSTAL. Even were the film never to be made, the significant coverage in reliable sources is what allows consideration of an article on the topic. I do appreciate though your allowing consideration of incubation. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Incubate. Definitely notable as it is produced by Farhan Akhtar. Geeteshgadkari (talk) 10:26, 10 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. Tone 00:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Love in a box

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

Delete. Unremarkable charitable event, unreferenced, fails WP:EVENT, contested prod. WWGB (talk) 14:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 14:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this event. Joe Chill (talk) 18:32, 2 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. Tone 00:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Pearson (Politician)

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

Non-notable per WP:POLITICIAN, no significant coverage online from regional or national press or other WP:Reliable sources, apparent WP:Conflict of interest by article's creator. Prod contested by creator. MuffledThud (talk) 14:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 14:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 14:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Has received a minor amount of coverage in the local papers; not a politician of note. Fences&Windows 14:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BIO by a long way. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Whilst the subject of the article doesn't seem to meet WP:POLITICIAN (council leaders need significant coverage, and for some reason this council leader has very little coverage), there may be a place for mentioning his status as youngest council leader. There again, are any of these claims actually verified? Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to the references supplied, he's not a council leader, he's the chair of a council's fire and rescue authority, though one local paper cited has puffed this as "youngest local authority leader in the country". I've now clarified this in the intro. MuffledThud (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that explains why there was so little coverage of him. Thanks for the clarification. Delete. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 15:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Councillors are not notable per se. I doubt "youngest" is significant enough to make him notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails the politician notability standards, and really no significant coverage to make him notable by the GNG. Nyttend (talk) 21:31, 6 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. There seems to be no policy reason to delete this, even though it's pretty useless, and unlikely to get better. Linger on. (non-admin closure) Pcap ping 18:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of freeware

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

Seem a hopelessly broad list in scope. It's also poorly maintained and categories are much better for this purpose. Pcap ping 14:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A clearly defined list of notable freeware software. Making it into a category is a null-arguement, per WP:CLN. So it's poorly maintained? Then maintain it!. AfD is not cleanup. Lugnuts (talk) 17:56, 2 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. Tone 00:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures in Pieces

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

Article fails notability as outlined by WP:MUSIC, and major contributors of the article continue to remove notability templates without making any attempt to address the issues in question. A detailed description of my pre-rationale can be found on the article's talk page. -- WikHead (talk) 12:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 13:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 16:31, 2 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. Tone 00:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FireIRC

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

A quick search on google books found no mentions of this. A google search for a review turned up empty too. I initially prodded this, but it turned out it had been prodded in the past by someone else, and the prod removed by the WP:SPA that created this article. The other editor that expanded this article, User:Mmanley, is the owner of the company that develops this software (according to his user page) Pcap ping 11:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 11:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the subject is not notable. 58.170.83.117 (talk) 13:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 17:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find good references independent of the publisher. Seems like spam to me. While we are addressing this, please check out User:Mmanley/Userboxes/fireirc Racepacket (talk) 19:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find significant coverage of the software. Jujutacular ^T · C 19:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I believe that I can trust if PCAP says something in this subject area is not notable it most likely is not, but I too checked for sources through the usual means (Google News Archives, Google Books search) and came up empty handed. JBsupreme (talk) 08:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to meet WP:N. Majorly talk 23:07, 8 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. 8 JACS with that many citations? Pretty impressive by itself. Tone 00:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna Kumar

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

I can find no evidence Prof. Kumar is sufficiently notable per WP:PROF. He does not appear to meet criteria 3 through 9. That leaves criterion 1 (has his research has made significant impact in his scholarly discipline?). No doubt he has published well, but the guy is not even 40 and is running a lab with only one post-doc and a bunch of grad students. We are are talking tens, not hundreds of papers. And we are not talking Nature or Science either - pretty much all of them are in specialist chemistry journals. Compare his publication and award records, for example, with contemporaries like Phil Baran or Kevin Eggan who have made significant scientific impacts at a young age. I don't see how his impact is any more significant than an average chemistry professor at a decent US Institution. That leaves criterion 2 (has he received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level?) I don't see that either. Other than a few fellowships, he has listed a young innovator award from the Indian Business Club (a student-run organization chaired by graduate students at MIT) and one of 100 young people shortlisted each year for TR100, by a MIT Magazine. I really don't see how either of these would qualify as "a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level." Delete. Rockpocket 09:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk) 09:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk) 09:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the detailed nomination. I had actually prodded this myself a few months after a failed search for evidence of notability, but someone deprodded and it fell off my radar. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am grateful for the detailed nomination rationale and for the nominator's courtesy, but I disagree with the nominator's conclusion. The subject served as chair of Tufts University's chemistry department, and has been a full professor there since 2006. There seems to be enough coverage of him and his awards in mainstream reliable sources for him to pass WP:GNG. - Eastmain (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: department chair can be something that rotates among the lower level tenured professors of the department. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 19:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If the subject has "given proteins Teflon-like properties" that would indeed be notable. Input from protein chemists would be useful. A problem here is that there are so many people with the name K. Kumar that it difficult to assess citations. Would the proponents of the paper care to produce the Google Scholar (or WoS) cites for the publications listed in the article? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep full professor at Tufts is very likely to be notable--it is a research university. 8 of the papers were in JACS, the highest quality chemistry journal of all, and one not just in PNAS but featured in it. A number of them seem to have drawn discussion on them specifically as well as formal citations Even in Scopus and in WoS, the name is not distinctive. I found it necessary to get citations separately for the papers listed in his CV, and I have revised the list to show the 10 most cited, the counts of the five highest being 91, 90, 87, 33, 32. This is within the range that shows someone an authority in their field. DGG ( talk ) 03:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I find the statement [a] full professor at Tufts is very likely to be notable to be at odds with WP:PROF. If that is the case, we really should think about rewriting the guideline. Something like 30% of tenured staff in the US are "full professors" and Tufts is ranked about the 100-150th globally. That is a lot of professors that should be automatically notable by the nature of their title and employer. In chemistry at least, that publication record doesn't strike me as particularly remarkable. Most of my colleagues (including assistant and associate Professors) could claim similar achievements. That seems like a low threshold for notability. Perhaps my interpretation of criterion 1 is too strict, but when taken in the context of the other criteria (which are clearly aimed at identifying a much higher level of notability), I think we may be at risk of over-estimating the "significance" of research "impact". Rockpocket 20:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in view of enlightening information above. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per DGG. Salih (talk) 14:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Also, note, that JACS is not an obscure specialist journal, it is a primary specialist journey of basic science research, the journal and its table of contents are read and subscribed to by chemists, physicists, geologist, and biologists around the world to keep abreast of primary research in chemistry. To publish 8 papers in JACS by the age of 40 is astounding. This is a misplaced AfD, by someone without understanding of the field, although I appreciate the nominator made a good faith attempt at identifying the notability of the subject, no matter how poorly placed in the end. There's no question of notability. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 19:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well, thanks for your expert analysis of my scientific insight, Mr. IP69.226.103.13. Would you consider a scientist who has published in Cell (journal) and Nature (journal) at an institute ranked, globally, in the top 5 for chemistry to have "a suitable understanding of the field"? Why is it, no matter how civilized and focused on content one tries to keep these discussions, someone always has to comment on the contributor? Rockpocket 20:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this is intended as a general comment on subject experts in relation to articles like this. Though one might have expected otherwise, I have frequently observed that academic experts at Wikipedia in discussing other people in the same field, they tend to use a particularly high standard of notability (one might have expected otherwise). I see this bias in myself--I have been consistently more reluctant to consider librarians (and libraries) notable in AfD discussions than is the consensus. It's an interesting phenomenon, that I have not figured out. It could sometimes be that outsiders are impressed by relatively mediocre accomplishments, but it also could be that when we are very close to a subject tend to judge by our own views, not objective considerations. Experts are useful in this discussion in explaining the importance or relevance or degree of acceptance of particular work, but in judging people over all a more general view is probably more reasonable. DGG ( talk ) 03:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That may well be the case, its an intriguing observation. Drawing from my own experience, its probably only AfD nominations, or notability issues I have with academics that have even been declined by community consensus (as this is likely to be, which as absolutely fine. See also Claus Wedekind: I remain amazed that he is considered scientifically notable). I guess familiarity with a subject, and perhaps more so those who are involved in it, may diminish its impact in ones eyes. I guess this is why we should value constructive discussions such as this one (IP69.226.103.13's trenchancy notwithstanding). I am becoming more convinced though, if the opinions expressed here are typical of the community, WP:PROF could do with some revision - or at least clarification. Rockpocket 09:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Claus Wedekind has higher citations than this subject so it seems that he has been noted indeed. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Professors in the hard sciences (physics, chemistry, math) are easy targets for deletion. Their primary articles are incomprehensible to the majority of wikipedia editors, and most are published in the leading journals of their field, such as the Journal of the American Chemical Society for pure science in chemistry, rather than in the leading science journals. Editors don't know what the leading journals in each science are. The recognize only Science, Nature and Cell as the leading journals of the sciences in general. In physics wikipedia has editors who are making up physics, putting it in articles, and getting away with it. There's no way to stop them-I've tried and been fought down. If it were badly written pseudoscience, I could get wikipedia editors to correct the articles. But, an obscure area of physics, and it looks like the sources, even if it's pure garbage, it stays in wikipedia. I still send articles to colleagues for laughs. We used one physics article for a roast this year. How can this same group of editors judge the notability of a physics or chemistry or math professor? Some editors get tired of the anti-science stance of wikipedia and wish deletionists would focus on pokeman cards or anything but professors for a change. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 21:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A good place to start would be to stop referring to other editors as deletionists because they happen to disagree with you in some instances. Occasionally offering a reasoned rationale for deletion based on a guideline does not a deletionist make. Rockpocket 22:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And which of these was a "reasoned rationale for deletion based on a guideline:"

"No doubt he has published well, but the guy is not even 40 and is running a lab with only one post-doc and a bunch of grad students. We are are talking tens, not hundreds of papers."

"Published well?" "under 40?" "only one post-doc and a bunch of grad students?" or "tens, not hundreds of papers?" Please link to the specific guideline that lists well-published, under 40, only one post-doc or specifically less than hundreds of papers as a guideline for deletion. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 22:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD discussions work best when one expresses one's opinion respectfully, then lets it stand or fall on its merits. We don't gain much from the disparaging or haranguing of others. Something you might consider, as you gain more Wiki-experience. Rockpocket 23:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, none of these are your "reasoned rationale for deletion based upon a guideline?" Is something else in your nomination? You can withdraw a nomination, you know. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 23:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because of his position and his scientific contributions. --Kmw2700 (talk) 03:17, 5 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. Sandstein 06:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OpenBiblio

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

Appears to be a non-notable software, despite a large number of google scholar hits. See this discussion. Pcap ping 09:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 09:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 16:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ Google scholar shows its listed as one of the available programs for the purpose, but not the most widely used. DGG ( talk ) 03:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – DGG I am shocked, after reading your user page, that you would express an opinion of delete. Though the program is not the most widely used software for Integrated Library System’s with regards to cataloging, and administration modules, it is still one of the notable systems in use today and used by a number of institutions. There are more than enough articles in news sources and scholarly works that give affirmation to the products worthiness to establish enough independent coverage to warrant inclusion here at Wikipedia. JAAG^Talk 04:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I admit my near complete ignorance of the market of this kind of software, but "used by a vast number of institutions"^{[citation needed]}... Pcap ping 08:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - N.B.: I see you removed "vast". DGG did point out on his talk page that the number of installations is small, and at not so well known sites. Pcap ping 14:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that it is not the most popular program, but it is gaining wide support in the wiki environment as an open software for cataloging and other functions. And you were right in pointing-out my use of the word vast. That is why I removed it. Regarding the piece itself, I believe it has enough coverage in scholarly works and news reviews to be included on Wikipedia. I am going to rewrite the article itself with better references that should establish a case for notability. However, to be honest, it will never be a large piece, but should be a good short piece. Regarding DGG, I was just surprised that he would express a delete given his background as a librarian. Thank you. JAAG^Talk 14:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The current references of the OpenBiblio article are just too weak, and if that's all there is, there is no base of reliable information from which the article can be improved. (One of the two references is a report that OpenBiblio was *considered* for adoption in three South American countries in 2005. What happened after that?). So, the notability is not there at present. I might change my vote if more sources could be found before the AfD closes. The paper by Mike Castellec noted by DGG at User_talk:DGG#OpenBiblio (software) has in its reference list more than a dozen articles about open-source library software that are published in reliable sources, such as Library Journal. One could dig up those articles and see what they say. I am glad to see we have Wikipedia articles on LibLime, Koha (software), and Evergreen (software). These are all in the space of open source library software but they seem to be much better known than OpenBiblio. EdJohnston (talk) 01:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It may not be appropriate to compare OpenBiblio with LibLime, Koha (software), and Evergreen (software), as OpenBiblio is designed to run via a web server (with MySQL database support) as opposed to requiring a dedicated server, allowing the library to run the software via a Web hosting service. This and feature limitations are the main reasons that the libraries using it tend to be small (as is the library for which I have installed the software). It is a niche software, and as such I suspect that it might be appropriate to have OpenBiblio be relegated to a section of a page devoted to web-based library management software such as PhpMyLibrary and PhpMyBibli. I don't know the criteria used to make that decision, and would have to defer to those who are more familiar with Wikipedia. Regarding the number of installations, there does seem to be a significant number of results when one performs a Google search of the language in the software's footer: Powered by OpenBiblio Rcmason (talk) 04:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- changed opinion. On the basis of what I said in the context of another AfD, [30] I like others am probably too harsh in judging in my own speciality. (In fact, I had this very article in mind when I made the comment there.) It's not one of the major ones, but it is significant. DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 7 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. Tone 00:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Stewart

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

Un-notable author. Rhomb (talk) 11:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per absence of multiple reliable third party sources. I found only short profile at the Cafe Bourdoir website. --Vejvančický (talk) 08:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to nominator: Could you sign your nomination, please? --Vejvančický (talk) 08:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, sorry about that. Rhomb (talk) 11:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. No evidence of notability, no verifiable references other than blogs or publisher's publicity. Rhomb (talk) 11:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 13:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I could find no evidence of notability in the searching I did. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 23:25, 4 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. (non-admin closure) Handschuh-^{talk to me} 13:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael "Shenanigans" O'Malley

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Michael "Shenanigans" O'Malley

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

Not notable person. Bobrayner (talk) 07:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still a little slow I guess. Shoot. Anyway, this one was a csd-eligible delete. I do not know how to properly close an afd, and I am not going to risk screwing something up, I just note that I got there first. Sorry. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:01, 2 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. Tone 00:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christin Jerome

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

Delete. Minor radio broadcaster, unreferenced, notability not established, fails WP:ENTERTAINER, contested prod. WWGB (talk) 07:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 08:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - every broadcaster doesn't need an article - no indication this meets WP:ENTERTAINER. JohnCD (talk) 09:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Who?--MrRadioGuy P T C E 12:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:12, 5 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 Al-Qadim. Tone 00:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

City of Brass (Dungeons & Dragons)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/City of Brass (Dungeons & Dragons)

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

I would argue that it fails notability, it might even be a stretch to say it asserts importance, but considering it's a part of a culturally significant game, I wouldn't include it in CSD. It also lacks any citations which would lend credence to notability (and NOR as well). Halestock (talk) 07:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but maybe merge into the wider D&D articles. I have no idea, but I don't think this is a plausible search term (parenthesis and all). Shadowjams (talk) 09:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unreferenced and lacks assertion of notability. Unlikely search term (with dab text); no need for redirect. --EEMIV (talk) 15:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Al-Qadim, the campaign setting this belongs to. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - If you would have mentioned this at the DnD wikiproject, we would have merged or redirected this for you without the seven day bureaucracy. In fact, if your interested in helping us clean up a few hundred articles, drop on by. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Peregrine Fisher. Jclemens (talk) 19:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Peregrine Fisher. Vulcan's Forge (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Peregrine Fisher. Rlendog (talk) 21:44, 4 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. Would be nice if the article was expanded a bit - Italian version has more than enough information. Tone 00:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Qbeta

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

Only part English. iBen^discuss 05:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cut a man a little slack here. I'm doing the best I can to inter-link language wikis, and so I created the category Category:Sicilian musical groups, which has categories in it.wiki and scn.wiki. I've posted a request at WP:ITALY and WP:SICILY to translate more notable articles over from those language wikis. But in the meantime it's hard for a non-Italian/Sicilian speaker to fill up a clearly identifiable gap in language inter-wikis. It's inarguable that there must be Sicilian musical groups of note, and it'll just take some time to populate the category. In the meantime, this is no worse (and likely far better than) thousands of band articles of lesser note. MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is some independent coverage about this band. I added external links possibly useful for the expansion of the article:

Qbeta in concert in Piazza Garibaldi (GuignoPisano.com)
Ognittanto i Qbeta a Catania (Step1)
Qbeta (Sound Magazine)
Qbeta: esce il singolo Faccio festa (saltinaria.it)Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I don't understand the nomination rationale. "Only part English" should not be a reason for deletion, in my opinion. --Vejvančický (talk) 07:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SNOW. The rationale to delete no longer applies, at the very least. I'd ask for a withdrawal but it's unlikely from this particular nominator.
Keep No case has been made for deletion and it is worth noting that the article on the Italian Wikipedia—which seems to have something of a deletionist culture—has been around, and being edited for almost a year. Ian Spackman (talk) 00:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why was this even nominated? "Only part English" is certainly not a valid rationale. fetchcomms☛ 18:29, 4 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) 04:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don Bacon

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

Potentially non-notable minor league player/manager. He did however lead a team to a championship and won an award, so they may establish notability. it's up to you. Alex (talk) 05:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a tough one. Weak delete just because I don't want to give old-timers a pass. There were plenty of non-notable baseball players before the internet, and just because their articles aren't promotional doesn't make them notable. That said, if there's some recognition of this player, or some other claim, I'd change my mind, and in any case I'd really hope the original creator gets an email version of this article, or maybe a userspace one (if appropriate). Shadowjams (talk) 09:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to George Weston Foods, since they own the Don brand of small goods that produce, among other things, bacon[31]. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 13:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Accomplishments seem notable to me.--Soccersunshine (talk) 15:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Manager of the year and youngest manager do it for me, and they've been properly referenced. Yeah, more sources would be nice, but we're talking about a career before the internet. If he's not deemed notable enough for an article of his own, at least merge some of this information into the history of the teams he managed.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable accomplishments. Spanneraol (talk) 15:50, 7 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) 04:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Campbell

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

IMDb lists four Danielle Campbells, but none of them has a credit for anything called Star Struck, and none of them appears close to passing WP:ENT. Glenfarclas (talk) 04:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Probably this, but someone can't pass WP:ENT based on a single, arguably minor film that hasn't come out yet. Ironholds (talk) 04:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good find. That makes her Danielle Campbell (III). Yes, she seems to have strong prospects for notability in the future, but not yet. Glenfarclas (talk) 04:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. No verification of the alleged casting for Starstruck. —C.Fred (talk) 05:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 2 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. Tone 00:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Victor B. Tosi

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

fails WP:BIO. Coverage is either from the Party website or minor snippets within articles about other figures. Ironholds (talk) 00:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 01:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 01:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. http://www.villagevoice.com/2000-06-20/news/once-and-again/ (cited as one of the references) is all about Tosi. As for the other references, a reference need not be primarily about the subject of an article to be useful. - Eastmain (talk) 03:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, but it does need to provide significant coverage, not soundbite reference to him. Ironholds (talk) 12:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I'm seeing a good deal of secondary source coverage [32], [33]. Cirt (talk) 14:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He was never even a has been. He presided over the continuing decline of the GOP in The Bronx. The GOP is a truly minority party there - only about 6 % of the vote or enrollment. Bearian (talk) 16:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has enough 3rd party coverage to pass WP:BIO RP459 (talk) 18:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cirt (talk · contribs), enough secondary coverage here to indicate notability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Appears to have enough coverage in the media. Jujutacular ^T · C 19:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, The provided sources clearly establish notability . Rirunmot (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete of local interest only, article makes no particular claim of notability. Abductive (reasoning) 23:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a borough party chairman in NYC is influential politically. DGG ( talk ) 04:16, 7 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) 04:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Luginbill

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

Musician that does not meet WP:MUSIC, either as performer or composer. Baron Larf 08:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Baron Larf 08:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. —Baron Larf 08:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. Only performs in small local settings. Performing with national notable artists doesn't necessarily make you notable. Royal broil 13:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable local musician. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if he would be non-notable since he is a composer. I thought the biggest problem with the article was the biased way in which it was written. I have made the language less biased. It still needs some work, but it currently should be taken off the deletion list (in my opinion). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.115.73.49 (talk) 07:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Performing or composing with someone in a notable group doesn't necessarily make one notable. That would be different if he was THE composer or bandleader for either of these orchestras. Royal broil 13:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Luginbill wasn't "composing with someone." He was the sole composer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.115.73.49 (talk) 01:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 03:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There may be some WP:COI issues here. The only user who has stated he/she does not wish to have the article deleted is an anonymous IP who has many edits in common with the creator of Dennis Luginbill. That user also, according to his bio, has the same last name as the subject of the article as seen here. --Baron Larf 23:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-I have heard 2-3 of Luginbill's musical works played at concerts. What happens if the article does get deleted that Dennis Luginbill gets to be well known. Could the article be brought back up and changes made? Thank you-RFD (talk) 15:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article can be recreated if he becomes more notable. Someone can ask an admin to restore the page in their userspace to add the notability. If they would ask me, I would probably ask for an indication of clearly passing WP:MUSIC or WP:NOTE, like a charted song or proof of a national tour. This discussion is about his notability as indicated now in the article, and future happenings can change that notability level. Royal broil 13:09, 8 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) 04:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Woods

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

Unsourced bio article about a DJ. Previously deleted (via WP:PROD) and recreated by the same single-purpose account. While there are some releases there is little to no notice in reliable third-party sources to be found. Does not meet required notability standards. Peripitus (Talk) 03:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage for this Troy Woods. The subject doesn't meet notability criteria for musicians. --Vejvančický (talk) 09:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 16:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some ghits, most referring to others with the same name. No significant coverage. Jujutacular ^T · C 19:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete Please see www.discogs.com for history of artist Troy Woods. Please also search various listed record lable releases. These can all be confirmed through Record label websites and through sales outlets for these Record lables. There is a wealth of supporting evidence for this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.13.1.142 (talk) 05:44, 4 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 consensus for deletion JForget 04:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comp (rapper)

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

Non-notable MC Orange Mike | Talk 03:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'~~Keep'~~ Weak keep. I found his 2004 writeup in the Baltimore City Paper (a free alternative weekly) here and his 2006 "trading card" here (it's the fifth one down). The card notes, "Comp was signed to Def Jam for three years and had little to show for it other than an appearance on a Ghostface cut and a few soundtracks before parting ways with the company last year." Looking at WP:MUSICBIO, I'm not sure he satisfies criterion no. 1 (which he has the best shot at), having "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable." On the other hand, there's no denying that he was a character in Def Jam: Fight for NY (see his writeup here at the IGN Entertainment website). That might be enough for notability in itself -- I'm not sure which the relevant standard would be, but I observe if Comp were deleted then he would be the only rapper in Fight for NY without an article. So adding that to his newspaper coverage I think this guy is notable. FWIW, I started writing this response with Weak delete, changed it to Weak keep as I kept looking, and have finally had to admit I think he's a Keep. --Glenfarclas (talk) 08:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC). Update, no, I've thought further and decided that those thinks amount to a weak keep recommendation, for whatever that's worth.[reply]
Keep. Per the above.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)'[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 22:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 23:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I'm inclined towards deleting here unless further coverage can be found. The coverage above comes from a single source which is local to the subject in question. Most local papers write short pieces about a lot of local bands and musicians at some point, without those artists coming to wider notice, and I don't think the coverage here is sufficient on its own. --Michig (talk) 14:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep here. The local stuff plus the IGN stuff makes him notable more or less, as per WP:NOTE and WP:MUSICBIO. Gosox5555 (talk) 21:23, 2 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. no consensus for deletion in regards to WP:N/coverage JForget 02:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vr-zone

AfDs for this article:

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

This entry is mainly advertising the site. Only one source which only talks about a scam one forumer conducted in its forums 116.15.93.174 (talk) 16:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Eastmain (talk) 18:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. -- Eastmain (talk) 18:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Comment. Here is the deletion log for this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Vr-zone A previous AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vr-zone was closed as "no consensus". -- Eastmain (talk) 18:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep no reason to speedy delete. That anon at 116.15.x.x is persistent, perhaps a competitor? Anyway VR-Zone does get a whole web page coverage on quite a few other web sites, (I don't know how independent these are, but I added some to external links section). VR-zone seems to be used as a reference site for some other sites. Advert text could be stripped back, rather than chopping the whole article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Enthusiastic Delete this is not a notable topic. I noted a Spore hardware website last week that was - don't accuse me of discriminating. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Weak Keep but massive cleanup needed for this. Like colossal cleanup required. Some independent references should be put on, but I think there is something useable on this, even if it is just a short paragraph. If we are certain there no independent sources please count my vote as a delete, but I think there must be something in the thousands of GNews and GHits DRosin (talk) 21:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 22:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article has claimed notability when it states that Currently, VRForums is one of the most popular IT discussion forums in Singapore. It discusses topics ranging from computer technical news to gossipy celebrity news. It also currently hosts one of the most popular “Marketplace forums” in Singapore. It needs cleanup, but it contains some possibly useful content. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 02:54, 2 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 and move to cognizable offence. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 03:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cognizable offense

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

No sources; not notable; Wikipedia is not a dictionary Dr.enh (talk) 02:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. To start with, this isn't a U.S. legal term at all ~~(nor is "cognizable offense," as we would spell it)~~, and to the extent it appears in cases it just means "recognized offense (under some statute)," and has nothing to do with when the police may arrest a person. I've therefore removed all the reference to U.S. law. On the other hand, this does seem to be a meaningful concept in Indian, and maybe Pakistani, law, as the search here indicates. Since I really don't know anything about Indian or Pakistani law I'll leave it to others to judge the merits of the sources, but to the extent this is a legal concept it seems at least marginally notable and is not a dictionary definition. Glenfarclas (talk) 02:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC) UPDATE Duh, the article spells it the American way. FWIW, I think the Indian sources have, as one might expect, "offence."[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative delete. At the moment, this is really a dictionary entry, though I could be persuaded otherwise if someone cites to something Indian that shows that there's real legal controversy or dispute over whether something is cognizable, and thus something encyclopedic about the term. THF (talk) 14:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is encyclopedic. Here is an official source [34]. There are a number of controversies about what is a cognizable offense and its implementation the latest one being Ruchika Girhotra Case [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40]
Keep. In my view this is a notable legal concept as opposed to a mere dictionary definition. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move to cognizable offence, the spelling in Indian English. Notability is not an issue as shown by the sources listed above, and others available on Google Books. An encyclopedic article can clearly be written on this legal subject, although it would take a motivated editor with knowledge of Indian law to do so. Abecedare (talk) 03:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The provision of sources above convinces me that it has been the source of much discussion. Also note the distinction between a concept and a definition, and please for God's sake move it to its proper title. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:32, 8 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) 04:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Company of Heroes: Eastern Front

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)

Article does not assert any significance of the subject. No coverage in sources independent of the subject is cited in the article, and I have not been able to find any with a web search. Article was initially prodded but was de-prodded by 81.152.130.152 (diff) on the basis that the article cites the subject's official website. Cynical (talk) 02:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An article about a fan-designed mod—upcoming, no less—just cries out for deletion. Looking around with an open mind, I can see that this is more legit than somebody's random Doom WAD, but it is just not notable and has no sources other than its own website and a handful of forum posts. Glenfarclas (talk) 03:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this video game mod. Joe Chill (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Has no coverage.--SkyWalker (talk) 16:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I couldn't find anything else here besides forums and message boards for this. –MuZemike 17:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Although I've contributed to this article, I'm disappointed that there are no other good sources for this, despite googling it many times. If more RSs come up after this is released, I hope this could be DRV'd. --Eaglestorm (talk) 01:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would support that in the event there were significant coverage in independent reliable sources upon release, definitely. Glenfarclas (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Please keep. Thank you. Bold text —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.54.233 (talk) 07:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC) — 24.130.54.233 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - sounds interesting but it does not appear to satisfy our notability guidelines to merit inclusion, due to a lack of significant coverage by reliable third parties. Cocytus [»talk«] 03:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wait and See - Release date is in less than two weeks. The official Relic Community Website website has it on their front page.

http://community.companyofheroesgame.com/ SaintDaveUK (talk) 20:06, 8 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 revert to redirect with speedy deletion as G4 for insurance against recreation. Thus the article has been deleted, and a new redirect created on the title. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Derülo (album)

AfDs for this article:

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

No citations to prove this album exists. It is very likely that the release date, tracklist, and title are all made up. Chase wc ⁹¹ 02:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as recreation of article previously removed (consensus: 'redirect to artist name') at AFD Cynical (talk) 02:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's a recreation, what article is it a recreation of? PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 02:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - See the previous AfD discussion (the link is provided at the top of this page too). --DAJF (talk) 03:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Duh. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 04:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as recreation of article previously deleted following AfD discussion. --DAJF (talk) 02:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 03:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a recreation PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 04:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, revert back to the redirect that it was before. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 04:27, 2 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. Tone 01:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Brinklow

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

Non-notable poet; no major coverage or recognition Wandering Courier (talk) 01:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4 google news hits no comment beyond this. Ikip 02:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources in the Google News Archive search are insufficient to establish notability. Three of them from westsidenewsonline.com are about the same topic:

“

Local author, Sarah Brinklow, is looking for old photographs that might be used in "Images of America: Around Kendall, Morton and Troutburg," a pictorial history to be published by Arcadia Publishing.

”

The articles here are tantamount to press releases; they advertise Brinklow's wish to find old photographs and are not specifically about her. The fourth link from birminghammail.net appears to be about a different individual who shares the same name. This article should be deleted for failing Wikipedia:Notability (biographies), Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Cunard (talk) 02:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a notable poet. Her book was self-published through a vanity publisher. As for the anthologies, I can't find any evidence that Women Celebrating Women exists at all except maybe as an annual Rochester, NY get-together; and she had one poem in Knocking on the Silence, published by a tiny outfit founded "for the purpose of getting into print the words of poets who found it hard to get their work out to the public other than at readings or in the occasional magazine," which doesn't list her on its poets list. I can't find any significant coverage of this poet. Glenfarclas (talk) 07:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this author. Joe Chill (talk) 18:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Her publications credits aren't notable Vartanza (talk) 20:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not appear to satisfy WP:CREATIVE due to a lack of significant coverage. Cocytus [»talk«] 04:11, 8 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. Tone 01:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sun Blast

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

Non-notable PC software. MisterWiki talk contribs 01:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. --MisterWiki talk contribs 01:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I have found some sources, but none of them pass WP:GNG; most are releases on free download sites and the like. Ironholds (talk) 01:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, it is a random game from a small company (currently a red link). Only sources I can find is the press release and then download sites (and their web page). Judging from the video on their site, I wouldn't expect this game to get any real coverage, it is just like a billion other casual games. --Narson ~ Talk • 01:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rewrite as it reads like an advertisement. There may be notability if the claim that the game is the first computer game to offer Wiimote compatibility is true. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 03:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is believed to be the first PC/MAC game designed for Wiimote - could not find any other reference (on google.com) about such a game. I will rewrite the article, to get it into a less "advertisement" shape - my son was probably too enthusiastic when he wrote it. Lauraserbu 11:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this a keep or delete? --MW talk contribs 16:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's an I'm not sure. Remember that Wikipedia is not a majority vote. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 18:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this video game. Joe Chill (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Nothing I could find besides the same press release or in-passing mentions. –MuZemike 17:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:RS. Warrah (talk) 02:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subject appears to lack significant, third party, reliable sources to merit inclusion. Cocytus [»talk«] 03:19, 8 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) 21:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IncaGold

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

Whilst they exist and they have published some games - I can't find anything that would establish their notability. Random Time 23:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've just checked, and the author of this article is named Incagold richard - which is almost certenly a Conflict of Interest Random Time 23:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found an entry on Google Finance for the stock LON:IGD. If a company was ever publicly traded it should be notable enough for Wikipedia. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 23:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And more coverage from Reuters from IGDE.L. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 23:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note WP:LISTED says that notability is not automatic in the case of public trading Random Time 23:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless notability can be better established and it can be re-written in a less self-promotional manner. Eeekster (talk) 23:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sources found do not establish notability. --Teancum (talk) 15:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With all the games they've published, and a stock ticker, I find it is notable enough for an article–still an article that needs some help. matthewpaulster (talk) 03:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:LISTED as already mentioned above; only news web hit is a press release. No search hits at industry magazines like Edge. Marasmusine (talk) 18:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have expanded and tidied the list of games based on research - and put it in alphabetical order. A number of these games of IncaGold I have found in Nestlé cereal boxes - that means millions of units are out there per game worldwide. The company is a good example of hard to find company that has a niche market. todosjogos (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC) — todosjogos (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep AIM Admission Document is verified information. The company's product names bring up more hits than the company itself, but as these are games for the mass-market, I the brand name wouldn't. highscorejunky 20:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC) — highscorejunky (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Regardless of turnover I can find no information which suggests this company is any more suitable for a WP article than countless faceless budget outfits, there is no coverage of them. The vast majority of the titles the company has released appear to be the kind of budget games which receive no press, don't get sold in any major stores, and eventually end up on car boot sale stalls stacked high for 99p a pop (and still not selling). Without secondary sources we revert to looking at necessity due to importance etc., sorry but I'm really not seeing a case for this. Someone another 22:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see no significant coverage whatsoever (Google offers only press releases) and thus cannot verify notability. Drmies (talk) 01:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin – Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Incagold richard:
- User:Highscorejunky, User:Todosjogos, and User:Genevoise1291 are Confirmed to be the same person.
- User:Incagold richard is Likely to the same as the above.

–MuZemike 09:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only coverage that exists out there is from press releases and the like. When actual non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications is available we can create an article then. JBsupreme (talk) 16:03, 6 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. Sandstein 06:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nostalgia Chick episodes

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

List of web clips from somebody who isn't notable. no sources, no claims of notability, no list item is notable. Jac16888 ^Talk 21:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'll add what I can to the article in the near future (although I'm on holiday and don't have a lot of time right now). Lindsay Ellis, the Nostalgia Chick, is an internet celebrity with a popular series and is therefore notable. Googling for Nostalgia Chick, Lindsay Ellis or even Nostalgia Chick Lindsay Ellis should confirm that. It seems reasonable to me to have a list of episodes on Wikipedia. (Also, it should be pointed out that this is a list of episodes, with a defined beginning and end; the term "web clips" could be read as a loaded term in implying incompleteness on inconsequentialty.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of the series doesn't even have an article, if she's so notable then perhaps an article should be created for her or for the show itself before we even think of having a list of episodes. As for your google links, they don't suggest any notability in the slightest, the top 3 hits are facebook, myspace and Twitter - not a good sign, and most of the rest are blogs, forums and reposts of the video themselves.--Jac16888 ^Talk 17:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think we should have a Nostalgia Chick page which includes a list of episodes, the list of episodes shouldn't have a stand-alone article in my opinion. I dunno if there are any wikipedia rules about lists having stand-alone articles or such, that's just my opinion.
HaiyaTheWin IS The Win! 17:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 22:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've modified the article a little so it has more information and some references. I don't don't think it can be moved during the AfD but, assuming it's kept, it could simply beome "Nostalgia Chick" instead of a stand alone list. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which would be fine, were the list of episodes either removed, or stubbed massively, since the content is basically junk--Jac16888 ^Talk 20:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB, WP:V, WP:RS. There may be cause for an article on this person, but not for a list of their youtube videos. (Note: please do not interpret this vote as an invitation to create an article on this person). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the series would seem to fail WP:WEB, so it follows that a list of its episodes would also fail the notability criteria. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:56, 2 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. JohnCD (talk) 15:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ciaran Gultnieks

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

I can't find enough coverage for this software developer to put him over the notability threshold despite a pretty long search. Would have tagged for speedy, but since the subject is a Wikipedian himself thought it better to bring for discussion Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 22:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although Ciaran is not currently as active as he was, back in the day he was a significant figure in the industry. I believe that deletion would be another example of Wikipedia's unfortunate tendency towards recentism. Ringbark (talk) 23:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But, it doesn't look like he received any significant coverage in the past, either. The best I can find is the quick mention in CRASH issue 64. Are you able to find anything to show that he was a significant figure, back in the day? Marasmusine (talk) 12:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not game to follow the "there are lots of articles about less important people" as this isn't what this discussion is about. The problem is that most of the articles about him were in dead tree magazines that haven't made it to the online world. Nevertheless, the thought that he was no less important than lots of people who do feature here is one I can't shake. Also, where would people go if they wanted a quick biographical summary about the subject? The OP concedes that he can find *some* coverage. The only question is whether it's enough to say he's notable. I say yes - evidently there is dispute on this point. Ringbark (talk) 21:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Offline sources are fine, provided they are still non-trivial mentions in reliable sources. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete simply as a WP:BLP without much of anything supporting it. Nifboy (talk) 03:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Software Refinery which is a company that he had a hand in founding. -- Whpq (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep disagree with merge - not just a founder of that company but also leed developer of many well known games from vector grafix, microprose, activision, domark like star wars for example. Also as a hardwar fan I remember many interviews etc at that time which must count as not-trivial 82.42.5.114 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC). — 82.42.5.114 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- If you could find some of those interviews....Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Slipstream 5000 was the subject of a major article in PC Format, which also focussed on the people in the company including Ciaran.
Keep - As per WP:CREATIVE I would say he qualifies as a creative professional under this: The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work...that has been the subject of... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Ringbark (talk) 06:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also: The original article at Wikipedia lists four computer games he worked on which are notable enough to have articles of their own. Ringbark (talk) 06:43, 8 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) 14:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NNTPGrab

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 19:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't find anything beyond catalog entries and some security vulnerabilities. Pcap ping 07:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find significant coverage of this software. Jujutacular ^T · C 19:27, 2 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. Cirt (talk) 14:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Morrell

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

Lacks notability. Probably written by his wife. username 1 (talk) 18:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Only marginal WP:Prof #1 as GS cites give h index around 10. Others may care to argue WP:Politician. Who wrote this recent article is irrelevant. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I’m showing that his article in the Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy is cited 73 times. Likewise “Promoting Academic” in the English Journal is cited 53 times and they are just two of numerous references in Google Scholar, as provided here [41]. Wouldn’t this qualify the Doctor under Creative Professional? Happy New Year. JAAG^Talk 01:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Just-An-Average-Guy (talk • contribs) 01:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not by the standards that prevail on these pages. Many hundreds of cites are usually required to show notability above that of the average professor. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I’m showing his works cited in excess of 400 times, with the link I provided above. In adition, he is credited as part of “.. An incredible team of IDEA scholars—including Susan Auer- bach, Tony Collat0s, Makeba Jones, Martin Lipton, Ernest Morrell, Irene Serna, Marisa Saunders, and Susan Yonezawa—invested both their minds and hearts in this work” which is cited 2,220 times as shown here [42]. Does this help? Thanks for help. JAAG^Talk 02:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. 400 cites makes him marginal by the usual standards of WP:Prof #1. The 2,220 cites refer to somebody else's book. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. I added some references and reviews of his books. His work has also been mentioned in fairly large daily newspapers. I think he passes WP:GNG - Eastmain (talk) 02:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it's well referenced, which usually means it meets the notability standards. The personal section in the article needs to be merged elsewhere. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 03:13, 2 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) 14:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Tribute to the Creatures of the Night

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

I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 18:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 18:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not finding any coverage; does not appear to meet WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 19:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find significant coverage of the album. Jujutacular ^T · C 19:25, 2 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 Network switch. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manageable and Unmanageable switches

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

Not enough content and no sources. Another editor proposed a merge, but did not indicate whereto. Debresser (talk) 18:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Network switch, where there's a subheading that could be expanded. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 18:43, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A merge would be a suitable outcome for me as well, if feasible. Debresser (talk) 20:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, after finding sources. Chris the speller (talk) 01:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No point in merging—this does not seem to be a likely search term (but manageable switch might be so). All of the information here is covered in network switch, and managed switch already redirects to network switch. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 02:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Network switch per above : this article on its own contributes little to the subject. --Oscarthecat (talk) 10:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Manageable and Unmanageable switches" appears to be a viable search term as it turns up several results on Google. SilkTork *^YES! 11:06, 10 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 consensus for deletion JForget 02:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SALT (quartet)

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

The indications of notability in the article aren't anywhere near enough to clear WP:GNC. ~~No external sources~~Sources are primary sources.Shadowjams (talk) 11:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Contrary to the claim made here, an external source was included at the article's creation. All the Barbershop Harmony Society quartet champions have articles (in place since 2006), which led me to begin adding them for Sweet Adelines International champions. —ADavidB 12:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Within the musician notability criteria, the subject of this article satisfies criterion 9, having "won ... a major music competition", and in so doing became the most prominent representative of womens barbershop singing (satisfying criterion 7). —ADavidB 14:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 18:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While the initial source and another ~~are~~ may be considered primary, the A Cappella News source is secondary. —ADavidB 00:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 15:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reiterating - "a Swedish barbershop quartet that won the Sweet Adelines International Quartet Championship for 2007 in Las Vegas, Nevada in October 2006" That is the only claim to notability. The sources only backup that fact in the article. Nobody else has added any indications of notability although it's been tagged for what will be 3 weeks now. Shadowjams (talk) 06:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reiteration – Winning a major competition is a criterion for notability. Nobody else has questioned the quartet's notability. —ADavidB 07:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, ok. I thought everyone had forgot about this one. I guess my question is if this competition is notable. If it's a barbershop quartet, and this is the onlytime anybody's written about them, I don't see that as notable. But if this is a notable competition (I don't think it has a page itself) then perhaps winning it is enough on its own.
I think we'd both like to see more input on this issue. Shadowjams (talk) 07:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "major competition" term isn't defined by the musician notability criteria, nor are examples given. The Sweet Adelines International organization which holds the competition has over 25,000 members. As noted in my first comment above, I patterned this article's creation after those for Barbershop Harmony Society champions; that organization has about 30,000 members. By winning these competitions, quartets become the most prominent representatives of their barbershop music style, another criterion for notability. —ADavidB 08:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ADavidB's argument. Tomas e (talk) 15:34, 5 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) 14:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aiden Bay

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

This article has been around since 2005 (and is its author's only contribution to Wikipedia), but there is no indication that Mr. Bay meets the standards of WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC, and the article cites no independent sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not finding any in-depth coverage for this artist. Unable to verify the "Southwestern Idol" claim; even if true, does not satisfy criterion 9 of WP:MUSICBIO. Does not appear to meet any other criteria. Gongshow ^Talk 20:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find significant coverage. Jujutacular ^T · C 19:22, 2 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 Jain University. As people have pointed out, there is nothing in the article to merge so a delete is appropriate; however, the title is a possible search term, so the contents will be deleted, and the title redirected to Jain University SilkTork *^YES! 10:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Management Studies, Jain University

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

One school of Jain University, no assertion of separate notability and content largely un-encyclopaedic leaflet style information and semi-advertisement. SGGH ^ping! 13:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, promotional and no sign of notability. Polarpanda (talk) 14:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 15:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 15:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Jain University rather than deleting it. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 17:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, highly selectively, to Jain University. The nominator has failed to address the merge possibility as required by WP:BEFORE. TerriersFan (talk) 22:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I personally didn't see any possibility for a merge. The content of this article is not encyclopaedia, its information-brochure. This is the second time I've had to remind people not to assume the nominator hasn't done these checks. WP:AGF! SGGH ^ping! 09:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I haven't assumed that you did not carry out the checks but stated that you haven't addressed them in your nomination. There is nothing in the nomination that argues the case against a merge. A better way is simply to address the question in the form "I considered a merge into the parent article but rejected it because ...". That also has the advantage of moving the debate forward, and may well convince others to your viewpoint. I would add that the parent article is a mess. The way forward that I would prefer is to remove the list of courses and replace them with short summaries of the schools. TerriersFan (talk) 17:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any useful content and delete the rest. This is an advertisement, not an encyclopedic entry. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 03:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have added a sentence to Jain University mentioning the Center for Management Studies. The sentenece is not taken from the CMS article, the article does not contain any other useful content to be merged, and is not a useful search topic - so simple deletion is both possible and recommended. Abecedare (talk) 03:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The entire article is a brochure/spam. There is nothing to merge. -- Whpq (talk) 18:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I challenge the above "merge" commentators to find more than a few words in this advertisement that might be useful for a merger. Sandstein 06:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Trying to cleanup promotional content. I think it passes GNG as it is a department of a university recognized by the University Grants Commission of India. Geeteshgadkari (talk) 10:47, 10 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. The nomination was for A7, but I couldn't even give it that much, so I zapped it under A1 for no context. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WCIT-TV

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

Possible hoax. Not a licensed television station, as far as I can tell. Possibly a YouTube channel, but I can't even confirm that. Eastmain (talk) 01:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails both WP:GNG and WP:WEB. The userpage of the creator indicates that it's a youtube channel, hence my A7. Ironholds (talk) 01:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as either no context, non-notable web content, or a hoax. That is, I can hardly tell what this is claimed to be, and to the extent I can it sounds like either a YouTube channel or a non-existent New York TV station. WCIT is actually a Lima, Ohio-based radio station. Glenfarclas (talk) 01:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Well how about we redirect it to WCIT (AM)? 58.170.83.117 (talk) 05:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)~~ 'Cause that's a radio station...ok...I got it. 58.170.83.117 (talk) 05:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a figment of someone's imagination. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 03:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete You've got to be kidding me, it's in my imagination too. Momo san ^Gespräch 04:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete without delay. 11 year olds on the internets again.--Milowent (talk) 05:39, 2 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 opposition. Sandstein 06:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Louis L. Gregory

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

Fails WP:BIO requirement as I find no google news matches for this person under this name, though matches can be found for Uncle Louie Management and as that article (and Uncle Louie Music Group) exists and uses associated sources, this BLP seems unnecessary and overly promotional as well as failing the specific requirements of BIO. Ash (talk) 13:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 08:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete His management group is probably notable but I'm not so sure about him. No specific citations are given. There are a lot of external links but most are actually about the management group or the label, and do not support his own notability. Some do not mention him at all. For example the IMD database is listed but I could find nothing there about him, and I could find no such source as "Who is who in hip hop". --MelanieN (talk) 06:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:15, 2 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) 14:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Hart (actress)

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

Does not appear to be notable according to Wikipedia:CSD#A7. Also, actress has only appeared in bit parts according to her imdb page. IndulgentReader (talk) 07:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Reywas92^Talk 02:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this actress. Joe Chill (talk) 20:15, 2 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. JForget 00:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stanford Charity Fashion Show

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

Non-notable student group. OCNative (talk) 07:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Undoubtedly a worthy group, but no outside citations to establish notability. --MelanieN (talk) 06:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete student group at a single school, no notability claimed in article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found: http://articles.sfgate.com/2009-05-17/living/17203240_1_student-models-cfs-black-student-union Racepacket (talk) 20:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: One sfgate.com piece is not enough coverage to meet Wikipedia:Notability. OCNative (talk) 22:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete purely local interest only. DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable event held at a school, only 1 Google news hit; doesn't seem to satisfy the notability guidelines. Cocytus [»talk«] 03:10, 8 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) 14:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asia Technology Initiative

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

Non-notable student group. OCNative (talk) 07:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another in your string of student associations that have not garnered notice outside of campus. --MelanieN (talk) 07:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, just a college program. I can't find anything significant other than university and student sites, etc. Glenfarclas (talk) 02:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this organization. Joe Chill (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find significant coverage. Jujutacular ^T · C 19:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find significant off-campus coverage. Racepacket (talk) 20:05, 2 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 G12. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Business Association of Stanford Engineering Students

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

Non-notable student group. OCNative (talk) 07:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Usually student clubs don't have any mentions in the news media or books, but this one does. Care to address that? Abductive (reasoning) 08:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I found press releases, a trivial mention, and one source with significant coverage. Joe Chill (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This student association has gotten itself noticed in the wider world. For example, Business Week, www.inc.com, www.allbusiness.com. I think it qualifies as notable. --MelanieN (talk) 07:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:10, 2 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 Transwikied to WikiSource and redirected to Treaty of Tripoli. JForget 01:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Treaty with Algeria (1795)

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

Appears to be a source document, so it could be transwikied to WikiSource. There seems to be some concern with that, since WikiSource doesn't accept partial documents, I guess. Regardless of that though, the current article should be deleted since Wikipedia isn't the appropriate place for source documents (an article about the Treaty would be great though, if anyone is capable of creating one).
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 06:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is the Treaty of Tripoli (q.v.). Wikisource has the text of the treaty. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 03:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that settles it then. This should be deleted as a semi-content fork (although creating a redirect to Treaty of Tripoli afterwords would seem to be a good idea)
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 03:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:09, 2 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. listed for 21 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough comments to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kool-Aid Kush & Convertibles

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Kool-Aid Kush & Convertibles

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

Declined an A9 speedy on this article as the subject's article exists. Per WP:NALBUMS, mixtapes are generally not notable, and I'm unable to find any reliable, third-party sources providing significant coverage of this subject. Tim Song (talk) 22:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note - it's also the name of a track, which might account to the rather similar google hits. Shadowjams (talk) 08:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [43] [44] [45] all accepted sources on wikipedia.
That wording in nalbums needs to be de-emphasized: every official Lil Wayne mixtape is notable; every Clipse tape, every Chamillionaire tape, every Gucci Mane tape (and there are so many) probably passes GNG; we have notable artists who have never released a retail album (Freddie Gibbs, Max B, Jay Electronica etc.); outlets such as hiphopdx, mtv.com and XXL have set up columns devoted to covering notable mixtapes at this stage. 86.44.25.11 (talk) 16:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note I wrote it up a bit with these above and a few other refs. 86.44.20.147 (talk) 16:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:06, 2 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. JForget 00:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phyzical Thurapy

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable band. The references here virtually all point to the band's website, and the mention of the band appearing on Good Morning America is in fact referring to their music being in the background of a PSA that aired twice during the commercial segment of Good Morning America's broadcasts. Steamroller Assault (talk) 01:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 01:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 02:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article has been blanked as a copyright violation, but I believe that the AfD should resolve the question of whether or not the article is appropriate. Copyright violations can be addressed by permission, but that will not speak to notability. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable sources. Fails WP:MUSIC. ~ DC (Talk|Edits) 05:24, 6 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OptiPNG

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 00:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 01:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Portable Network Graphics. Worth mentioning there as an optimization program ([46] [47]), but there's not enough coverage for a separate article (despite Wikipedia:Preparing images for upload). Pcap ping 07:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand, there's plenty of coverage for this widely-used program 12:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- What coverage? Joe Chill (talk) 15:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The program is widely used. You can see almost all the PNG Commons images were compressed with OptiPNG. --MisterWiki talk contribs 02:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep People need a reliable source to find these kind of progams, objective information and a link to the home page. Having to rely on search engines only, people often arrive at "download sites" that most often only display ads. By chance they may download the desired program, or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.166.130 (talk) 16:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, Wikipedia is not a reliable source according to itself. Pcap ping 11:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This software is widely used by many users at Wikipedia (for Wikipedia). Please do not tag delete tag on everywhere. Silverlife (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Portable Network Graphics: A cursory search in Google Books and Bing brought up results that suggests that not only the PNG optimization topic has received enough coverage, OptiPNG and its derivatives (e.g PNGCrusher) are commonly noted. Therefore, merging the articles would resolve the notability issue. Fleet Command (talk) 06:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Claiming that something is "widely used" without providing citations from reliable third party publications is rather pointless. JBsupreme (talk) 18:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No option on whether this has WP:RS yet, but I wanted to mention that it's not a totally frivolous entry: OptiPNG has 369 hits on Commons and 372 in Article+Template+Category+File on en.wikipedia.org itself. Not sure if File search on en.wikipedia.org and File search on Commons overlapped. I use OptiPNG followed by PNGOUT as a matter of course before I upload a PNG, including on Wikimedia projects. --Closeapple (talk) 11:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - despite claims to the contrary, i dont believe that any reliable sources have been presented. 'widely used' is not verifiable statement without a reliable source Theserialcomma (talk) 14:46, 10 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. G3 - obvious hoax J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 04:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crab collars

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

Seems to be a hoax - not finding any sources for this sort of collar. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I do not know where to begin other than to say that you have to read the article before expressing an opinion. Then I believe it will be quite obvious. To the author, I did enjoy the piece! You have a talent that could be used to help the project. Happy New Year and thanks for the chuckle. JAAG^Talk 01:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete obvious hoax. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete silly hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, hoax. "Choose a colour that compliments your crab"? LOL! Glenfarclas (talk) 02:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can it; it's hilarious, but not appropriate for the encyclopedia. Perhaps the author was looking for Uncyclopedia or Urban Dictionary? PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 03:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Laughing all the way to the speedy delete It's a hoax, albeit well done. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 04:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just copied this over to Uncyclopedia where it is more appropriate. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 04:21, 2 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. Recreation of page deleted in Dec by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2011 Fences&Windows 21:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2011

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

Page already deleted once a week or two ago. No new information (probably no information) the page is just written in an opinion.--Curtis23 (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Curtis23 (talk) 20:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. --Curtis23 (talk) 20:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete The article was just deleted with one of the main reasons being that no such game has been announced. TJ Spyke 20:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per criterion G4. Recreation of article previous deleted through AfD [48]. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, game does not exsist —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mykee881211 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 4 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.