Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 December 21

< 20 December	22 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yogesh Atal, Sociologist[edit]

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

Delete. Insufficient notability. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP PROF: a festschrift honoring him has been published. Even worldCat,which does not cover India well, lists 59 published books [1], many of which have 100s of library holdings --outside of India. He was furthermore the head of one of them major divisions of Unesco. I am wondering about WP:BEFORE. DGG ( talk ) 01:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily satisfies WP:PROF. The article needs a good edit and a proper title, but otherwise notability is established. freshacconci talktalk 02:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:PROF. Gscholar has 328 citations and books. He has been covered in mainstream media Indian express, The Hindu, sify,zee news, Economic Times and The tribune. He was a member of a government committee set up to examine the demands behind 2008 Gurjar unrest in Rajasthan (The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sodabottle (talk • contribs) 03:51, 22 December 2009
Keep. GS h index = 10, festschrift, Director-General of the Indian Institute of Education, and distinguished public career confer notability, Xxanthippe (talk) 21:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep No indication whatsoever of insufficient notability. --68.127.232.132 (talk) 21:50, 26 December 2009 (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 Orange County High School of the Arts. Wizardman 19:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Production and Design Conservatory[edit]

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

This department within a high school(!) has 32 Google hits. Deprodded. Abductive (reasoning) 06:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Orange County High School of the Arts, its parent school. Not separately notable. TerriersFan (talk) 23:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup and Merge/redirect to Orange County High School of the Arts. Jujutacular ^T · C 01:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrene quiamco[edit]

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

Non-notable industrial designer. Declined A7 CSD. References in the article do not reflect reliable sources and I cannot find any to support assertions of notability. Fails WP:BIO. Also the article creator has a Conflict of Interest. Crafty (talk) 00:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for for lack of notability; also, author/subject repeatedly removed speedy-deletion tag after being asked not to do so. --Glenfarclas (talk) 00:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- AfDs are not punitive. it is not the author's conduct which is to be examined here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I declined the speedy tag as the A7 criteria didn't seem to apply, but I will agree that this article doesn't meet our criteria for inclusion. I can't find any coverage of her outside of blogs and social networking sites. -- Atama頭 00:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which shows us the biggest problem with A7. Anyone can make any random claim and get an article kept here for X days. If the claim to notability isn't sufficient nor reliable enough to keep an article here, it shouldn't count..but I digress..--Crossmr (talk) 05:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Getting an article kept for 7 days isn't really an achievement. I can think of plenty of A7 declines which have gone on to be rescued (urgh) within the week. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then that means the claim was reliable/sufficient. My point was about claims that weren't reliable/sufficient, yet still count as a "claim" and thus are declined. Obviously the claim made in this article isn't sufficient and we're on our way to deleting it.--Crossmr (talk) 13:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In that case we are still meant to assume that the author simply didn't do a good job of referencing the article in the first place. Wasn't there an experiment only last month which showed that too often articles which are seemingly viable are getting deleted too early in the process? I'm not exactly opposed to having firm notability guidelines, but it's important that we don't articificially raise the barrier to entry by A7ing anything which doesn't spring fully-formed from the head of Zeus. Again, not that it necessarily applies here, but the three-step process exists precisely to give people a reasonable chance to work an article up to clearly notable. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
and didn't that experiment drive away several new page patrollers? and no, it didn't really show that at all. it provided zero useful objective data. Not being referenced isn't the same thing as providing something which doesn't stand-up to scrutiny. Which is what is happening here. But if a claim is being made about an individual who is alive today and we can't google up their notability within a very short time, then chances are it should be failing A7 and deleted as such.--Crossmr (talk) 15:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The caveat is that the claim must be a credible one. If a biography for a Chinese architect says "He is renowned for his expertise in the field and famous in Asia", that might be possible. If a biography for a high school student says, "He has been the president of Uruguay since age 10" then that isn't credible (and likely a hoax). -- Atama頭 20:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This reads like an advertisement and doesn't fit within our notability guidelines. Anyone commenting here should keep an eye on this article, since the user has now attempted to remove the AfD template. AniMate 01:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as self-promotion of a NN person. Toddst1 (talk) 01:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability.--Crossmr (talk) 05:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google searches reveal no Scholar or Books hits, 1 minor News hit, no reliable Search hits. No evidence of notability found. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've said it before, I'll say it again -- please try not to use the phrase "non-notable" in AFDs, especially when living people are involved. "Could not find evidence of notability" is much more accurate. After all, if you looked, you probably couldn't find evidence of notability for me, but I happen to think I'm quite notable, kthxbye :-) Not really directed at you, Steve, just a general rant... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I don't think I tend to use that phrase much for people - but you are quite right to point it out! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:55, 21 December 2009 (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inside Out (Kat DeLuna album)[edit]

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

Unreferenced article, prodded twice (hence procedural AfD) as unreferenced, WP:CRYSTAL violation. Jclemens (talk) 21:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. From what sources I could find, there's no confirmation of a release date or track listing. An independent article is not warranted at this time. Gongshow ^Talk 05:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nomination and rationale. Hekerui (talk) 00:27, 24 December 2009 (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, all points considered. Enough verifiable information exists to justify an article. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cass District Library[edit]

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

A non-notable library with five branches; no reliable sources provided or apparently available; I actually believe this should be a redirect to the county's article and copied useful information there, but the redirect I created was reverted so I'm taking this route; I'd ask the closing admin to look at the edit history and restore the redirect to Cass County, Michigan if it seems appropriate. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Cass County, Michigan. Currently not enough information to warrant a stand-alone article. Location (talk) 22:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a small article that I have started to try and document more of the history of Cass County and Southwest Lower Michigan. The Article is still adding information. There is more information than what should be in a county article, as the library is more than just a entity of the county. This is one of the many Carnegie Libraries that was established, and has historical value to document that part of American History. The library has over time grown and several small libraries have been incorporated in it. Looking at another library in the area which has a wiki page you see Kalamazoo Public Library. The Kalamazoo Public Library has the same number of branches. The library is notable, because it is part of the Carnegie Libraries, there are reliable sources however, they article is just getting started. What Accouting4Tates thought was useful which he copied over does not have all the information about the history of library and its collection. I agree the article needs more developing, but should be it's own article. I however, am not in the area that often and have not been able to get pictures or more information on the library (other than the site itself) to document this history. Jsgoodrich (talk) 23:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's because nobody thought it was interesting. Abductive (reasoning) 07:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would point out that not everyone will find every article in an encyclopedia interesting, but they are their. Jsgoodrich (talk) 08:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I say "nobody" I mean no authors of secondary sources. Abductive (reasoning) 15:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Kalamazoo Public Library article has no inline citations. I have just rated it a stub, and added a Noreferences template, hoping that editors will improve a well written article that has no sources beyond the link to the official Kalamazoo Public Library website. This article has eleven inline citations, and now has photos. I say again, Keep this article.

Comment We have often accepted county libraries as notable, but I think it would ordinarily depend on the size of the library. All the ones I can find are several times this size, and the average size county in the US, is twice the size of this one. There may be some special reason why this would be notable, but it would take sources. However, if we decide to accept such units as a matter of course, there are only about 3,000. DGG ( talk ) 01:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC) Please note that upon re-examining the article and the sources, and thinking more carefully, I have said athat I think the article should be kept: my rationale is at the bottom. DGG ( talk ) 14:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[2](PDF) Estimates 1,000,000 libraries worldwide. Dethlock99 (talk) 15:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful when establishing a guideline to know how many of those libraries have buildings listed in the National Register of Historic Places, as the Cass Library District does.[3] Firsfron of Ronchester 16:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And to know if the historical buildings already have their own articles already. Like the the Cass Library District's branch. That branch is in a notable building. The building will be notable even if the branch is moved to a new building. Dethlock99 (talk) 15:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your position, Dethlock, is not unreasonable (unlike the "Delete; source's titles are unencyclopedic" !vote below). Not unreasonable, but I don't agree. To draw an analogy: one could argue that a town's buildings are notable and then claim the town itself is non-notable. But the town is composed of the buildings. Even though notability is not inherited, stating that a library's buildings may be notable, but that the library itself is not, is not something I can agree with. Without a building, there is no library. And, yes, the library's books could be moved to a less notable building, but that hasn't happened. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I would merge and redirect the non-notable town to the notable building article. If the town becomes notable it gets pulled out and given its own article. By your logic we should write articles on every tenant of a historic building. That could be quite a few in places like England where some building are 1000 years old. Dethlock99 (talk) 04:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make my point clear enough, sorry. I don't believe that a town with notable buildings could itself be non-notable. I also don't believe we should write articles on every tenant of a historic building: most of those would not have been the subject of significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The subject of this article, though, is. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 1 is to a user submitted database and thus is not third party.

Ref 2 is a web hosting service for the town. Not third party.

Ret 3 & 4 are local books

Ref 5 is from the local chamber of commerce. Not third party.

Ref 6 is, apparently, about problems with the library from a paper in an adjacent county.

Ref 7 is about an expansion bid from the same paper as Ref 6

Ref 8 is about the building

Ref 9 is from from the townships web page

Ref 10 is from the local paper

Ref 11 is from the library itself.

The only things even remotely notable are the building and a donor. The library, itself, appears to be very mundane. The article should be Merged under the county, building or donor's artilce. Tell me why this library is notable other than its association with the other notable entities. Dethlock99 (talk) 17:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOTINHERITED Dethlock99 (talk) 17:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What sense does it make to tell me to "See WP:NOTINHERITED" when I linked to it myself, above? Firsfron of Ronchester 17:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you stated in your post bellow, where you said is wiki better or worse with out this article. I think this is developing it has only been on for a month, and I have yet to see anyone local on the debate as an editor, I am in Ohio just grewup their and visit. I think there is a lot more aobut the library and the system. As I have pointed out there are a lot of other library stubs that have been on week for several years which make wiki worse for beeing on wiki with no improbements on them. I think looking at the kalamazoo library looks like a advertisment more than infomation. I took the time to document what history I could find to make this a article that was worth wiki. I also think taking a new artle off is tearing down the house while it is being built. Please do not take this a personal attack, but your user page states that you patorl new pages, I wish we would spend more time patoling the pages that we, that are of no use. I think the articles that seat for years with no development no information, and no use should be looked at over new articles. I just think it is a diffrence in how you and I see wiki. I think things should be given time to develop to see if they are worth wiki, you I think what editors to be gatekeepers. I think you and I see the role of wiki diffrently is all. I do not know which one is better or worse, which is why I think wiki is very usefull and help develop what I think is a nice documntation of worthy topics with many views. There is an article on local place of intrest I can not find it right now I will post it later that I think covers this library and why it should stay.Jsgoodrich (talk) 17:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Firsfron: You said "I don't believe that a town with notable buildings could itself be non-notable." That is in direct contradiction to WP:NOTINHERITED.

To Jsgoodrich: I happened upon this article while commenting on a different AfD. When I patrol new pages, I do so from the back of the new page log. Those articles are typically a month old and have not been previously patrolled. If I would have been the one to patrol this page, I would probably done it differently. But that does not address the fact that myself and others consider the subject's notability to be suspect. I consider your contributions to valuable and I consider new page patrolling to be valuable as well. If you think patrolling existing sub-par articles to be a noble undertaking, by all means do it. There is a definite need for it. If you just hit the random article link you can find a poor article in about five attempts. You should copy the article to your user space. Even if the article ultimately gets deleted, you can continue to improve it and resubmit it later. I think the worst that will happen is a merge, but we can always split it out again if you find a good national source. Something like a NY times article is the Holy Grail of the notability world. Dethlock99 (talk) 19:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've read the WP:NOTINHERITED essay, and telling me to see an essay I've already linked to you is not helpful. Further, arguing for the deletion of an article by citing an essay doesn't carry the weight of policy The article's contents are verifiable and sourced. Those are actual policies. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I offended you by relinking WP:NOTINHERITED. I do not give it the same weight as policy, but I do give it weight. I'm not advocating deletion. My position, currently, is Merge and Expand. Yes, the article's contents are verifiable and sourced, but the library is not notable. I would like to see a source with wider readership about the library system itself. Are you saying that anything that can be sourced and verified should be included in wikipedia? Are you saying that because they are guidelines and not policy that we should ignore WP:NOTABILITY and WP:NOTINHERITED? Dethlock99 (talk) 05:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm emphatically not saying that we should ignore WP:NOTABILITY. WP:N states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." I'm saying that this subject has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources which are independent of the subject. You can scoff and say, "well, those are mostly county papers", but local newspapers are not excluded in the guideline. You can scoff and say "well, the other papers are from the next county over", but the guideline does not exclude newspapers from the next county over. You can scoff and say, "well, the circulation of one of the papers is very low." but the guideline says nothing about excluding newspapers with low circulations. You can scoff and say, "well, some of those sources aren't truly independent of the subject," but the guideline does not say that every source must be independent of the subject for the subject to be notable. In short, what you've done here is ask me if I am ignoring WP:NOTABILITY, when the guideline says nothing like what you think it says. Not only am I saying we shouldn't ignore WP:NOTABILITY, I'm saying that there is a danger in requiring more "notability" than what is actually in the guideline: things like requesting sources, and then when those are provided, requesting secondary sources, and then when sources are provided, changing the request to "sources with wider readerships". At some point, these requests become nothing more than bullying: "your article will be deleted if you don't provide a 2-page article from the New York Times"-type things. When these sorts of requests are made by someone who does little more than tag and template articles (and these actions do not significantly improve the encyclopedia), it has the effect of driving away good article writers ("this guy's just playing zap-an-article... why do I still bother writing here?"). It takes great effort to dig up and research articles on many subjects. It takes no effort at all to push a "template this" button. Someone who only adds automated templates to articles just may not understand this. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"'Presumed' means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion." from WP:GNG I thought this discussion was about notability of a sourced article. "How reliable a source is, and the basis of its reliability, depends on the context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." from WP:RS Small papers tend to have small staffs and thus fewer people fact checking, etc. That makes them less reliable than large papers and other more prominent sources. I'm also saying there is a danger in requiring less notability than the guidelines require. I'm still not advocating the deletion of this article and I never have. Asking for better sources is not "bullying". I'm sorry you think so little of my editing. I view tagging as essential. Tags act as warnings to readers and editors that problems exist with the articles. Is this germane to the topic at hand? "An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument toward the person" or "argument against the person") is an argument which links the validity of a premise to an irrelevant characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise." from ad hominem Dethlock99 (talk) 15:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete. I cannot find any secondary sources that say anything encyclopedic about this library system. There is absolutely no reason to make a special rule for county libraries, given that nearly every county has one. Also, given how short the average article on US counties are, it would be better to just add all the info on county services there. Cass County is no exception. Abductive (reasoning) 07:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that a large number of counties do have library system, as so do many towns, not every library has something notable. Cass County District Library has a large set of local history in it's local history branch, which documents the area. While some libraires have collection, this library has taken the time, effort, and money to build a rich history collection which help the current WikiProject Michigan is a WikiProject formed to foster better articles on the U.S. state of Michigan with a spirit of cooperation. People travel to it from all of the U.S. to trace there family history. With the rich history and other information stored at this over 100 year old pre-Carnegie library this merits a reason to set this library with its own page. Jsgoodrich (talk) 08:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All you need are secondary sources saying that is important. Abductive (reasoning) 15:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would point out the following county libraries have pages on wiki that have less information, no or limited sources Brazoria County Library System, Corvallis-Benton County Public Library, Marin County Free Library, Monmouth County Library, Solano County Library, Ramsey County Library, Fort Bend County Libraries, Atlantic County Library, Alachua County Library District, Bergen County Cooperative Library System and Logan County District Library I could go on and on about the less libraries which have been allowed to stay on wiki. I think the article should be kept, that the history of a almost 140 year old library is worth a small place in wiki, so that people looking for information on this library can find it. Jsgoodrich (talk) 09:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody will bat an eye if you merge those. Abductive (reasoning) 15:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as you may discover, very few people read articles, and as you atomize the topics, even fewer people read them. For example, in the interval between the article's creation and this AfD, Cass District Library got 0, 1 or 2 page views a day, consistent with search engine bots checking the page. By comparison, Cass County, Michigan got 26 page views a day on average. Abductive (reasoning) 15:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. This deserves to be WP:BETTER, not merged; in particular, the library's unique holdings of historical newspapers (which I just hotlinked) showed missing entries for most of them. There's plenty of room to expand. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 17:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Without secondary sources, the is nothing to expand. Even with primary sources, there is little to say. Abductive (reasoning) 17:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are secondary sources, the problem is that they are not electronic. I lived in that county for 18 years and never knew that they had the holdings they have. I only found out about them on my last trip to Michigan. There are reason to document historical preserved material and those that preserver them. They are part of American history. There are secondary sources on Cass County and this library. however a lot of the information is in non-electronic from. Cass County has been one of the poorest counties in Michigan for some time (I think that may of changed a few years back). Most people in the county do not even have access to high speed internet. So this makes it hard to publish online sources. I would point to the wiki Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. Books are a secondary source, and just because they are not electronic, does not mean they are not good sources. It will take time to get these source loaded to the page. I think this library and it's collection (mostly local history branch) are worth a wikipedia page. As for not a lot of page views, the page is less than a month old and is only linked on two or three pages, as I have not had time to post other links.Jsgoodrich (talk) 20:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there are secondary sources, I will of course agree the topic is notable. However, I wish you would consider the fact that 10 times more people will read about it in the county article than as a standalone. Abductive (reasoning) 02:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have found several secondary sources on the history of the library in newspaper archives. Someone found the library noteworthy. The history of the library is sourced and verifiable. These things just take a bit of research in off-line publications, as Jsgoodrich correctly states. Jsgoodrich, please continue to expand on this article. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So far only of local interest, though. Abductive (reasoning) 02:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that local interest is not a subject that Wiki is not, wiki does have suggestions for these articles Wikipedia:Places of local interest. The information on the history of this library may currently be local, but it holds interest to the state as whole has keeping a part of this history, and to America as the stories of westward migration. Also the article is less than a month old and the article has already grown to nightlight some key facts of the library and its rich history through secondary sources. Jsgoodrich (talk) 02:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I remain unconvinced. These sources are not some much rich and analytical as they are mundane descriptions of operations and financing. For example, "Problem at Cass Library: Termites, Not Bookworms, Board Told Roof Also Like Sieve" and "Cass Library Phase 2 Bid $602,545" does not strike me as encyclopedic. Abductive (reasoning) 02:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that one is, but you overlooked the rich history the cite The "carnegie-legacy-seen-in-100-year-old-cass-district-library" This is a 100 year old library, and it has a very rich history. I ask that the administrator that reviews this look at the whole article and not just the ones that are cherry picked to make the article look less the noteworthy. Jsgoodrich (talk) 02:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand my position, which is that a merge is best. Taking the article in the Cassopolis Vigilant as a decent, if local, secondary source, the encyclopedic information therein is meager. For example, that source states that Carnegie built thousands of libraries, making the one in this article less notable. I am trying to convince you, not the closing admin, that a merge is the way to go, and that you will have more readers, in the Cass County article. Take a look at the few articles I have created with this account; nobody reads them. Abductive (reasoning) 03:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I remain unconvinced that the title of a newspaper article should be the measure on whether an article is kept or not. Strange logic. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To me, the title is more about Carnegie's legacy than the particular library. In any case, one article in a local weekly, circulation 800, doesn't move me. Abductive (reasoning) 04:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then your opinion can be disregarded by the closing administrator. Please note that Wikipedia's guidelines on notability do not require that a source must have a minimum circulation size, only that the content in the article should be verifiable and reliably sourced from sources independent of the subject. Nor does WP:N require that a source's title "be encyclopedic"; these are your own constructs, and have nothing to do with Wikipedia's own policies and guidelines. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why there is talk only about a title of an article there is a whole article about the libary and it's 100 year aniversity and what the libary now does. It is not just a title. It can be viewed [[4]]Jsgoodrich (talk) 05:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N does require sources plural, and I said the source was decent, if local. My concern here is about atomizing topics into their Least publishable units, and I am attempting to educate an editor who, as I did long ago, started out writing articles like this one for topics is my local area. I've never had an article be merged or come up for AfD, but that was pure luck. Now that I have mucho experience, I know that most articles remain pitifully unread, and that information on something as local as a public library is better placed in the town or county article, with a redirect to catch the tiny number of people who rarely look up the official name. Abductive (reasoning) 05:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article does have sources plural, but you have rejected two of the newspaper sources since their titles (!) didn't seem encyclopedic to you. Such a rejection is in no WP guideline or policy, it's something you yourself created. Your attempt to "educate" the article's main editor with guidelines you invented yourself is unnecessary. Also, please note that an article's popularity (grok.se stats) has nothing to do with whether an article should be kept or not. You stated above, "If there are secondary sources, I will of course agree the topic is notable", but now that secondary sources have been provided, you've decided that the titles of the secondary sources aren't acceptable. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper articles on a leaky roof and a bond issue didn't cut it for me. My interpretation of secondary sources is that they need to analyze the topic in depth. As for saying I invented these guidelines myself, I have seem comments similar to mine in innumerable AfDs. Finally, I did not nominate this article for deletion. Abductive (reasoning) 05:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both news articles cover the subject in depth; all you're going on are the titles of the articles, a poor method of judging an article's merits. You've decided in your own mind what these articles cover, from their titles alone: pure speculation. Because your opinions are based on your own spurious decision, I'm fairly certain the closing admin will give your views little weight in closing this debate. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that the link on the leaky roof was not added by me, so I can not state all why it was added for sure. But to me it was to show that there is information in offline sources about the topic. The article that I added was the 100 year anniversary [[5]] which is one online article. There are several articles which are offline, that do look at the history. I do understand that a lot of articles set on wiki with no one looking at them. That sometimes it is good to have all in one place like under a county page. However, sometimes I think there needs to be a time to have them on their own. I think there is enough information in good sources they just have to be offline which takes time to develop. Jsgoodrich (talk) 06:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "link on a leaky roof". There are, however, references to two newspaper articles detailing the history of the library: one verifies the building of a new library in 1977, another verifies the purchase of an earlier library building in 1959. The title of one of the articles mentions the leaky roof, but Abductive is using that as a reason why the the Wikipedia article on the library should be deleted. An extremely poor argument, of course. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's with the hostility? There is a difference of opinion, with some people thinking that a local library district's building woes/financing being evidence for notability, and others not. Abductive (reasoning) 06:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and expand. If the section on the library evolves, then we can split it later. I would suggest that everyone reread DGG's comment as he is an expert on this subject. Abductive is also correct about readership of articles. IMHO, county libraries need sources outside of the county to establish notability, because local puff pieces are so common. Perhaps we should work on criteria for notability of libraries. Dethlock99 (talk) 21:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I don't agree that a notability guideline could be established, but two of the sources I added are outside of the county and are also not puff pieces. They're news articles documenting the history of the library. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 22:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* I did read DDG post, and that is why I found the document that talked about the library and the mission that it is still playing in the Carnegie legacy and in the community. I think this makes this worthy of an article. There are still many sources which are in offline material. The two biggest newspapers around this area are the South Bend Tribune and Kalamazoo Gazette do not publish a lot of their material online, they are in the old school model of what a paper is/was. This article is already bigger than the ten's of thousands of stubs that wiki has. I think this information is already to much to load down the county page with to much information about one part of the county. Thus making the county article more of an article for the library than the county as a whole. I am working on expanding more information about the county page, which would also make the county article a more useful article. I think there is enough information in offline sources that make this notable. I think there is enough to start this as its own article and develop it more I think to delete or merge this article so soon is premature as I stated earlier a form of [[Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built]]. Jsgoodrich (talk) 23:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was working on doing some updating on the Cass County page and was looking at the template for U.S. counties form the wiki project of U.S. Counties Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. counties and could not find where a library system should be listed on the county page. While templates are not set in stone, if we are looking for conformity, I think they should not be merged. There are templates for libraries I think that is setting up idea that libraries should have their own article.Jsgoodrich (talk) 08:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! Public libraries are important and useful to the residents of places throughout the United States, and especially in states like Michigan with high unemployment. This particular article is well documented and being improved by editors who care about it. Other editors have supplied detailed reasons above better than I could do. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:30, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that libraries are important. Not just in the US and Michigan, but the world over. The article is sourced. Yes. The question is: Is it notable? There are guidelines as to the notability of subjects and that is what is being discussed. Those guidelines can be ignored if it will improve Wikipedia. If editors continue to improve the article and its sources, I'm sure it will stay in some form. Nothing we do here is etched in stone. The article can be relisted for deletion if kept, or posted again if deleted. The article has editors who care about it, and, here, are editors who care about Wikipedia. I have seen many editors who cared about an article, but didn't care how adversely their article might affect wikipedia. We are fortunate in this small debate to have, in my view, editors on all sides who care about both the article and wikipedia. Will wikipedia be better with this article or with out it? Right now, I would say neither. But if the article continues to improve, that would quickly change my opinion. Dethlock99 (talk) 15:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a talk page template to Kalamazoo Public Library saying class=stub, because it lacks any inline citations, but earlier I ranked this article as class=C, before it had eleven inline citations and the creator added photos. Do other editors agree with this quality ranking? If so, it is another point in saying, keep this article. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have re-examined the discussion following after my earlier comment, and I am convinced by the keep arguments. True, I have previously opposed articles on individual branches of a county library system, and I still continue to think they should be included within combination articles in the system. However, I think we should indeed make an article for every county or similar library when we have Verifiable information to do so, on the same basis as high schools: there will always be sufficient material to meet WP:GNG if looked for properly--as they are here. Local sources are what document local events., & there is no reason not to use them. WP:LOCAL is an essay, and I think would not get approval as a guideine; the quite different WP:Notability (local) is a failed guideline,--between the two it shows there is no general consensus about articles on institutions of local importance only. (My personal view is that we should deal with local topics by a Wikipedia supplement, WikiLocal) But as we do not have that , we should put them in Wikipedia if they meet our guidelines--after all, we are not paper and if there were to be articles on a million libraries, there is no problem finding a place to put them--the only problem is getting people to write them. The people who do, should be encouraged--it's a good project for local students. I point out that an article needing improvement is not reason to deleet it; considering the state in which almost all Wikipedia articles started out, the encyclopedia would never have developed at all.

incidentally, I am unable to understand Abductive's point above that the sources are not " rich and analytical"--the onlhy requirement in the GNG is for significant coverage, which is much less than that. Perhaps 5% of Wikipedia articles have rich and analytical sources. "Mundane and descriptive " sources do perfectly well for writing about the mundane world, which is properly the subject of most of the encyclopedia .

DGG ( talk ) 13:49, 28 December 2009 (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deviancy amplification spiral[edit]

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

I can't find any valid sources that indicate that this term is important in sociology. It appears to be a neologism created by Stanley Cohen in his book. Google brings up sources that are mostly based on the Wikipedia article, or else don't meet RS. Google Scholar turns up quite a few mentions, but mostly trivial and in the form of "X is an example of a deviancy amplification spiral, where Y" I see very little in-depth discussion of what it is or why it is relevant. Of course, there may be some good sources out there. If notability can be demonstrated, i'll withdraw the AFD. The Wordsmith^Communicate 21:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ~100 hits on Google Books, seem notable enough. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I see evidence for deviancy amplification spiral everyday, on tv and in real life. Such as drug use and trends amongst teenagers. I believe it is definately notable enough. Portillo (talk) 05:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of Google Scholar and Google Books hits establish that this is indeed a term with an established meaning in sociology, used by people other than its originator. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2009 (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...after reading into the discussion, it seems that there is a general consensus that WP:POLITICIAN #1 does not apply for City Councillors in Ireland. In addition, there is also a consensus that he does not meet the general biography notability standards, and so I am closing this AfD as delete. NW (Talk) 15:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Cameron (Galway)[edit]

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

Non-notable local councillor, fails WP:POLITICIAN. The only references are one article in his local free newspaper and his page on his party's website. I PRODed the article on 9 December, but the prod was contested with an explanation on the article's talk page which rather seems to miss the point: "I'm removing deletion references as the article is as sparse as possible without leaving out his significant details". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Related discussion:Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Galway Advertiser --Mkativerata (talk) 05:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for that. I've posted a few links there so that editors can see for themselves how the Galway Advertiser constructs a story. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He passes WP:POLITICIAN, as a councillor on Galway City Council is a first-level sub-national political office. I'm quite comfortable with this outcome in this case as I think he would pass WP:GNG as well due to the extent to which he is covered in national media (in addition to merely local media such as the Advertiser). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkativerata (talk • contribs) 21:57, 21 December 2009
- Reply. I will comment below on that interpretation of WP:POLITICIAN, but the google link you provide consists overwhelmingly of local news media: Galway Bay FM, and the freesheet Galway Advertiser. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply In any event, national coverage is not a requirement of [{WP:GNG]] or WP:POLITICIAN. Imposing such a test is absurd for the reasons given in my comment below. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'll try again. You referred above to "the extent to which he is covered in national media". Examples, please, with links. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Times UK, Irish Times, Times UK again, Irish Independent. But it's not important - nowhere in WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN is national coverage is required. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        What is significant is that WP:GNG requires substantial coverage in reliable sources, and if the fresheet Galway advertiser is a reliable source, we are both fruitflies from the planet zog.
        Now let's look at those refs:
        Times UK dead link, no idea what's in it, may just be a passing mention, or ,maybe not, but no evidence of substantail coveraage
        
        Irish Times -- one mention of him in the last sentence an article about the local elections. He is not " the subject of" the article, per per Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic_criteria
        
        Times UK again -- another dead link
        
        Irish Independent -- he gets mentioned in the 21st paragraph, as the fifth and last councillor named there, and the one with the least coverage. So again he is not "the subject of" the article per Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic_criteria, he's just a passing mention in it ... so we are left with precisely nothing as evidence of Cameron being the the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent etc. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        1 and 3 are not dead links for me; they're the stronger ones too. I'm still waiting for you to justify your need for national coverage. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        1 and 3 are dead-as-a-dodo for me, but I did manage to gewt their headlines from google: "Green mayor desperate for a late lifeline in Galway poll and Caterpillar protest goes up a gear ... so Billy Cameron is not actually the subject of either story.
        As to the need for national coverage, do I have to put the qoute from Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic_criteria is big bold print for you? It requires the person to be the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent etc. None of the local media cited have any of the characteristics of WP:RS -- just read WP:RS and explain how an under-resourced free paper with a journalistic staff of one or two people (which is all those free papers have) meets the characteristics set out there.. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        On what basis are the size and cost of the publication automatic indicators of reliability? Actually read the articles. They appear to be written to reasonable journalistic standards and are therefore reliable. The newspaper has a circulation of 70,000: hardly tin-pot local news. Notability is not to be judged by a Washington Post test. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Mkativerata, do us all a favour and just read WP:RS. Like actually read it. Then come back and provide some references for local free newspapers having a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Plainly I'm not going to rise to the bait of trying to prove that this organisation has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. You're selectively quoting from WP:RS and applying the same wikilawyering (by requiring, as a threshold to inclusion, am affirmative demonstration that the sources supporting notability have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy) of which you erroneously accused me of applying to WP:POLITICIAN (ie implying it conferred automatic notability). And as for your condescending directive to read WP:RS, may I point out that the only reason we are here in the first place is because you failed to read WP:POLITICIAN (see the opening sentence of your nomination). --Mkativerata (talk) 02:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Mkativerata, if you think that notability would be conferred by any number of mentions in unreliable sources, then I can't help you. But there is no synthesis or originality or wikilawyering in pointing out that it is a fundamental pillar of wikipedia that it is based on reliable secondary sources, or that those are sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. If any of this surprises you or appears to be nit-picking taken out of context, then take it to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard and ask for input on whether the Galway Advertiser fits the bill.
        And yes, I was taken by surprise to find a change to WP:POLITICIAN which clearly had unintended effects for those who read it too literally ... but then I was even more surprised to find your determined refusal to apply commonsense and spot that your interpretation of the guideline it would have the bizarre result of conferring automatic notability on a member of Galway City Council, but not on a New York City Councillor, nor on Galway's mayor. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        For the last time, I don't know where you intepret anything I've said as refusing to apply common sense over WP:POLITICIAN. The correct interpretation of WP:POLITICIAN does lead to absurd results (except that the Galway Mayor would also pass it by passing criteria 1 even if not passing criteria 2) and for that reason we have WP:GNG. You are erecting a straw man. I have listed the matter on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard as you have suggested (I don't pretend to make any strong arguments that the source is notable, only to question your outright dismissal of it).--Mkativerata (talk) 03:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I can read both Times articles. The first says in para 5,"Billy Cameron, of Labour, who was revealed last week to be claiming mileage for a car driven by his brother, was on 20.7% and looked likely to top the city-centre poll." The second is slightly better, referring to "Billy Cameron, a Galway city councillor behind the campaign." However, "behind the campaign" seems pretty notional given that he says, "We have had the support of four Labour councillors and one Green, and I assume Sinn Fein, and I would hope to persuade more." Five Councillors is hardly a significant campaign. Anyway, consensus seems clear. MikeHobday (talk) 01:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN as election to a local council alone is not enough. The subject must be notable not locally but nationally and this person has no significant national coverage. Snappy (talk) 22:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Have you considered criteria 1 of WP:POLITICIAN? This council is a first-level sub-national political office. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. National coverage is an absurd requirement that you seem to be reading into both WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Would a state senator from Utah have national coverage? Of course not. This guy has significant coverage at his sub-national level confirming that he is notable as a first-level sub-national politician. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was not aware of this change to WP:POLITICIAN until you mentioned it here, and I found the edit in which the change was made. It was obviously intended as a clarification, but it has unintended consequences for Ireland. The overwhelming majority of the population of Ireland has only one sub-national level of elected government, viz. the city or county councils, so in most of Ireland the phrase "first-level sub-national political office" actually means the same things "as lowest-level political office". The fact that this was unintended is illustrated by point 2, which makes local mayors notable only if they "have received significant press coverage". taken together, this would mean that a local coucillor in Galway was automatically notable, unless she was elected as mayor ... which is a nonsense.
  I'll open a discussion at WT:BIO to have this fixed, but in the meantime we should remember that WP:BIO is a guideline not a piece of statute law, and that as it says at the top of each guideline page, a guideline is "best treated with common sense". In this case common sense means understanding that Ireland is a much smaller country than the USA, and has many fewer layers of govt. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I fully appreciate that WP:POLITICIAN is not statute law, and never implied it was. Nonetheless, in my view, the member of a first-level sub-national assembly that governs 70,000+ people is notable. Super-imposing requirements such as "national press coverage" is unwarranted. You and the other contributors to this debate seem distracted by the label of the council as a "Council". Look beyond the label to what the organisation does and the scope of its powers and coverage - clearly its legislative members are notable. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Mkativerta, you are now getting funny. Snappy is Irish, and I am Irish. I used to live in Galway. Now, will you please give us the shock of our lives by explaining exactly what are those "legislative powers" vested in members of Galway City Council, and explain what Act of the Oireachtas conferred those powers? Because so far as I am aware their "legislative" powers amount to a big round zero. (The closest they get to it is in planning, where they can set a County Development Plan, subject to approval by the Minister).
      An Irish City or County Council has much much less power than an American City or County Council, and those are clearly 2nd-tier sub-national units. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - My reference to law-making powers is perhaps inaccurate. As far as I can tell, the Local Government Act 2001 confers policy and plan making powers for local authorities (essentially, supervisory laws) and authorities have further powers to make by-laws (ie legislation). I think law-making is a fair shorthand to describe this structure. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Bye-laws are not legislation: they are local rules of very limited scope, which may be applied to a limite range of issues, and are dsubject to overturning by "the appropriate Minister" if he "considers that a bye-law or any provision of it is objectionable" (section 199(8)(a) of the 2001 Act). Can you give me any other example of "law-making" where a "law" which has already been passed can be struck out (with no right of appeal or democratic override) because one man considers it "objectionable"? A bye-law is a form of local regulation, not of legislation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I'd contend that the availability of a power to over-ride a law does not reduce the notability of the body that passes the law (or its members) unless it is frequently utilised. Can you provide any evidence to suggest that the powers of Irish county councils are genuinely subject to the whim of the Minister other than in very exceptional cases? --Mkativerata (talk) 00:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Mkativerata, you are making this up as you go along.
        First you misread WP:POLITICIAN by reading only part 1 and not part 2, and thereby confuse an Irish local government council with a US state Govt (as if the Mayor of Galway was on a par with the Governor of California). Then you invent the idea that an Irish City Council has "legislative powers", and when that try fails too you now want me to give you an entire history of ministerial use of powers to overturn by-laws. Quite apart from the fact that such a power of itself shapes the bye-laws which are proposed (because in practice neither side has an interest in a public showdown), I'm not going to waste more of my time trying to deal with the consequences of your fundamental lack of knowledge and understanding of the exceptionally limited powers of Local Government in Ireland. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete despite passing WP:POLITICIAN, because WP:POLITICIAN surely did not intend such non notable figures to pass the test. MikeHobday (talk) 22:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment To assert that WP:POLITICIAN "surely did not intend" for a person who can pass laws that affect around 70,000 people to be notable is a big call. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply See my comment above about interpreting WP:POLITICIAN. But here you make another fundamental mistake: local councillors in Ireland have no powers to pass laws. They don't even have any significant powers to raise revenue (90% of their money comes from central govt), and they don't even have much power to run the councils, because most of the authority is vested in the County Manager or City Manager).
    Point 1 of WP:POLITICIAN makes sense in the United States, where the first-level sub-national authority is the states. But the average population of a US state is 6 million people, which is more than the entire population of the Republic of Ireland, whose 4.5 million people have 34 county and city councils. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article doesn't assert notability and the sourcing is abysmal. If he was really notable, there would be more to say about him as well as rock-solid sourcing to back it up. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Its quite clear that WP:Politician is written with the US in mind and does not work properly for other countries. Apart from the local councillors discussed at length above, there is also the issue of Mayors. Because in the US, they are directly elected for a term of several years and have substantial powers and budgets, they are mostly notable. However, this criteria, cannot be applied to Ireland, as the Mayors of Dublin, Limerick, Cork and Galway are not directly elected; the council picks one of its members to serve for 1 calendar year (buggins turn) and the Mayor has no more power than any other councillor. They just get a fancy chain and get to open various functions and envelopes. Clearly, a discussion needs to take place about WP:Politician on how it can be improved to allow for different forms of local government in different jurisdictions. Btw, national coverage in Ireland is not "an absurd requirement". Ireland is a small country with only 4 million people. If you can't get national coverage in Ireland then you are definitely a total non notable non entity! Billy Cameron has no significant national coverage, just mentioned in passing a few times, no articles where he is the subject at all. Comparisons to a Utah State Senator getting national coverage in the US is skewed. To be accurate, compare the US to the EU, then Utah to Ireland, then Galway to St. George, Utah. Now, are the members of the St. George city council in Utah notable enough to get an article on wikipedia? Snappy (talk) 01:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, I think the point on the deficiencies of WP:POLITICIAN is entirely valid. The fact is that Mr Cameron passes WP:POLITICIAN in its present form, which means he's generally notable. But it could hardly be supportable that a member of one of the 22 Councils of Kirabati, population 98,000, is notable, yet they too would seem to pass WP:POLITICIAN. In such cases, we have to apply WP:GNG. I happen to think Mr Cameron passes WP:GNG but concede its an arguable point. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, Cameron does not pass WP:POLITICIAN, unless you ignore the contradiction between points 1 and 2. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Where is the contradiction? They are alternative criteria that have a small degree of overlap. If you satisfy 1, it doesn't matter that you might also be covered by 2 but haven't received "significant press coverage". --Mkativerata (talk) 02:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Mkativerata, I'll try one last time to explain it to you. If point 1 is interpreted as you do, then point 2 is useless in Ireland, because the "members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city" already have automatic notability according to your view on point 1, so point 2's test of significant coverage need never be applied to them. But since it appears that you really really really really truly want to believe that the intention of the guidelines is to confer automatic notability on a Galway City Councillor but not on a New York City Councillor, then nothing anyone else says is going to disrupt that view. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        You can talk about what you believe is the "true intention" and the implications for WP:POLITICIAN in Ireland as much as you like (and I don't necessarily disagree with what you say are the problems with WP:POLITICIAN in those respects), but that doesn't change what WP:POLITICIAN actually says and that you misread its text by assuming that a person who doesn't pass criterion 2 fails despite passing criterion 1. At least we are in agreement that it probably doesn't matter so much because it is subject to WP:GNG as an overriding requirement. An additional point: you seem to be saying that county councils are the lowest level of government in Ireland. This does not appear to me to be necessarily the case - the lowest level would seem to be town councils established under s 185 of the Local Government Act. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        What WP:POLITICIAN actually says, in a nice prominent block at the top, is what I pointed out before: "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense". You have just spent hours arguing for an interpretation which defies common sense , viz. one that confers automatic notability on Galway city councillors, but not those in NY, and that's all because you focused on a literal interpretation rather than applying the overriding common sense requirement.
        And no, I am not saying that county councils are the lowest level of govt in Ireland; town councils are.
        Nor am I saying that point 2 overrides point 1, or failing point 2 means failing point 1; I really don;t know how you could twist my words that way. As above: if point 1 is interpreted as you do, then point 2 is useless in Ireland, because the "members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city" already have automatic notability according to your view on point 1, so point 2's test of significant coverage need never be applied to them. What on earth would be the point of saying that city council members might be notable if they had already been defined as automatically notable? That's what the common sense requirement at the top matters. --04:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
        Now you are just plain misrepresenting me. WP:POLITICIAN has a clear operation, but never have I said it should be applied rigidly. Of course it must be applied with commonsense and of course it is subject to WP:GNG particularly when, I agree, it could lead to absurd results. All I've done is (a) pointed out that you were wrong to say he failed WP:POLITICIAN, and (b) argue that he passes it. But in any case, this argument over WP:POLITICIAN is pointless and should end here because we both appear to agree that the real question is whether Cameron is notable per WP:GNG, supported by verifiable sources. I say he is (member of the governing assembly of a town of 70,000 people, at the first level of sub-national government, being the subject of some national coverage and significant local coverage); you say he isn't (and have an arguable case for that position). --Mkativerata (talk) 04:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        You're still confused. Despite apparently agreeing with me about WP:POLITICIAN being broken, you're back on the "first level of sub-national government" thing again, which is just whitewash on the reality of "city councillor in a small city".
        If the test you are applying is notability per WP:GNG, then his membership of any council forms no part of the test. Even if he was supreme-galactic-emperor-for-all-time it would make not a whit of difference to applying GNG. Take a rest, at least until you have read WP:GNG. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm no longer going to respond to suggestions that I haven't read things. Its just playing the man not the ball and it has gone on long enough. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Regardless of WP:Politician, Billy Cameron still fails WP:GNG, which states "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. I can find no articles from national media where he is the subject, or mentioned in detail, only passing references. While the allegation that he claimed expenses for a car while not owning one is amusing, it doesn't form the basis of an article. User:Mkativerata keeps stating the Cameron passes WP:GNG but fails to provide sources with significant detailed coverage to support this. Snappy (talk) 14:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Where in the sentence you italicised does it say national media? I'm happy to accept a reasoned position that this particular local media is not reliable (being discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Galway Advertiser), but not (a) a blanket position that local media is not reliable, or that (b) significant coverage in local media is not sufficient for WP:GNG. Both (a) and (b) are reading requirements into WP:RS and WP:GNG that are not there. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        So, you couldn't find any national media sources then. All local councillors by virtue of the fact that they are members of a council will receive alot of coverage in local media, therefore it is pointless and useless to use local media to try and determine notability. Only if a local councillor receives coverage in the Irish national media would they be truly notable. It's common sense. Looking at local media, we get this king of thing [6] and [7], why does this (and similar kinds of articles) make him notable? I'm trying to get to the bottom of your argument, what exactly has Billy Cameron said or done in his life that makes notable enough for a wikipedia article? I have looked and cannot find anything. If you have more information about him, that would enable him to meet notability criteria, please post it here. Snappy (talk) 21:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Mkativerata accuses Snappy of "reading requirements into WP:RS and WP:GNG that are not there". Repeated to requests to Mkativerata to actually read WP:RS don't seem to have had any effect, so here's the relevant quote: "How reliable a source is, and the basis of its reliability, depends on the context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." The many examples of the Galway Advertiser simply reprinting press releases from Billy and others do not suggest a publication which is putting a lot of resources into fact-checking. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        You misread again. My problem with Snappy is his obsession with "national coverage" which is plainly not supported by WP:RS. Your particular criticisms of the Galway Advertiser are a different matter entirely: they are more valid and are being properly discussed at the RS:Noticeboard. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I see you haven't my simple question about what Billy Cameron has said or done in his life to get a Wikipedia article? Any chance of providing any examples? Snappy (talk) 11:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        A simple question. But an irrelevant one. The test for notability under WP:GNG is the extent and nature of coverage the subject has received; it is not a subjective test of what we think he has done or achieved. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        So you can't provide a single example of anything he's said or done to provide notability. You are asserting that he meets GNG, because of a few passing references in some articles, and there is notable. That is incredible! This individual fails the recently amended WP:Politician and in no way, shape or form even comes close to meeting WP:GNG. To sum up, Mkativerata assets that in their opinion, Billy Cameron meets GNG, is therefore notable but can't provide a single example or anything that Camerson has ever said or done in his entire life that would make him notable. What an person does or achieves in their life is what makes them notable, it is the most relevant thing to this debate. WP:BIO says "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Cameron fails this because he has not been the subject of any articles, merely some passing mentions. Since you can't provide any example of anything he has done to backup your assertion of notability, can you at least provide a reference from a reliable source where Billy Cameron is the subject of an article. Snappy (talk) 12:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Still waiting for any examples of notability? Snappy (talk) 12:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Not answering an irrelevant question. The coverage is the notability. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Amazing, you can't give a single example of what he has done that makes him notable, truly amazing! The only coverage in a national newspaper is one of claiming expenses for a car while not owning a car. As BHG has already pointed, local media sources are suspect due to their unreliability. This means he comes under WP:1E, so clearly not notable at all. Your argument is a stupid, circular one, saying because he has received coverage he is notable and he is notable because he has gotten coverage. None of the sources you provided are adequate, they are not coverage. Can you provide better sources that provide coverage? Snappy (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Your entire argument is thus based on the "suspect reliabilty" of the (many) local sources. I suggest you refer to the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Galway Advertiser where there don't seem to be many editors accepting that assumption. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Well lets assume that local sources are reliable in this case, can you provide any links, sites, references, information from these or other sources that would indicate notability for Billy Cameron? Snappy (talk)
        It's the fact of the coverage that confers notability, not a subjective test about whether what we think he has done is notable. In this case, the coverage of Cameron is extensive and more than gets him across the line. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        You seem to think that because he has a few mentions in national and a few more in local sources he is automatically notable. Nothing in that link is of interest. You are just plain wrong. If that were true, I would have to create an article for each of the 1,627 local councillors in Ireland. When Billy Cameron's article is deleted very soon, I hope you will see the error of your ways. You seem to be confused, just because a local councillor gets an article in the local newpaper (reliable or not), stating for example that the people of East Galway have a new bingo hall, doesn't actually make him notable. It's just local coverage of local issues which is of no interest to anyone outside the locality. Please learn the difference. Snappy (talk) 21:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable local councillor, poorly sourced to an unreliable source. No hint of notability or anything we could make a worthwhile article out of. Valenciano (talk) 09:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He sounds much too nice to be a politician.86.46.246.63 (talk) 21:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. 109.76.8.181 (talk) 23:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons above.Red Hurley (talk) 12:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Red Hurley. --MisterWiki talk contribs 13:45, 29 December 2009 (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 Vance County Public Schools. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Henderson Middle School NC[edit]

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

A middle school in North Carolina without any evidence of notability. Per longstanding consensus, middle schools are generally not notable by themselves, and articles on them should be merged to their school district articles, but I can't find any school district article to which to merge this. Nyttend (talk) 20:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The school district is Vance County Public Schools. -- Eastmain (talk) 21:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions.
Merge any verifiable info to the school district article, as is standard for schools under high school level. If for some reason the merge doesn't happen, then delete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Vance County Public Schools per usual practice. TerriersFan (talk) 23:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. This probably could have been done without a discussion, but here we are. JBsupreme (talk) 07:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually not — the school district article was created after I opened this AFD. Nyttend (talk) 13:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If not deleted, something has to be done about the title. Perhaps convert Henderson Middle School from a redirect to a different school district to a disambig. A testament to how non-notable this school is the fact that there is a "Henderson Middle School" in Chamblee, GA, China, TX, El Paso, TX, Falls Church, VA, Garden City, KS‎, Henderson, NC, Henderson, TX, Jackson, GA, Little Rock, AR, New Orleans, LA, Richmond, VA, Sour Lake, TX and Troy, AL. Abductive (reasoning) 06:01, 25 December 2009 (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Freeos1[edit]

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

Declined A7, WP:CRYSTAL. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable software with zero references in pre-alpha, planning stage. In fact, nothing to write an article about. Also very probable COI (user that created an article matches with homepage domain). --GreyCat (talk) 20:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice; zero notability yet, could become notable in the future. Haakon (talk) 21:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 22:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pre-alpha software. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:34, 21 December 2009 (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

December 20–21, 2006 Colorado Blizzard[edit]

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

This page was made during the blizzard, when local Colorado newscasters were prompting this as a so called "storm of the century" type of blizzard. Now three years later, after the WP:RECENTISM has died down, we have to look at this from an encyclopedic point of view. Since Wikipedia is not a news source, historically speaking this doesn't cut it. Therefore, I see no evidence that this truly a notable event. Tavix | Talk 19:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see some contemporary news articles on the blizzard, and also some non-reliable sources that discuss it. I don't think we have the sourcing to do a proper historical account of the event, however. The tone is also a giveaway; the last paragraph discussing the aftermath notes that "The losses are expected to number..." and "Losses may reach 15,000 cattle in Colorado.", which sounds like a news article and not an encyclopedic account. If sources exist that show the event to be notable, I'm happy to revisit this one - but, even then, there would be some cleaning up to do. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NOTNEWS. Joe Chill (talk) 22:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After skimming through the article and what sources there are, I've barely found any sources to speak of that seem reliable to me at least. That and the article is barely referenced at best, so I doubt that the article much going for it, at least in the state its in. - Dlrohrer 2003 02:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there was plenty of news coverage about this. What was once notable cannot be made non-notable by the passage of time. Everyking (talk) 05:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was never notable, it just suffered from WP:RECENTISM. Tavix | Talk 04:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It's still discussed all the time in Denver. This was very much a notable event for all who lived through it.

Where's your proof? Right now that statement is original research. Tavix | Talk 20:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it is still discussed in the area, and was very much a major event.-_MahlerFan (talk) 00:31, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If consensus is reached for deletion, I would strongly suggest incorporating much of the material into Winter storms of 2006-07 MahlerFan --(talk) 00:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I agree with MahlerFan, this is still talked about in the area, and was significant enough to warrant a page. If this is WP:RECENTISM Tavix, there are a few more blizzard pages that should be deleted as well if you look around. Also, Tavix, your statement of 'therefore' is inappropriate, the fact that you see "no evidence" does not logically follow from the previous statements of 'historically speaking this doesn't cut it,' which, is not evidence, but just a statement in need of support, which you fail to provide. Brainerror138 00:59, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have failed to find sources that talk about this blizzard in historical context. (meaning after the blizzard actually happened). If you want to prove me wrong, go ahead and find me some sources, but until then I'm sticking by my words. Tavix | Talk 20:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, compared with other articles it seem pretty notable.username 1 (talk) 03:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Blizzards happen yearly, the difference with those blizzards is that they are well-referenced and actually notable. Tavix | Talk 20:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete and merge content to Winter storms of 2006–07#December_18-21, which is consistent with how other winter storms are covered in Wikipedia. Plvekamp (talk) 02:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC) Neutral - After looking around the Winter storm article more, I don't believe my previous statement holds up. To judge by the organization of the winter storm articles, this one seems consistent with others. It looks like an informal consensus may exist to give major storms their own articles. I'll bow to the opinion of more experienced editors.Plvekamp (talk) 02:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep - The article would require some work and more sourcing but it definitely had significant coverage and was definitely notable thus passes the first criteria of the general notability guidelines - just needs more sources that's it then the few currently there. --JForget 14:15, 28 December 2009 (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unions and Internet Technology Use[edit]

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

personal thesis (as admitted here) that is not remotely encyclopaedic. ninety:one 18:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Essay. Joe Chill (talk) 18:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Matthew Glennon (^T/_C\^D) 19:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not really an article for wikipedia. Tim1357 (talk) 19:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since Wikipedia is not a webhosting company. (They admit that it's a personal essay on the talk page.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 19:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-encyclopedic opinion essay. Warrah (talk) 02:12, 22 December 2009 (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer Khrone[edit]

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

Notability not established. The article simply says that he is training as a wrestler. I have found no evidence that he wrestles for OVW, which in itself still wouldn't meet notability standards. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Upon a search of the web, all I can find referencing this person is promotional material for sale and a few other profiles on social sites. I don't see any references that he actually wrestles for anyone, and I agree with GaryColemanFan that this will would not meet WP:NOTABILITY. -- Matthew Glennon (^T/_C\^D) 19:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm smelling a WP:VAIN violation here. !! Justa Punk !! 08:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find really anything on Google, only really what I can find is this Wikipedia page. Afro (Not a Talk Page) ^{- Afkatk} 09:44, 26 December 2009 (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snail mail with email address[edit]

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

I can't find a source for this "140,000" people estimate. Nor can I find anything about the assertion that the letters "were returned or in some cases framed for posterity." Finally there is nothing I can find in the cited source that says anything about the subject. It therefore appears to fail WP:V and perhaps WP:OR/WP:SYN, but perhaps others may have better luck here. Tim Song (talk) 18:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There can't be that many dumb people in America... Lugnuts (talk) 18:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply not notable. If it was, there would be at least one national news story on the "phenomenon" Tavix | Talk 19:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Matthew Glennon (^T/_C\^D) 19:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reads like a joke, and while I'm sure it has happened once or twice I have a very hard time believing it happens as much as the article claims. Unlikely claims require some rock-solid sourcing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I know there's a lot of idiots in America, but surely not that many. (Plus it's brilliant how a report made in 2000 is being used as evidence for something that happened nine years later.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless anyone can find sources--and even so it should probably not be a separate article. But I think we should let this run the whole time to give the chance that someone might actually find something. DGG ( talk ) 01:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
White Christmas WP:SNOW Delete The source cited doesn't back up the fantastic claim. As with everyone else, I would find it hard to believe that there 140,000 people who would be that stupid. Mandsford (talk) 14:45, 22 December 2009 (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Collins News[edit]

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

The actual show has been speedied, but I'm not seeing any notability for this feature within the show. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable feature of non notable student radio program. noq (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Noq. Also WP:RS interest not found in search. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 22:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ugh, not another "Chris and John" article. Mandsford (talk) 14:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable feature of non-notable show. Polargeo (talk) 07:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete as a hoax per WP:CSD#G3 — CactusWriter | ^needles 11:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aden McTakahashi[edit]

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

Procedural nomination. {{Hoax}} tag added to article and note left on article creator's talk page by tagging editor 3 days ago ([8]). No attempt to refute hoax claim has been made. Only ghits for this name were this article and this edit to Christy Hui, which was reverted as hoax. Even if this is not a hoax and this individual does exist and has done what this article claims, he fails WP:N with no third-party RS mentions found. KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pretty clearly a hoax. Mangoe (talk) 17:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Research returns no results, either a hoax or not notable. --TheGrimReaper 18:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax article. The name "McTakahashi" in itself is extremely dubious, and I could find no references ia Google to confirm any of the claims in the article. --DAJF (talk) 23:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 02:04, 22 December 2009 (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enterprise Friction[edit]

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

non notable neologism WuhWuzDat 16:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lots of obvious false hits in Google, all of which vanish once the supposed coiner is included and Wikipedia is excluded. No hits in GNews, and only six or so hits in scholar, all of them false. Mangoe (talk) 17:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NEO. Joe Chill (talk) 18:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, also original research, and borderline patent nonsense as well, the usual tissue of vague abstractions and glittering generalities: ... the intimate interaction between strategic planning and risk management.... The principle of enterprise friction suggests that companies can in fact be more agile and respond more quickly to changing marketplace conditions when risk management considerations are taken into account before key corporate initiatives are implemented. This counters the common practice of designing business processes first and then assessing risk exposure after the process has been designed. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur with Smerdis of Tlön, above, in that this appears to be WP:OR. Suffice to say, we don't have sources that show this to be a notable concept, and thus cannot keep the article. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 21:11, 22 December 2009 (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carl R Perkins[edit]

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

The prod was contested. I found zero sources. Joe Chill (talk) 16:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google finds no relevant pages. Looks like a typical vanity page. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, looks like a vanity page DRosin (talk) 17:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete concur with above. Simply a vanity page -- Matthew Glennon (^T/_C\^D) 19:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity page. --Sothicus (talk) 01:39, 22 December 2009 (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 Seven Laws of Noah. (X! · talk) · @229 · 04:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noahide Campaign[edit]

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

WP:POV, WP:POVFORKING and WP:RS, as well as others. There are no references here other than primary sources. In addition, this can all be put under existing articles. Yossiea ^(talk) 15:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- Yossiea ^(talk) 15:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to Mitzvah campaigns Yossiea ^(talk) 15:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand While it's certainly disappointing that no improvements have been made to the article since it was created, the subject is independently notable (and I'm not sure what article it could be subsumed under). What I'd particularly like to see, from someone who knows about it (i.e. not me) is mention of non-Chabad outreach to Noachides. I know quite a lot of it exists, but I don't know any details. But Vendyl Jones and the groups associated with him should certainly be mentioned. -- Zsero (talk) 15:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Seven Laws of Noah as a sub-section. Joe407 (talk) 16:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Seven Laws of Noah#Public recognition as a sub-section per Joe407. Also keep a mention of this mitzvah campaign under Mitzvah campaigns. Yoninah (talk) 17:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Salvage info into the other two articles suggested above. --Shuki (talk) 19:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand Just as there is an article (and template) on outreach to Jews that is separate from the Judaism article, so does outreach to non-Jews merit an independent article from the Noahide laws article. I agree with ZSero that the article should be expanded to include non-Chabad outreach to influence non-Jews to follow the Noahide laws, but the fact that as these words are being written that is yet to be done does not prove that the article deserves deletion before it has had a chance to be developed. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Mitzvah campaigns and Seven Laws of Noah#Public recognition. Subject not notable enough to have its own article. Debresser (talk) 19:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Mitzvah Campaigns, where a couple of sentences or short paragrph can say it all. This is an outright WP:POVFORK and violation of WP:NOTADVERTISING for one group. P.S. this may also be alternately merged into the Noahide article because it's only a variation on a theme of that. IZAK (talk)
Merge and Redirect. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:13, 24 December 2009 (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. (X! · talk) · @230 · 04:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Letter in the Sefer Torah campaign[edit]

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

WP:POV, WP:POVFORKING and WP:RS, as well as others. There are no references here other than primary sources. In addition, this can all be put under existing articles. Yossiea ^(talk) 15:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- Yossiea ^(talk) 15:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to Mitzvah campaigns. There is no need to have WP become chabad.org. Yossiea ^(talk) 15:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable and FORK. Joe407 (talk) 16:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This belongs under the long list of mitzvah campaigns in Mitzvah campaigns, not in its own article with no sources other than the Rebbe's sichot. Yoninah (talk) 17:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom but nonethelss a truly respectful mitzvah campaign instituted by the Rebbe. --Shuki (talk) 21:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Mitzvah Campaigns, where a couple of sentences or short paragrph can say it all. This is an outright WP:POVFORK and violation of WP:NOTADVERTISING for one group. P.S. this may also be alternately merged into the Sefer Torah article because it's only a variation on a theme of that. IZAK (talk) 12:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or if that fails, Merge and Redirect. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:14, 24 December 2009 (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Makeshift Romeo[edit]

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

Another "MySpace band". I don't see any reliable sources. Ibaranoff24 (talk) 15:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC comprehensively with nothing to be found in the way of relialble sources. At best, redirect to Twisted Method, but not convince they're sufficintly notable either. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 15:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC. One self-released EP. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom DRosin (talk) 17:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not finding any significant coverage for this band; does not appear to pass WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 19:34, 23 December 2009 (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 Aminah bint Wahb. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Mother of Mohammed[edit]

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

book article with zero assertion of notability WuhWuzDat 14:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:BK. Joe Chill (talk) 14:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Aminah bint Wahb, the actual mother of Muhammad. Nyttend (talk) 20:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect sounds like a sensible move, there's nothing to merge.--SPhilbrick T 00:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Concur with Redirect, if book ever becomes notable, its article can be located at The Mother of Mohammed (book). WuhWuzDat 19:39, 22 December 2009 (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Volinski's triangle[edit]

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

A search did not turn up any reference to this term in medical literature, or anywhere else for that matter. Possibly a mistake, or a truly unknown WP:NEOLOGISM. This author's edit summary on removing my PROD seems indicates that this article is important because "there is no info. about this" anywhere else. Glenfarclas (talk) 13:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NEO. Joe Chill (talk) 14:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (sadly)?--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 21:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This eponym does not appear in the medical literature and is therefore not notable. Novangelis (talk) 23:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At the risk of sounding cruel, isn't the author's comment compelling?--SPhilbrick T 00:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep - the nomination was withdrawn and there are no outstanding delete !votes. TerriersFan (talk) 20:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hopkins West Junior High School[edit]

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

~~non-notable school ninety:one 13:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

Nomination withdrawn owing to presence of coloured ribbon. ninety:one 20:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While articles on junior high schools, middle schools and elementary schools are normally merged to the school district or locality, it is possible for an individual junior high school to be notable. This school is a blue ribbon school, which suggests that it may be notable. - Eastmain (talk) 13:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. - Eastmain (talk) 13:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. - Eastmain (talk) 13:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not only a Blue Ribbon school but national middle school quiz champions in the notable Knowledge Master Open and plenty of other sources available. WP:BEFORE is relevant. TerriersFan (talk) 15:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. Speedy Keep. Utterly generic nominational rationale, particular reason for notability given in article. Any sourcing issues do not indicate a reason for deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It was a contested PROD, I have neither the time or the inclination to research whatever childish 'name the presidents' or 'spell words you will literally never use' award somehow makes this school so amazing. ninety:one 18:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - This school is notable primarily as a Blue Ribbon school. Contested Prods should be considered on the merits of the subject not automatically AfD'd. If you "have neither the time or the inclination to research" then please refrain from submitting such AfDs. TerriersFan (talk) 18:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Changing !vote to Speedy Keep per nominator's confession of deliberately ignoring credible claim of notability.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're trolling, grow up. But if getting a coloured ribbon makes a school notable in that country, then nomination withdrawn. ninety:one 20:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the Blue Ribbon status is a nationally-prestigious award that puts a school in the top tier of schools throughout the United States. It has generally been seen to be sufficient for notability. Nyttend (talk) 20:38, 21 December 2009 (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. (X! · talk) · @230 · 04:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Global Environment Organisation[edit]

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

Article was previously AfD's with no consensus, and the closing admin suggested renomination after the COP15 climate conference in Copenhagen was over (since some people were speculating that this organization would be created at the conference). Well, the conference is over and no new GEO or WEO has been announced. Therefore, since this organization does not exist, it lands firmly in WP:CRYSTAL. While many people think such an organization should exist, and want it to exist, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. And, if that was not enough, this organization fails WP:ORG. SnottyWong talk 12:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It doesn't exist. If it is created, an article can be created.--SPhilbrick T 00:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – A proposed organization that has been in the "planning stages" since at least 1999. Appears to fail WP:ORG. ttonyb (talk) 03:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:ORG; it's been planned for a decade, now. Ironholds (talk) 00:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom, Ttonyb1 and others. - James xeno (talk) 22:46, 23 December 2009 (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Martin (United States Army)[edit]

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

WP:MILHIST consensus has established that only first level awards (Victoria Cross, Hero of the Soviet Union etc), rather than second level (DSC etc) are inherently notable in isolation. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

Delete as nominator. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Henry_Blomberg for another such article. Looks like there are hundreds of these to be cleaned up once that AfD runs it's course. Canterbury Tail talk 12:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although the subject's service is honorable and commendable, it is notable per WP:GNG, as it is only referenced at this time by a single website (which is nearly copied in whole or part by the article itself), or WP:MILPEOPLE. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable sources give more than trivial coverage, so fails WP:GNG, not to mention the fact that this wqas only a second-tier military decoration. Skinny87 (talk) 13:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I feel a bit bad voting delete on this page, but as per Wiki policy I don't think this is up to scratch. Maybe in the future a list could be created of second-tier military decoration awardees DRosin (talk) 17:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:GNG and WP:V. Although this individual's actions are highly admirable, being a recipient of the Distinguished Service Cross is not quite notable enough in itself per Wikipedia's guidelines. Also, there is an extreme lack of available sources as Skinny87 states. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He would have to have had at least one other award at this level to be considered for an article unless he did something else notable. A holder of a first tier decoration is inherently notable; a holder of a second tier decoration is not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per established consensus. This award just isn't enough to confer inherent notability. I have encountered dozens or maybe even hundreds of articles like this and I never understood how they could pass the notability standards. It's time for a massive nomination of hundreds to thousands of these articles. If the award is so prevalent that at least one person in a high percentage of small communities have received it, then it's probably too broad for Wikipedia to cover. Royal broil 13:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I don't think they need mass nominated, they can just be speedied as non-notable per GNG and the WP:MILHISTORY guidelines. Canterbury Tail talk 03:43, 27 December 2009 (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. JForget 14:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SUPERMODELME.tv[edit]

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

This looks like an attempt at promotion - but I really can't verify much from reliable sources.

It seems to be a webcast beauty contest, with plenty of on-line attention, but I can't find any sources outside the blogosphere. I'm happy to speedily withdraw this if someone can verify its significance. Scott Mac (Doc) 11:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per ~~[9]~~, [10], [11], and ~~[12]~~. Joe Chill (talk) 14:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Delete: Per nom. Joe Chill (talk) 14:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One is a bog and one is a press release. The others might be enough though.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable to me, even if the article is poorly written and I'd rather gouge my eyes out with jagged stones than watch an episode of this programme. --Dweller (talk) 14:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking if it "seems" notable, I'm asking can we verify any importance beyond assertion, blogland and press release.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I wasn't clear, it seems notable based on the RS presented. --Dweller (talk) 15:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you be precise? Which reliable citation evidences the importance of this? It exists, that's all I think we've verified here.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see at least three reliable sources - asia one, the guardian and jakarta post. There are probably lots more in the countless G-hits, but three is certainly sufficient, particularly as they are so very non-trivial. --Dweller (talk) 10:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promotional spam for a non-notable tv show. The article currently lists four sources.

The TV shows face book page; the tv shows twitter page. The tv shows friendster page (i thought friendster was defunct). The home page for the studio that produced the tv show. This sort of defines unreliably sourced and non-independent. Embarrassing piece of garbage as it astands. Clear delete, should be speedy.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see the sources presented above? --Dweller (talk) 15:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only reliable sources presented on tihs page serve to confirm only that the show exists. reiterate delete for this spamotional piece.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong~~ keep (changed to keep per Joe Chill) Guardian.co.uk:
:"It was the summer launch of Supermodelme.tv that gave Asian models a boost. The show, which appeared online in June, follows 10 aspiring models from Singapore, Malaysia, Korea, Thailand, the Philippines and India as they compete for a prize of $10,000 and the chance of fame. Karen Seah, of Singapore-based media group Refinery Media, came up with the idea after witnessing "a growing market for Japanese and Chinese models"
:"Elimination Shelimination at `SUPERMODELME.tv'" Jakarta Post, full article on SUPERMODELME.
:The Guardian newspaper has a full paragraph on this site, and the Jakarta Post, the largest English language newspaper in Indonesia, devotes a full article. And yet this is not enough for volunteer editors, they second guess these world renowned and known papers. Notability policy states, "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail" (refactored) >> How many reliable sources is enough for some editors? Ikip 19:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My problem is that two sources isn't enough for me. Now, my opinion is keep. Joe Chill (talk) 19:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Joe Chill, I appreciate how you are torn with this. I often agree with your delete/keep decisions. I watch AFDs often and I am usually soft and not bold enough to say "delete" as you are. Unfortunately the definition of what "Significant coverage" is is not specific, and unequally applied. Maybe we can merge or redirect this article until there are more significant sources? Ikip 19:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, two sources isn't enough for me. We have three sources which are Asia One, Jakarta Post, and The Guardian. Joe Chill (talk) 20:03, 21 December 2009 (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. (X! · talk) · @230 · 04:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of non-Indian Hindu cricketers[edit]

List of non-Indian Hindu cricketers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

A random intersection of two unrelated features. Being a non-Indian Hindu isn't a defining feature for most of these cricketers. Completely unreferenced as well. Was previously nominated as a WP:CSD#G1, but was removed after the originator stated 'many people are searching for the above topic, research is going on for true hindus outside india playing cricket'. That may be the case, but I don't think this article is the solution. The-Pope (talk) 09:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. The-Pope (talk) 09:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The-Pope (talk) 09:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable and it's not even sourced, violating WP:V and WP:OR. Aaroncrick (talk) 10:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a completely irrelevant intersection of list criteria. -SpacemanSpiff 10:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: completely unsourced, which could cause BLP concerns, also such an article creates precedent too which I'm not sure would be good for the project. — AustralianRupert (talk) 10:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable and original research WP:OR. Annette46 (talk) 11:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a piece of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Nev1 (talk) 12:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with all above, an un-needed and not-notable list. Harrias (talk) 14:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete strange article, if it was sourced possibly weak keep, but without any good sources it is a delete DRosin (talk) 17:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while I imagine this could be sourced, I don't see how this could be a managable list or an encyclopedic topic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unsourced, non-encyclopædic list. Although it would be better as a category, the subject is not a defining feature. --TheGrimReaper 17:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing inherently notable about a list of athletes based on their religion. I don't see (for example) "List of non-American Christian baseball players". TJ Spyke 20:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, trivial intersection of qualities. Nyttend (talk) 20:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even distinct enough for a category. Priyanath ^talk 00:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Please continue redirect discussion on article talk page. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nataline Sarkisyan[edit]

Nataline Sarkisyan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

As horrible as it always is when a kid dies, even more so of a potential fault in treatment, there is nothing indicating that this person meets WP:BIO. -Lilac Soul ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 09:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I think the incident involving the insurance is notable, but probably not the person. Whether you create a new page for the incident or just reduce this page and improve the sourcing, I am not sure. I am not convinced it is a total delete though DRosin (talk) 17:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cigna per WP:EVENT. The event is what is notable and it is outlined there. Location (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep This is a pretty notable case. Yes, it's a contemporary event, but the events surrounding her death did generate a large amount of publicity in the United States. That said, it would be good to see it written in a more biographical format. gloin (talk) 06:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't care for the rules in this case. Purging her memory from Wikipedia is our equivalent (and validation) of Cigna's decision and is completely inappropriate. Wefa (talk) 16:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cigna. The event is notable, the child is not. Edward321 (talk) 00:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per what objective standard? gloin (talk) 07:39, 28 December 2009 (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 . Article has already been redirected to List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 6) and nomination is explicitly an attempt to use AfD as a forum to settle a dispute. A discussion is ongoing at Talk:List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 6), where current consensus supports redirect. Non-admin closure. KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Danyl Johnson[edit]

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

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

Procedural nomination. This article has been repeatedly switched to and from a redirect to List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 6). I do not think the article should be deleted, but since the article has been redirected many times, I have nominated this article for deletion, to settle this once and for all whether the article should be kept. My opinion on the article, is that Danyl Johnson appears to be the favorite to win the competition, and seems to have a little career outside of The X Factor. Hassaan19 (talk) 19:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has this AfD been listed correctly? It's still open after nearly a month, and has attracted no comments at all...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 6) and lock the redirect until he shows any notability away from the show. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 11:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I didn't see this earlier (Mondays are usually busy, and this week is no different), but I have now: it's a redirect to the page I suggest linking it to anyway. With that in mind, I think this can be closed. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 16:06, 21 December 2009 (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. (X! · talk) · @231 · 04:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Carrera[edit]

Christina Carrera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Nine-year old actress does not meet WP:ENT: she's been in a commercial and some print ads, and although she plays a child in a touring production of South Pacific, that doesn't amount to "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Too early for notability. Glenfarclas (talk) 07:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. The pictures linked in the article will also have to go (and have their own fair use problems – both are currently tagged for deletion):
File:Chistina_South_Pacific.jpg

File:8_b_big_carrera_christina.jpg — æk ^Talk 07:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, maybe one day in the future DRosin (talk) 17:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete possibly notable someday, not yet though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:36, 21 December 2009 (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. (X! · talk) · @231 · 04:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Munhawa Sousa Salvador[edit]

Munhawa Sousa Salvador (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

I can't find any reliable sources for this politician, not even on Google Books, which returns no results. December21st2012Freak ^{Happy Holidays!} 06:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per this verification. Membership of a continental Parliament gives automatic notability. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found another reference: http://arquivo.maputo.co.mz/article/view/3436 , so now we have two references. I am glad that Mkativerata found the list of members of the Pan-African Parliament at the African Union's websmite, and I agree that membership in such a body confers automatic notability. I am frustrated, though, that the list gives the person's name as Mr. Sousa Salvador Munhawa, while the article refers to the person as "she" and gives the name in a different order, Munhawa Sousa Salvador. The article states that the person is on the health committee. The Pan-African Parliament web page for the Committee on Health, Labour and Social Affairs here does not list anyone from Mozambique on that committee. So I changed the article to read "was" (which remains true if the person is still a member). The reference from TV Cabo gives the name as Sousa Munhawa, so I would suggest moving the article there. - Eastmain (talk) 08:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per diligent research by Mkativerata (talk · contribs) and Eastmain (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 14:23, 21 December 2009 (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) 14:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technological Wiki[edit]

Technological Wiki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

A wiki for open source technologies, written originally looking as a promotion. Title too long, and no sources for notablity. move at the very least, I'm not sure about weather it should be deleted. Random Time 13:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Page has already been moved from Thewiki4opentech : A documentary repository of open technologies to Technological Wiki. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There is further discussion of this AFD on My talk page, following the initial discussion I attempted to improve the page to remove some non-neutral and promotional elements Random Time 18:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete I can't seem to find any notable sources that refer to it. ErikHaugen (talk) 01:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can find some sources about the platform and evets where platform has been an important actor. Malagutidomp (talk)

Delete barely readable text. average website. nn. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 05:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this website. Joe Chill (talk) 15:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete as a hoax per WP:CSD#G3. — CactusWriter | ^needles 11:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cielo Neal[edit]

Cielo Neal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Unless I'm very much mistaken, this seems entirely made up - by the article's author, not Lucas or his employees, etc. I can find no reliable sources that verifies this character's existence, much less its notability. Tim Song (talk) 05:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed, this seems to be the author's online persona, not an actual character in any Star Wars work. —Glenfarclas (talk) 08:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm also unable to find any mention of this person—nothing from The Oracle, Wookieepedia [13], and the article's own external link. TheTito ^Discuss 11:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CSD as hoax. --EEMIV (talk) 15:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom DRosin (talk) 17:55, 21 December 2009 (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. There is clearly something of a conflict between our guidelines and policies here: in winning an award the subject has clearly reached the arbitrary threshold as set by WP:BIO: but at the same time there is woefully little coverage in reliable sources in order to actually comply with our verifiability and biographies of living persons policies. An encyclopedia has to rely on information from verifiable sources, and this is simply not possible at this time: ultimately the delete arguments based on this are convincing. ~ mazca ^talk 00:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shaycarl[edit]

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

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

Non-notable YouTube user, fails Wikipedia:N and Wikipedia:BLP Kyle1278 05:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: regarding to my deleted proposal for deletion. --Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 05:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. There are no references to support this person's importance. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: Shay has more subscribers and hits for his videos than several other YouTube celebrities, his videos are always visible on the main Entertainment page of YouTube because of the number of views (several hundred thousand per video) and comments, and most importantly: Shaytards is a unique kind of vlog, because it is: 1. a family vlog, and 2. Shay has been making a video of his 29th year of life for an entire year (290 days have passed). Three different people have tried to create a Wikipedia page about Shay Carl this year, because to some people he is notable. Vincent Van Gogh only sold one single painting in his lifetime, as he simply wasn't very popular, but that which may be trivial today could end up being very important in the long run. If we leave out articles on certain people or events based on our perceptions of their current importance, that information could be lost forever. And he is both important and notable. I suggest you keep this vote open for at least another week, so more people can voice their opinions. If you want, I can give you more footage about him being in the media and giving interviews (in fact, he recently gave one). --82.171.70.54 (talk) 14:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Also, he is a YouTube partner, makes revenue from the Google Ad-Share Program, and his family lives from that income (he has no other jobs). Which is also quite unique, I would say, for a family to live that way. --82.171.70.54 (talk) 15:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~He just won the Open Web Awards, in the category Best YouTube Channel or Personality[14]. --82.171.70.54 (talk) 15:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comment-Keep: There is no question that Shaycarl is a very popular youtuber with a large online audience. On the other hand, Shaycarl is similar to some other top youtubers in that the amount of press attention devoted to him is less significant than one would otherwise expect from his popularity. This "gap" in youtuber press coverage was something I first noticed with FRED -- Fred was garnering millions of daily views on a regular basis back in mid 2008, but it took some time for him to be noticed by the press (and only then because his popularity was too great to ignore, and trust me, most journalists and people over 18 strive greatly to avoid watching FRED). Shaycarl is not at the level of FRED at this point (his Shaycarl channel is #42 on most subscribed at youtube), and a strict application of WP:WEB is going to make it difficult for articles like this to stay. If the content in the article can be verified with citations, though, I would be in favor of keeping.--Milowent (talk) 15:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC) - I've updated my !vote to keep based on subsequent comments.--Milowent (talk) 13:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB, WP:RS. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Definitely requires improving and citing, but I believe it has a credible claim for notability that is equal to many other YouTube 'celebrity' articles. Deletion is not a valid response to an article the requires improvement. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to keep now that notability has been established. PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I just worked on the article to see what (if anything) could be made of it, and the reality is that there are no good sources with which to write an article. His own YouTube channels do not count as a WP:RS about him. Other than that, he was one of three YouTube personalities covered in a small-town newspaper article by a high school student, and one of his channels won a popularity contest (the Mashable award). I just don't see how he passes WP:GNG, or any other notability guideline. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You removed 15 citations that were added for a reason. They show he has the 13th most subscribed Entertainment channel on YouTube, he recently won a Mashable award, he did indeed run his own business installing granite counters, is active for TheStation and BlogTV, starred in the starred in the Midi Mafia flash mob, is a Mormon, is a YouTube partner, and whatnot. First someone says it needs reliable sources, then I add those, and then you delete them. I despise you Deletionists. I won't edit the article again, you win once more. Delete the article. --82.171.70.54 (talk) 04:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought of a few responses to make to your overall position, but y'know what? I'm not going to argue here about the merits of WP:BLP and WP:SELFPUB, as this simply just isn't the place for it. If you have problems with WP policies, start a discussion to change them.
As to the particulars:
I removed 11 links to YouTube (leaving 3) as they aren't third-party reliable sources

I removed one duplicated cite to The Daily Star

I removed one ref to OpenZine as it didn't appear to be a WP:RS

I moved the IMDB and BlogTV links to the "External links" section per WP:MOS

His religious beliefs and old job aren't, imo, encyclopedic (particularly when they're unsourced)

If you have a problem with this, then you have a problem. But reverting my edits, blanking your talk page when I try to discuss it, and then taking your ball and going home isn't the way to solve anything. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 05:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
yes but having all of them makes you more notable on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Otterathome (talk • contribs) 07:32, 23 December 2009
Question: was this in response to User:82.171.70.54 or to me? If me, I'm not sure quite what you're referring to. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming from the comment below to keep i am friarly sure he was referring to you. but not 100% because i am not him. Kyle1278 04:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No way to save this article, The Deletionists win again. --82.171.70.54 (talk) 04:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have been able to narrow the article down in information, so it doesn't need as many references but as time goes on if more references become available, it would be good to add more information to the article and include the references to the article. While it is lacking references he has just become noticed and he may get more articles written about him in the near future and deleting this page would mean having to start from scratch again. Ryry rules 100 ^{T C} 20:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - sounds like Crystal ball to me. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP he was described in a local paper along with a bunch of other youtubers which was written by a high school senior over a year ago. Also his friends blogged about him! very notable! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Otterathome (talk • contribs) 07:26, 23 December 2009

Obviously you of all people should know a mention in a newspaper written by a high school student and blogs from other people do not make him notable. Kyle1278 04:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Next, let's delete every wikipedia contribution ever made by a high schooler. The value of that one source should be considered for what it is.--Milowent (talk) 05:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it is considered a good reference one note in a newspaper dose not make him pass Wikipedia:N. Kyle1278 20:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ANYBIO #1: person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them. (won the Open Web Award) and #2. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. (2 of his channels are on the Youtube Top 25 Most Subscribed.) TomCat4680 (talk) 01:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:ANYBIO criteria #1; he has won an Open Web Award, which is notable by WP standards. The article needs more sources to convince me to solid keep. --w^L^{<speak·check>} 09:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Quick reality check here: winning an Open Web Award is a sign of popularity, not notability. Two examples:

WP:Articles for deletion/VOIS.com - the company won an Open Web Award, but it didn't stop the article from being deleted.

As seen at WP:Articles for deletion/Abridged series and WP:Deletion review/Log/2009 December 18, winnining an Open Web Award didn't keep an article (under many different titles) from being deleted and salted.

If you look at the 2009 awards, there were fifty winners. Not all the winners are notable, and the way to tell is, "Which ones got coverage by verifiable reliable sources?" In this case, the answer is clear. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 09:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DoriSmith. I realize this is not a popular option, but we judge notability not on popularity but on the treatment and amount of non-trivial coverage received from multiple third party outlets. Perhaps in a year or two this subject will actually receive said treatment from reliable publications, but for the time being it fails to meet notability standards as Wikipedia defines them. JBsupreme (talk) 22:14, 28 December 2009 (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 14:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mistress Absolute[edit]

Mistress Absolute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Despite breathless comments from sex sites, this is basically an advertisement for a non-notable sex worker. / edg ☺ ☭ 06:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. Rhomb (talk) 22:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Shameless publicity-seeking. Richard75 (talk) 01:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with both these Comment's made by Edgarde. The article writen to inform those in Fetish scene of Mistress Absolutes day to day activities, yes these include references to other sites but how is that different from Kylie minogue naming her last album?
Also that Mistress Absolute is a non-notable sex worker is completely wrong... She does not work as a sex worker, She works as a proffesional Mistress there is a big difference! She also teach's, write's, is interviewed, run's a club and has one of the largest weekends in the UK for Fetish enthusiasts.
I find the fact that this article has been noted for deletion to be completely discriminatory against a sub-culture and one of most notable characters./ User:Malstrome User_talk:Malstrome 08:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mistress Absolute is not a sex worker. She is a professional dominatrix. There is no advertising on this page. She doesn't post her rates, times available, schedule, how to get a hold of her, etc.
I have to disagree with both these Comment's made by Edgarde. The article was written to inform those in Fetish scene of Mistress Absolutes day to day activities, yes these include references to other sites but how is that different from Kylie Minogue naming her last album? Also that Mistress Absolute is a non-notable sex worker is completely wrong... She does not work as a sex worker, She works as a professional Mistress there is a big difference! She also teaches, writes, performs, is interviewed, run's a club and has one of the largest weekends in the UK for Fetish enthusiasts. I find the fact that this article has been noted for deletion to be completely discriminatory against a sub-culture and one of most notable characters“ When i first added the article it was deleted over 10 times basically because they didn’t want a Professional Mistress promoting themselves on the site. i argued on several occasions that this was no different from an article about Betty Page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_page) but this lead nowhere as i believe the only reason Betty Page was allowed on was because she gave up the industry and converted to Christianity then served as a Missionary. Apart from her being in a non normative industry what is the actual issue here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbysoluteslave (talk • contribs) 20:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The fact that User:Malstrome and User:Abbysoluteslave have contributed identical remarks to this discussion and that each of them has contributed nothing else save similar or identical attempts to promote the aubject of this article, leads me to suspect sockpuppetry. I have opened a case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Malstrome‎. Rhomb (talk) 16:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you looked at our IP addresses...He is in London and I live in Los Angeles, CA. Now how is that? We know each other from across the pond and discussed this before. How is it that only you are against this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbysoluteslave (talk • contribs) 17:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article subject has received absolutely no non-trivial coverage in any reliable source unrelated to the subject. This appears to be nothing but promo. Wikipedia is not here to provide anyone with free publicity. --NellieBly (talk) 18:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And what on a person page makes it or does not make it a promo? If you delete one page about a specific person, delete them all. She is a featured person in many Newspapers and Televevision stations INCLUDING THE BBC! You have not stated any reason to WHY this is nothing but a promo, but just that you think it is. You can't justify on a feeling.
I have to agree simply mentioning the activities that Mistress Absolute is involved in can in no way be considered a promo. Would you consider stating that she is living in London an endorsement, advertisement or promo for only living in London? this is no different from a recording Artist publishing there Discography! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.194.2.105 (talk) 20:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment. Going by the name of one of the main contributors and the promotional tone, I wonder if there is some WP:COI or paid editing issues here? --Rootless Juice (talk) 05:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the sources listed (or anything else that I can find) seem to satisfy the need for reliable third party sources. 213.105.245.156 (talk) 01:39, 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, Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 05:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with major editing. The extended treatment in the LA Weekly [15] is definitely a start. Add The Guardian's mention [16] and a paywalled hit at The Independent [17], and I think that we have about as much mainstream media coverage as is possible for a dominatrix. Judging from the treatment in those articles and in the domination-focused sites that are cited, she is apparently significant. I agree that the article relies to heavily on poorly-sourced information, and I have concerns that it is at least partially an advertising or fan page at present. Avram (talk) 06:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Based on the comments below, I now agree that this should be deleted. Avram (talk) 20:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete* No evidence that this is a real person, and not a "brand" (hence advertising). A simple whois on the domain alleged to be owned by "her" bears this out. Annette46 (talk) 11:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the LA weekly article is about a real person, I think they would mention if it was a brand. Polarpanda (talk) 11:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The L.A. Weekly is an advertising broadsheet. The article itself is a shameless plug for Coco-de-mer (sex shop) and Miss Absolute. Annette46 (talk) 11:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2d !vote by this editor. To avoid the appearance of !votestacking, '''Comment''' is recommended.

Delete as spam. Also recommend Salt based on apparent sockpuppetry, coi, and recreation. Edward321 (talk) 13:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Joe Chill (talk) 14:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. LA Weekly has not been a reliable source since it stopped serious fact-checking of its articles years ago, and too much of its "coverage" is low-grade promotion for friends or associates of its contributors. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO and is an apparent promotion attempt. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've just reworked the article to remove the obviously unsourced and repetitive content. What is left is fairly verifiable and exhausts (I believe) the known third-party coverage of Mistress Absolute. Now perhaps we can look past the sockpuppetry and spam that marred the article-- what about the present state of this article? Is it worth keeping? Avram (talk) 09:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm still not sure this meets WP:BIO, it certainly is much improved. Thanks for doing this. / edg ☺ ☭ 13:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How substantial was the coverage in The Independent? Polarpanda (talk) 14:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Independent had a fairly short piece (stable paywalled URL) by a reporter about her experience with rubber fetishes, led by Mistress Absolute. The main subject of the article is rubber fetishes, but the only person she discusses is Mistress Absolute. Avram (talk) 02:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the improvement, Avram. However, what we're seeing I think is verification rather than notability. It's significant that we have no information about MA except her first name, beyond the fact that she's well-publicised. That doesn't make her notable in my book. Rhomb (talk) 07:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am leaning towards delete, but I have some sympathy for the sock-puppets' arguments of bias here. I'm having trouble understanding whether the reviews of MA and coverage of her on BDSM sites amount to much; presumably there are people who are leading figures in the not-small world of BDSM, but I don't know what to take seriously in the 90% hype world of sites discussing people like MA. We certainly don't expect to see extended discussion and reviews of dominatrixes in the main-stream media. Perhaps there are lessons to be learned from the criteria used for establishing notability of pornographic actors/actresses? Avram (talk) 07:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many niche interests have this problem—see CyanogenMod for an example—and I would not attribute it to bias and discrimination (as charged in multiple comments above). However, when there appears to be a fan following among Wikipedia editors, the inability of such highly motivated editors to meet WP:GNG when pressed is itself an indicator of WP:Notability problems. There exists sufficient interest in BDSM that independent, reliable, secondary sources will exist for notable personalities.
An interested editor such as Malstrome (talk · contribs) or Abbysoluteslave (talk · contribs) is certainly welcome to temporarily keep this article in userspace if they wish to perserve this work until such a time as notability via WP:BIO can be demonstrated. This was eventually done with CyanogenMod, which is now an article, having received unanimous Keep votes in its AFD after being restored from userspace. / edg ☺ ☭ 13:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. the trimmed article now exposes (sorry!) how non-notable she is. Also fails WP:PORNBIO Annette46 (talk) 18:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3d !vote by this editor. To avoid the appearance of !votestacking, '''Comment''' is recommended.

Comment While I nominated this article, I am now neutral on retaining it. Wikipedia may not need an entry on Mistress Absolute, but with the ad drivel purged, this article no longer agonizes me to the degree where deletion seems imperative. I would suggest one of Absolute's fans on WP take the opportunity to userfy this article upon deletion. / edg ☺ ☭ 23:31, 23 December 2009 (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 Anti-Flag. There is certainly a consensus here that the content is unsuitable for a full standalone article. That said, no particular argument has been made as to why the content requires outright deletion: Glenfarclas's point is a valid one and I have left the history intact in case there's any salvageable, sourceable information for merging purposes ~ mazca ^talk 00:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eastpak Antidote Tour[edit]

Eastpak Antidote Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non notable concert tour that fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. Although a number of references are presented, the majority use [www.setlist.fm], which is itself a wiki and so fails WP:RS. The remaining references serve only to list the tour dates. They are not reviews of any of the gigs and do not establish any notability. They certainly do not meet the requirement of GNG of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Nouse4aname (talk) 10:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the related tour for the same reasons.

The Economy Sucks, Let's Party! Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete Both clearly fail all guidelines cited. These sorts of "articles" cheapen WP... Doc9871 (talk) 10:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just like blogs, wikis aren't necessarily unreliable sources. Wikis can be closed to only a number of selected editors in which case it could very well be reliable. (It's not in this case, but I wanted to make sure this kind of misinformation doesn't spread.) Reliability of a source depends on who writes it and who publishes it. What sort of software is used to do it, is of no importance. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry, not all wikis are bad. But in this instance it is a wiki aimed at 12 year old kids to post to set list of the recent gig they went to (ok, that's cynical), but there are invariably more reliable sources than wikis, and if there aren't then that's an indication of the notability or lack thereof... Nouse4aname (talk) 10:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Source material aside, I'm against keeping these pages (and their ilk) for another simple reason. Does any and every tour from any and every band deserve its own page? Clogging WP with this sort of trivial list-making... It's a principle thing for me... Doc9871 (talk) 11:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Perhaps we need a subsection of WP:MUSIC specifically aimed at tours... perhaps I start a discussion over there... Nouse4aname (talk) 11:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This wiki can be edited by anyone(I have edited it myself), so it is completely unreliable. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but this wiki isn't meant to be used as a primary source. Everything that is presented here should be supported by reliable sources as per WP:V. Nouse4aname (talk) 13:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of significant coverage anywhere. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't you people understand the Setlist.fm wiki sources are just for the setlists. The reason this page exists is for the tour dates and thats what there is, tour dates with links to various sites who confirm those and served as reliable sources for the tour. I spend so much time collecting tour info, tour dates, bands bill on tour, only to get all my tour articles here on WP deleted. Its been done to a Rise Against tour page I made, its been done to two Europe tour pages I made, and now this. I don't see a reason why a band like this can't get its own page for a tour, if a band like My Chemical Romance gets a page, and even if bands like Guns N' Roses and Bon Jovi are million times bigger, its not a reason for their tours to be so notable. There's page for small Iron Maiden tours of like one month, sure the band is big but who said a month long tour is notable? I don't see a reason why all those pages I work hard on and create get this delete nomination, just because such a tour is not notable like an Iron Maiden month long tour, or Deep Purple's first tour page which is like 10 dates... JackShestak (talk) 03:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now, I can't speak for all us "people", but I can tell you that putting your hard work into something that is bound to get deleted seems like an awful waste. I've been on a few Grateful Dead tours, where getting the setlist for every show is like a religion for some people (myself included at the time). Should there be a page for every tour the Dead ever did? The amount of useless information would be staggering. Set lists like the ones you complain about being deleted belong on fan sites, not WP... Doc9871 (talk) 06:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 05:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Anti-Flag. I don't know that this article "cheapen[s]" Wikipedia, but amassing WP:INDISCRIMINATE information certainly dilutes it. At any rate, this particular tour isn't sufficiently notable for a stand-alone article, but if anyone considers a few sentences particularly important they should be worked into the main article, and the redirect should be left as it might conceivably be useful for someone. --Glenfarclas (talk) 07:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merged to Dust#Dust control by nominator, who then withdrew the nom, and there being no other editors recommending Deletion. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dust suppression[edit]

Dust suppression (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Delete No significant content, and no evidence of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See below for my new opinion on this. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or else or Merge with the article Dust. This article is a stub, but could be expanded. This sounds like a significant subject (a Google search reveals dozens of companies in the dust suppression business) and I suspect non-commercial references could be found. --MelanieN (talk) 03:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

Comment I would not object to the suggested merge. However, the article is not worth keeping as an article. The fact that there are dozens of companies in the business does not mean that the subject is worth having an article on. Has anyone written a significant amount about dust suppression? "There are several companies doing this" is not Wikipedia's criterion for inclusion. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copy to Wiktionary then merge & redirect: to Dust#Dust control. Mattg82 (talk) 22:47, 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, Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 05:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Copy to Wiktionary if you like, though I'm not sure the expression is really current enough to justify it. The redirect to Dust#Dust control now seems to me the best thing to do. If nobody objects I shall do that. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I guess your right the reference is over 20 years old. Mattg82 (talk) 16:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We now have (since I changed my mind) 100% agreement for merging with Dust, so I have done this. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 14:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dose of Adolescence[edit]

Dose of Adolescence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Unsigned, non-notable band that does not meet the general notability guideline or WP:MUSIC. It's surprising the article has lasted so long - however the last AfD resulted in zero comments so closed as No Consensus. Re-nominating. I42 (talk) 13:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsigned band that has opened for at least one better-known band. The closest thing to an assertion of notability is saying that they sold out their venue at SxSW, though that's unsourced, possibly misleading (who else was on the bill?), and isn't a WP:BAND criterion anyway. Note that they "followed" the Warped Tour, which doesn't mean they were part of it. — Gwalla | Talk 20:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can not find any significant coverage for this band in reliable sources; appears to fail WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 19:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 05:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 14:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doki Denki Studio[edit]

Doki Denki Studio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Unnotable video game company. Appears to have produced only four games in its short four year history, none of which were particularly large nor notable. Fails WP:CORP and WP:N. Prod removed by vandal/sock during a multi-article spreed; all of vandals edits were reverted so prod ended up being restore, and was then removed by legit user under the note that it still counted as a dispute even if it was a vandal. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Maintains no notability. BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 14:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No notability at present, no English sources available to correct that. French sources don't appear to be helpful either (though I'll admit I can't understand French any more). --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 14:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The games were all released by big well-known publishers and over half of them were based on Disney licensed material. I have trouble believing that the studio creating such games would have no notability whatsoever. I suggest userfying or moving to the article incubator so the creator or someone else can give those French sources a closer look. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since it's a French studio, you should also search for French websites. Here's an interview for example. SharkD Talk 22:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 05:21, 21 December 2009 (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 16:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BeLight Software[edit]

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

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:NOT, WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Multiple articles created by an WP:SPA account(User:RayJazz21) with no other edits other than related to BeLight Software.

Part of a larger spam campaign See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2009_Archive_Dec_1#BeLight_Software_Spam

Clear Use of wikipedia as a vehicle for advertising and promotion for "BeLight Software" and related Products. References given appear to be paid reviews that do not confer notability; and various press releases that do not count as reliable sources.
I am also nominating the following Advertisements masquerading as articles:

Disc Cover (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Get Backup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Live Interior 3D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Art Text (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Image Tricks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Printfolio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Business Card Composer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Swift Publisher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Labels & Addresses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hu12 (talk) 15:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, we are not an advertising vehicle. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Beetstra, you yourself said that the articles are written in a neutral tone without any hints of marketing gimmicks. Take a look at my talk page for more. RayJazz21 (talk) 17:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The words are "though I must say that your articles are not too promotional, it strongly feels like that is part of your aim here.". Still promotional. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. Reviews such as http://www.macworld.com/article/27767/2003/12/macgems.html are editorially independent reviews from MacWorld, a reliable source. The fact that an article is about a company or a commercial product does not make it an advertisement. If MacWorld thinks that an application is sufficiently important to review, then it is notable. -- Eastmain (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is for 4 out of 10 .. some are unreferenced, or only to their own page. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is notability not inherited, to the other spam articles, but Paying $3000-$6000 (and up) (costs of exhibiting at Macworld) for a booth at Macworld Expos;
" The floor of Macworld isn’t only teeming with attendees – it’s also infested by that lovable creature known as the “Mac journalist”...you’re much more likely to get coverage if journalists actually see you and your products, and Macworld is a great place for this.. "

May be good Marketing, but paying for reviews, does not make for notability[18][19].--Hu12 (talk) 16:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Other sources are also reliable and independent. Yes, many link to BeLight's site, but do you think that MacWorld or others would allow BeLight to keep false reviews up? That would pose a problem for them and they would surely ask BeLight to remove them. BeLight does not pay for reviews, and actually, BeLight is not paying for a booth at MacWorld this year. And even if it were, what does participation in this huge event have anything to do with "buying" reviews? Apple itself takes part in this event. Perhaps you should show some sort of evidence that BeLight paid for reviews before you slander two companies that are well-known in the Mac world. If you have a problem with the reviews, then delete them, but don't start a firefight to delete the entire pages. RayJazz21 (talk) 17:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting for support of slanderous claims that BeLight Software pays for its reviews and that participation at the MacWorld expo (biggest Mac conference) is in some way "paying" for reviews. Thanks. RayJazz21 (talk) 09:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the documents linked? As I see it, you have to pay for participation there. So there is a difference between a journal writing a review just because they want to review, or being on such a conference and being reviewed there. And yes, Apple has a booth there as well, but the article about Apple software is not solely based on Macworld reviews, is it? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, since when does taking part and paying for a booth at the most popular Mac expo where journalists are abundant qualify as paying for reviews? You pay to participate in the expo, and, if journalists find your product interesting and worth reviewing, they may write about you. Yes, I did read the article and found the following quote very interesting: "The floor of Macworld isn’t only teeming with attendees – it’s also infested by that lovable creature known as the “Mac journalist”. Just like attendees, journalists are scanning the floor to find new and newsworthy items. Mac journalists like David Pogue (seen at right) are great, but even they can’t cover products of which they’re not aware." Of course you pay for exposure, but you do not in any way pay for these people to write about you. That is a ridiculous and false claim that you cannot support. And BeLight Software articles also are not based solely on MacWorld articles. RayJazz21 (talk) 09:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, if there were so many journalists who could write about it, where are all the other reviews then? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do take a look for yourself at www.belightsoft.com at the review pages of each product. Business Card Composer, for example, has over 40 independent reviews and awards from reliable sources. Swift Publisher has over 20. They contain links to the original reviews on the site of the original source, where still available. Don't forget, the company has been around since 2003. RayJazz21 (talk) 10:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So why do I have to go to belightsoft.com for that. Why did you not use those references in the first place to write this article? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That may seem like an advertisement :) Reviews are full of language that, if by the developer, could sound like marketing language. Now we are getting somewhere: how to make the articles better. RayJazz21 (talk) 10:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually not. The only way to make them better is to have more references, and you say they are not suitable. If that is the case, then the articles don't assert notability enough, and should be deleted. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I seem to have missed the part about them not being suitable. I could easily use them as sources for things like features, etc. RayJazz21 (talk) 10:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. If the editors wanting to delete an article are not involved in the world of Macintosh, they shouldn't assume that the article is not important enough to keep on Wikipedia. People do, after all, visit the pages.RayJazz21 (talk) 17:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 16:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 16:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, or merge into one article. --Colfer2 (talk) 16:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a large nomination with those subarticles and I give it large attention. I find that some of the software articles have a single sources showing notability, our requirements are for multiple sources of notability. A merge to one article might make sense, but that seems like a forced compromise in order to preserve content. The company has zero notability shown for itself. The obvious merge target for the company would be deleted. A merged products article might be ok but since this is a spam attempt I will favor towards deletion. Miami33139 (talk) 17:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With the exception of Get Backup and Printfolio, all articles have more than one reference. Instead of opting to delete everything, let's figure out what makes the articles "spam" or advertisements and work from there. Seems a bit more rational. RayJazz21 (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We require significant coverage by third party sources. Short reviews don't do that. Miami33139 (talk) 18:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you decide this? MacWorld, MacUser, and other worldwide magazines... Not a reliable source? Well, delete 99% of the software articles on Wikipedia... RayJazz21 (talk) 18:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More than the source matters. Depth of coverage is part of judging notability. It is correct that most of the software articles on Wikipedia don't belong. Miami33139 (talk) 18:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And do you decide what is considered good coverage? According to Wikipedia's notability guidelines, ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." A software review is plenty more than a "trivial mention," and the sources (MacWorld, MacUser, TopTenReviews, and others) are independent and have "editorial integrity," which is covered in point two of the notability guidelines. Don't assume that a source isn't reliable just because you don't know them by name. Don't forget that Mac users make up roughly 10% of computer users, and if you don't use a Mac, of course you won't recognize names like MacWorld and MacUser. But that doesn't make them unreliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RayJazz21 (talk • contribs) 09:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews are also examples of routine coverage that I am not impressed by. All consumer products get reviewed so I do not consider most reviews as evidence of notability. A feature length review has more to judge, and that is not something most of these have - and we would want multiples of them. Miami33139 (talk) 16:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You make a very good point here. You do not feel that this is evidence of notability, but you are only one of many Wikipedia users. And the reviews that have been placed as resources are feature length reviews. RayJazz21 (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that if we covered every product reviewed by MacWorld we would be inundated with worthless articles. There are more requirements than just being mentioned for a few paragraphs in a review. I do not think that these reviews were "bought" but nevertheless do not imply notability. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 16:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. The articles in question do not contain marketing gimmicks. They include information about the version history and other aspects of the products. If there are any questions about the reviews in question, then why not just remove those portions, if they seem like advertisement? Naming the articles advertisements and deleting them entirely is going overboard. Point out what exactly makes them advertisements and let's discuss how we can make the articles better and more neutral. On the topic of adding external links, the links that were added to Wikipedia were plausible and written for BeLight users. The article about paper size does not directly correlate to any product that BeLight sells. The article was written for users to have a good reference when preparing their own documents in our programs. Having links on Wikipedia wouldn't do much for BeLight since the Macintosh community includes about 10% of computer users, Wikipedia doesn't allow links to assist in SEO, and because BeLight did not in any way promote any of its products. The LightScribe and Labelflash article was posted together by MacMan77 with a link to an earlier review from Tom's Hardware. Why should the type of website matter when it comes to giving information to people? Who else is going to write an in-depth article about paper size formats? Only those who have some need for this, like users who might find the information useful, and if the information can also add more to the world of Wikipedia, then let it be. RayJazz21 (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)— RayJazz21 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Your contributions to wikipedia under RayJazz21, consist entirely of creating Advertisements masquerading as articles for belightsoft.com. Looking through your contributions as a whole, the all seem to be belightsoft.com related only. It appears that your account is only being used to promote BeLight Software. Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising".--Hu12 (talk) 04:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard this already. That is why we are here to discuss it. The Wikipedia deletion policy states that "advertising or other spam without relevant content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject)" is game for deletion. There is relevant content. There are links to these pages all over Wikipedia. If you look at DiscT@2 or LightScribe, for example, you will find that Disc Cover was the first Mac OS X application to support these two technologies, etc. So according to the deletion policy, these articles should stay. However, the second point of the deletion policy encourages editors to find compromises, ways to make articles useful for WIkipedia users without resorting to deleting them. I suggest we find what needs to be changed to make the articles less like "advertisements masquerading as articles," though these articles are very neutral and are up only as a point of reference. Are we discussing this issue, or are we taking a side, making false claims (MacWorld participation "paying" for reviews), and refusing to listen to others and consider the options? RayJazz21 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Keep content. Disagree with the bold assertation that "The company has zero notability shown for itself". My version of Google returns about 900,000 hits for ("BeLight" Mac). Miami33139 et al. are pushing for a very strict interpretation of "significant coverage" (see Wikipedia:Notability (software)‎) for which I simply dont think there is broad consensus. Power.corrupts (talk) 21:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having Google hits only indicates Search engine optimization or search engine marketing (SEM) which means paid inclusion, not notability. Software applications are products, and fall under the guideline WP:CORP, not the essay you cite. Notable needs to be established and subject of significant coverage in secondary sources.--Hu12 (talk) 03:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence of the essay you cite is as follows: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." The subject (BeLight Software) has been covered plenty of times in independent, secondary sources. Your lack of knowledge about MacWorld and others (more than likely a result of using a different platform) does not make sources less reliable. RayJazz21 (talk) 09:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence here of any significant coverage by reliable 3rd party sources. --Hu12 (talk) 11:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MacWorld, MacUser, TopTenReviews, MacFormat, and many others. Read about the trusted sources in the Mac community before making unwarranted assumptions. RayJazz21 (talk) 12:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all {{nothanks}}. One big article without significant in depth independent coverage is no better than ten little ones. I also added {{findsources}} to the rest of the nominees; several of them are not particularly useful, of course, but it saves people a little typing. - 2/0 (cont.) 01:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MacWorld is the largest Mac magazine in circulation and is circulated in over seven languages. Apple has taken part in the MacWorld expo every year to this date. Until last year, the CEO of Apple, Steve Jobs, announced many of its star products at the famous Apple MacWorld Keynote presentations. In-depth software reviews from reliable, independent sources qualifies as significant in-depth independent coverage. The fact that you don't know the sources means absolutely nothing besides the fact that you may not be an expert of the matter. RayJazz21 (talk) 09:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Macworld Expo is nothing more than a venue generated press release, "In the BeLight Software booth at Macworld Expo, Irina Stepanovska, Vice President of Marketing, talks about their latest release, Labels and Addresses, the easy way to print all types of labels and envelopes...."--Hu12 (talk) 11:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is your point? MacWorld is still a credible source. If you don't know about it, perhaps you should consider reading a bit about it before making unwarranted conclusions. Too bad no other Mac users in this discussion, people who know which sources are credible in the Mac world. RayJazz21 (talk) 12:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, RayJazz21, for taking the time to reply to my comment. I did, however, see your point when it was posted earlier in this discussion. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Lines like "products have been applauded in the Mac community...[citation needed]" confirm the comments above: the articles are part of a marketing campaign, and the only references are other targets of that marketing campaign. Johnuniq (talk) 09:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please note that this "marketing language" was not added by a BeLight employee, but by User:Max Naylor, who first started the page. 195.114.134.148 (talk) 14:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then such parts of the articles should be edited to make it more neutral, but this is hardly reason to delete them entirely. RayJazz21 (talk) 09:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged most/all for notability in June. You, nor anyone else was able to do anything about it .. It's thin, RayJazz21, there is not a lot. Please come with more independent reviews. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There were no problems with notability in June. The reviews are more than a quick mention and from notable independent sources. As Power.corrupts points out, you're asking the community to very, very strictly interpret the notability guidelines. RayJazz21 (talk) 10:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's seem more than reviews. Let's see critical commentary and analysis that shows us why this software and this company are more important than others in its class. If it is not more important than others in its class then it is just plain run-of-the-mill and ordinary. Miami33139 (talk) 19:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete BeLight Software, weak delete the rest. The company's article is an easy case: it's basically just a list of products, and that runs afoul of WP:NOTDIR. The other articles, I'm torn on. Yes, there are reviews on MacUser, etc., but the reviews are not as glowing as the text makes them out to be. I think Miami's got a point right above me: more critical commentary and analysis would make it easier to see that the programs are notable and should be kept. —C.Fred (talk) 22:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Sources are not significant; this is an advertisement campaign. Haakon (talk) 16:50, 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, Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 05:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as SPAM. The main article is supposed to be an article about the company, not just a list of software they sell. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 20:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all and renominate any without actual reviews in third party publication. 3rd party reviews in major trade publications have always been accepted as RSs for notability of any product. It's the most possible substantial and significant coverage. (I'm talking about reviews, not listings, and that has to be judged from the review. One sentence in a group review would not make for notability). It does not matter how glowing the reviews are -- products worth being actually covered and given a poor review are almost always particularly notable, or the magazines wouldn't bother. There has never been any indication that the magazines discussed above take pay for reviews-- they take pay for advertisements, and very few of the products advertised there ever get reviews, just as very few of the products on the floor of a trade exhibition do. All articles about products of any sort can serve to some degree a promotional purpose, and the same is true for all articles about authors and bands and sport teams. There are probably some in the list above which indeed are non-notable, but they need to be sorted out individually. The proper course for an article which is just a list of notable products with reviews as sources is to expand it from the reviews. DGG ( talk ) 01:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep all per DGG and renominate individually as necessary. It's improper to list a large number of articles on different products like this, even when they are made by the same company, especially when some have sources. How do you expect the closing admin to make decision based on the above spaghetti? Each product article should be discussed on its own notability. Besides, merging the less notable ones, e.g Business Card Composer (which only have short mentions in some columns etc.) in a company page per WP:PRODUCT can be done without an AfD. Pcap ping 10:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC) (see below for !vote on each article).[reply]

The above keep comments would be more convincing if just one example showing notability of just one of the articles could be found (bearing in mind the earlier "Macworld Expo is nothing more than a venue generated press release"). Johnuniq (talk) 23:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Macworld Expo != Macworld, the magazine or site. Please go add from some WP:RS to Macworld: "this is magazine publishes bogus reviews submitted/bought by the manufacturers". Trust me, I know something about disguised adds. In Romania companies buy news on TV, in which they get portrayed favorably. Politicians used to do that too, and from the state's budget--until joining the EU made it illegal. I have reliable sources to prove that (EU Commision reports). Do you have something like that to show that Macworld sell its reviews as disguised adds? Pcap ping 02:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So:
Art Text, keep. has Macworld review linked in the article.

Get Backup, weak keep. Has mymac.com review.

Disc Cover, keep. Has MacUser review and MacWorld reviews linked in the article.

Live Interior 3D, keep. Has MacUser review linked in the article.

Image Tricks, keep. MacUser review.

Printfolio, weak keep. MacFormat print review, republished on techradar.com

Business Card Composer, weak keep, MacUser review

Labels & Addresses, keep, has MacWorld and MacFormat print review (republished on techradar.com) linked in the article, also covered in seattletimes

Swift Publisher, weak keep, MacFormat print review republished on their site. No reason to assume it's bogus given that all other reviews indicated on their site, except this, were easy for me to find online outside their site. Also, it's a 3-way comparison between similar products.

That should be all of the products. Delete the company BeLight Software: no in-depth sources about the company have surfaced; it's possible that some exist in Russian/Ukrainian, but I can't find them; the current company article says very little about the company anyway, so not much is lost. Over the years, it's products however have resulted in about 185 google news archive hits. Pcap ping 03:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MacUser has over 3,000 reviews. Is each reviewed product automatically notable and deserving of an article? The answer is no, although I believe there is no guidance other than WP:GNG for when software is considered notable. Most Mac publications will get around to reviewing just about anything related to a Mac, so I would want something more to satisfy WP:GNG. Johnuniq (talk) 07:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The answer is yes per WP:GNG and WP:NOTPAPER. Besides, that's an order of magnitude fewer articles than the communes of France (30K of them), most of which have far less informative articles here than any piece of hardware/software. (Here is a France commune at random). So, I suggest you start elsewhere with your efforts to "improve" this Encyclopedia by removing content covered in WP:SECONDARY sources. Pcap ping 15:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does the spam issue concern you? Are there conflicting opinions on the right spam policy in principal, and if so, how does this example line up? --Colfer2 (talk) 00:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're not making any sense. Can you rephrase that? Pcap ping 02:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have two questions about your original post, now struck-through. 1. If there is spam campaign, should that affect the decision to delete a page, or should it be based solely on other criteria, such a Reliable Sources? 2. If there is spam campaign, should an AfD be posted for each article, or one AfD for the whole group, as was done here? --Colfer2 (talk) 05:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re (1): I'm not really familiar with spam campaigns, but WP:NOTADVERTISING speaks of the nature of the articles (promotional or not), and WP:Notability (organizations and companies)#Special_note: advertising and promotion suggests some steps to follow. WP:ARTSPAM, unfortunately, isn't really illuminating as to what constitutes "advertisement masquerading as an article". Of course, as HereToHelp pointed out below referring to dynamic tension, Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are only paraconsistent, meaning there are contradictory statements in/between them, which need to be solved on a case by case basis, by WP:CONSENSUS. Which is what we're doing here. Hopefully, given the amount of discussion here, this AfD will set precedent for future articles of this kind. I'm am curious how it turns out. As for (2), if the articles are based on similar sources that apparently don't confer notability, as it was the case here, and there is good reason to believe the articles are created as part of a promotional, it seems okay to have a mass AfD. Pcap ping 11:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The spam campaign isn't totally clear in this case, because the article on the company was written over two years ago by a different and non-WP:SPA editor [20]. Pcap ping 11:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete BeLight Software, Get Backup, Disc Cover, Business Card Composer, Swift Publisher, Image Tricks and Printfolio, then renominate the rest. All of them are either weakly sourced or totally unsourced.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexius08 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 23 December 2009

Keep all per DGG. We're not here to judge why something is notable, but only if it is or not. If the articles have a promotional tone, this is something that can be solved with editing, and therefore has nothing to do with deletion, per deletion policy. Several sources appear above for the softwares, and as such the articles have no reason to be deleted. --Cyclopia ^talk 12:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The time it takes to research, write, and maintain an acceptable article is a very scarce resource that could be redirected to more mainstream, visible, helpful articles - if it can be found at all. If these articles are going to languish as they currently are, they aren't worth keeping, even if they could theoretically be improved. I think users defending these articles should select one and focus on it, bringing it up to an acceptable quality standard, as a demonstration that such a standard can - and more importantly will - be achieved.HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 16:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I already did what you asked, sometimes (see this AfD for example). Anyway, I understand your reasoning, but it is, I must stress, absolutely against deletion policy. Furthermore, there is no deadline: it maybe won't be improved today, tomorrow or in the following 5 years, but it could be, and as such, if there are no strong reasons for which the article is otherwise problematic for WP, we can leave it here. You cannot read in the crystal ball that it won't happen, therefore, let's give it a chance. --Cyclopia ^talk 17:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...which is in dynamic tension with not hoping the house will build itself. It's a matter of how much construction is actually going on, and what will be built when it is done. And that's really the most important thing: it looks an awful lot like spam.HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 20:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it looks like spam, it can be fixed by editing, not by deletion. That's what the deletion policy requires, and also remember the editing policy, which explicitly says, among other thing, Do not remove information just because it is poorly presented.. --Cyclopia ^talk 21:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not because it is poorly presented; in fact it is well presented, with sections, infoboxes, and images. The problem is the material itself, and the lack of third-party sources is unacceptable.HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 21:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 16:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, obvious spam. bogdan (talk) 18:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, this is an ad campaign. - MrOllie (talk) 19:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per the nom and specifically per the arguments put forth by HereToHelp. JBsupreme (talk) 20:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 20:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, per my discussion with Cyclopia above.HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 20:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as Wikipedia is not a business directory or a link farm. Without significant coverage from reliable secondary sources, there is no reason for standalone articles for either the company or its products at this time. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 14:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Toxicdeath[edit]

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

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

This band does not meet the criteria for musicians and ensembles. Canniba loki 16:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: Signed with label, but only found report of recording a single album. There is no indication whether the label is the sort that is required by WP:MUSIC. No awards. My Bosnian is non-existent, so if someone can find reliable sources in that language, I could be convinced to keep, but right now it doesn't meet the inclusion criteria. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 05:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The "WalkRecords" label they're supposedly on isn't notable enough that we have an article on it yet, so probably not going to satisfy that prong of WP:BAND. Like Joe Chill, I can't find any significant coverage. --Glenfarclas (talk) 08:06, 21 December 2009 (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) 14:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

La Reyna[edit]

La Reyna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. Unreleased future album with no reliable sources to confirm album or any release date Wolfer68 (talk) 17:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 18:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. There are online mentions of such an album to be released, but I can not find any information regarding a track listing or release date. With a lack of in-depth verifiable information from reliable sources, this does not appear to meet WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 18:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 21:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, The sources do say that this album WILL be relased but it's in Spanish if you can't read it then dont bother! I agree about the tracklistings why wont you just delete that instead of the article??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.251.55.238 (talk) 16:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there are sources on such an album, but there is no known release date or tracklist, then at the very least the page should be redirected to Selena until verifiable information exists. --Wolfer68 (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok here this again slowly THERE IS SOURCES ABOUT THREE (3) SOURCES IN SPANISH THAT SAY THERE WILL BE A RELEASE FOR THIS ALBUM. THE SOURCES DO NOT SAY THAT THERE ARE TRACKLIST WHAT I AM trying to say is that take the tracklist off but the page should stay intack becuase there is three (3) sources that confirmed this already. Thank YOU. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.251.55.238 (talk) 16:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Selena. I can understand Spanish; the sources clearly confirm that it exists, but a release date is not given. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:02, 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, Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 05:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Regardless of the language, of the three references in the article, only the first even links to what might be considered a reliable source (it's a blog, but it does attribute the information to El Mundo out of Bolivia, which looks legit, though I can't tell how major/mainstream it is). The second reference is a forum, and the third is a blog. Gsearch brings up [www.prefixmag.com/reviews/selena/la-reyna/34688/ this] from Prefixmag.com, which in its terms of services states: "Prefixmag.com does not endorse and has no control over the Content. Content is not necessarily reviewed by Prefixmag.com prior to posting and does not necessarily reflect the opinions or policies of Prefixmag.com. Prefixmag.com makes no warranties, express or implied, as to the Content or to the accuracy and reliability of the Content or any material or information that you transmit to other Members," so I'm going to go with no on reliable source there. abshaper.net has a little blurb about an upcoming album called "La Reyna" by Selena (for some reason), which provides almost no information, attributed to no one, which I'm also going give a fail as a reliable source. The rest of what I saw in 6-odd pages of search results were myspace, lastfm, &c., and Selena's name and the phrase "la Reyna" tied together completely out of context of any album ("Un pequeño Demo en Homenaje a la Reyna del Tex-Mex Selena" &c.). Reliable sources (with the possible exception of the original El Mundo article simply aren't there. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 21:52, 21 December 2009 (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. There are two trains of thought here: 1) the references are not enough to satisfy notability, 2) that the few references by USA Today, etc. are indications that it is notable. In this AfD, there does not seem to be a clear consensus as to which is the better option, so I'm closing this as NC. (X! · talk) · @728 · 16:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mattias Nilsson (Mercenaries)[edit]

Mattias Nilsson (Mercenaries) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Combination of original research, plot summary and gameguide trivia. No assertion of real-world development or real-world treatment --EEMIV (talk) 17:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Trivial fancruft/clutter at best. It's a very brief video game character that can be described in the Mercenaries game articles. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge into a new article, Mercenaries (series) along with the other two protagonists, Jennifer Mui and Chris Jacobs. Incidentally, article is more in need of cleanup than deletion. Nomination mentions issues with the article's content rather than its notability. Leaning towards a merge, as the nominator is probably correct in that the three protagonists can't stand out on their own, but may fit well into a series article. I'd also be willing to Userfy this article to me for the proposed merge. --Teancum (talk) 12:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, my deletion rationale critiques style (and failing WP:WAF isn't grounds for deletion) rather than my real gripe when I nominated articles for deletion, including this one: failure to assert and substantiate a notability claim. I must have just skipped a sentence or something. --EEMIV (talk) 03:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although there are some unreliable references in there, like the official bio and IMDB, the fact there are several sources left, suggest they meet WP:GNG. Also, it's not some random character it's a main playable character, one of only three in the game. -- Mgm|^(talk) 13:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a closer look at the third-party sources in the article. Setting aside IMDb and the publisher's own page, both the Giant Bomb site and the first IGN link are in-universe summaries that merely regurgitate plot; they are sources of gameguide trivia. Neither the character's first nor last name appear in either of the two reviews. Somehow I overlooked making this assertion in my AfD rationale, so I'll make it here: the article fails to assert, let alone substantiate, a claim of real-world notability. --EEMIV (talk) 03:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think this article has enough sources to support itself. The character's personality, skills, appearence and biography are all references in the sources. --WölffReik (talk) 14:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but none of them are out-of-universe, reliable third-party sources with a significant focus on the character, and that is the primary concern. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 07:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin, please take a gander at the above editor's edit contributions and the anonymous IPs on this page. This editor appears also to edit anonymously under 90.208.53.16, 90.202.94.11, and 90.202.94.99. I doubt any of these !votes' perspectives will influence the delete and/or redirect outcome of this AfD, but just want to note the apparent attempt at vote-stacking. (Overlapping interest in fictional green berets/soldiers and martial artists, plus quick contributions to AfDs and category editing, across the four accounts leads me to this conclusion.) I've admonished the account-holder on its talk page re. subverting AfD process. --EEMIV (talk) 22:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree that his page has enough references to support its content. I also believe that the other Mercs characters also have enough sources. -- 22:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.53.16 (talk) — 90.208.53.16 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep in mind that the other characters are irrelevant to this discussion, because their articles have no bearing whatsoever on this article. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 07:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not actually best to label this IP an SPA; it's almost certainly also 90.202.94.11 and 90.202.94.99, and has made a decent chunk of edits -- although, I think somewhere there's a whole separate set of language or suggestions about IP editors' contributions at AfD. --EEMIV (talk) 03:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A character's in-universe biography does not establish their notability, nor does a review on the game they are characters in. Ultimately, the subject has not received significant media coverage from reliable third-party sources, and so does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 07:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I really don't see anything wrong with this article, or any of the other Mercs' characters. It seems to be in more need of a clean-up than a deletion or re-direct. -- 90.202.94.11 (talk) 17:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Besides discounting IP !votes in general at AfD, note that this editor's contributions history and the contrib. history for the IP above make these editors almost certainly the same person. --EEMIV (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 05:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: After a thorough search through Google News and Google Books, I found only one quick bit in Wired that could be used for reception, and it's a small sentence at best. By himself, this character (and subsequently the other two related characters) don't stand apart from the game enough to warrant separate articles.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mercenaries (series). Edward321 (talk) 12:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - should be briefly summarized in the articles of the two games. Insufficient notability beyond the games. Marasmusine (talk) 15:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article itself and a search for sources produces nothing which demonstrates notability through multiple non-trivial sources which are reliable. Most of what's there is just plot summary, and while I'd support any character having an article should sources warrant it I think this is a case where there was no sourcing for a separate article. Someone another 21:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although the additional cites and info are a step in the right direction, they don't come close to necessitating an article (even a group article for the three main characters, or a series article). The repetition of the games' plots still makes up the bulk of the article (and it is repetition, have a look at the other character articles, the same descriptions are repeated each time). Sorry, IMO the unsuitability of these characters for an article of any sort is only further demonstrated by the lack of out-of-universe information available. Someone another 21:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into a character list, even though there are only 3 playable characters. In any case, the one way of handling that is inappropriate is a delete, because a redirect would always be appropriate, since they are mentioned in the main article. Will those saying delete for this please also say why a redirect would be improper? Unless they can, there is no reason for delete. DGG ( talk ) 01:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing stopping anybody from creating a redirect aftwerwards, if one is wanted. If I was of the opinion that there was anything here to save then I'd have said redirect. I don't, hence didn't. Someone another 09:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To elaborate: the article is just repetition of the games' plots, in a separate wrapper, with a fair use image. It looks nice, obviously took time to put together, and it's a shame that it ends up here, but that doesn't change what it is or create uses for it. Someone another 10:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The dab text makes me doubt anyone will accidentally stumble into it. Mattias Nilsson certainly can get a hat tag pointing toward the game article. --EEMIV (talk) 14:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy back to original author. These obviously took some time and were written with care, so it may be the best option. The article can incubate until it can be retooled and better sources found. --Teancum (talk) 10:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - regurgitation of primary source material from the game; grievously fails to provide evidence of notability in real world. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google news for his name plus the game's title [21] shows promising results. USA Today calls him gaming's Rambo.[22] Dream Focus 20:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

USA today mentions him and draws a Rambo image for the game in the lede...and then promptly doesn't mention him today. It is a passing and insignificant reference, and a mis-characterization (or a misunderstanding) to suggest this is somehow significant coverage. The GHits are all reviews of the game (save one list of neat characters), reinforcing the point that this character lacks significant coverage separate -- and notability -- from the game itself. --EEMIV (talk) 15:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It calls the character an action star comparable to Rambo and please notice that we have a separate article about the character John Rambo. This level of coverage is adequate to eliminate deletion as a sensible way forward. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It draws a very narrow comparison to Rambo: "the two action stars thrive in insanity and create chaos." It sets up the focus for the article. There's no suggestion anywhere that this swede is anywhere near as important as Rambo. I'm sure Rambo would agree with me. --EEMIV (talk) 16:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage in USA Today seems quite ample to establish notability. Such games are as big or bigger than movies nowadays so this character is like a movie star and so satisfies WP:ENTERTAINER. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've missed it entirely; they're the new "gods" of a new notable religion. Jack Merridew 06:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's Jediism - a different franchise. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as NN/OR/GAMECRUFT/TRIVIA. Jack Merridew 06:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The lie that coverage of such ludicrous topics does no harm is oft repeated; a canard. Jack Merridew 06:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What lie? What harm? Please see WP:HONEST. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whenever I see ONLY Googlehits thrown at me, I can't help but feel wary. The notion that a review WOULDN'T mention a main character is absurd. Though arguing that a fictional character qualifies as a movie star, a real-life movie star, because "such games are as big or bigger than movies nowadays". How would that make fictional people equal to real people? Why wouldn't it necessitate notability for their voice actors, rather than the person they're voicing? Probationary keep. Development section shows promise, but without a good reception section, I can't in good faith say that the article is up to snuff. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 11:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep well referenced, and too big to merge into the parent article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well referenced? Two entire sections are uncited, and the actual CONTENTS of the article only has two references. If you want to make a list, make one, but until we see some actual notability, having a single paragraph out of four being well-referenced is not enough, and is a bother to see articles survive based on plot when other editors spend a day or more scouring the Intenret to find any out-of-universe information. I may think that WP:FICT is a bit too strict, but not to the point that I can say that an article should survive despite having no out-of-universe information. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:05, 26 December 2009 (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. Closed as G12 (X! · talk) · @724 · 16:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BioBlu 27[edit]

BioBlu 27 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This article is essentially an advertisement for this manufacturer's cobalt alloy product. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If the reliable sources cited as references consider the alloy worth writing about, then it is notable. If there are style issues, they can be fixed without deleting the article. – Eastmain (talk) 19:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know that the sources can be called reliable. The first source is a white paper on melting technology published by the BioBlu's manufacturer, Carpenter Technology Corporation. The second sources is inaccessible without a password, but given the url (http://cartech.ides.com), one can assume that this source is also controlled by Carpenter Technology. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The reliable sources were listed under "Citations" rather than "References". I have now fixed that. The publications Jewelers' Circular Keystone (JCK), National Jeweler and Bridal Guide are clearly reliable sources. – Eastmain (talk) 20:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak delete. Mostly because GScholar [23] and Gbooks [24] come back empty. The alloy is mentioned in the Scott Kay, Inc. article however, and certainly makes an assertation of notability, genuine (at face value) claims to be some sort of unique new and patented alloy, even stripping away the obvious COI there. The nature of this article is gross spammy, ought to be fixed, but there could well be material for a Wikipedia article, we just need a few 3rd party refs supporting that this alloy has the postulated properties and the postulated usage. Power.corrupts (talk) 21:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete spam. average industrial chemical. nn.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 05:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's mostly a copyright violation. Some of the last part may not be, but the entire first half is copied from a fact sheet. I blanked most of it, marked it copy-vio and will ask it be deleted. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 22:53, 26 December 2009 (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. (X! · talk) · @232 · 04:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carbusters[edit]

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

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

I can't find significant coverage for this magazine. Joe Chill (talk) 05:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All coverage I found related to the magazine was either trivial or self-published. Jujutacular ^T · C 01:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 01:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent coverage. --Vejvančický (talk) 08:56, 22 December 2009 (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. Is this a real genre? Is the genre used sufficiently by reliable sources to demonstrate its existence as a separate one? Is there enough coverage for it to be notable? There is no consensus on any of these three vital questions here, with blanket statements for and against each being made. Neither side seems to have a monopoly on persuasive arguments: there is no consensus to delete here either by vote-counting or by strength of argument. ~ mazca ^talk 00:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Post-disco[edit]

Post-disco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Plenty of sources, but "post disco" existing as a distinct concept appears to be synthesis of a bunch of sources that use the phrase in passing to simply denote that whatever they were talking about occurred after the rise in popularity of disco. Gigs (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of sources [25] in various music magazines and we could have post-disco for the same reasons as we have Post-punk etc. Independent mention, that is, not WP:SYNTH. Power.corrupts (talk) 20:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the way those sources mention the phrase. "Post-disco R&B", "Post-disco funk", etc. It is almost always a modifier, not a concept of its own. Gigs (talk) 21:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"It is almost always a modifier, not a concept of its own." ~ WP:POV. Also the "real" genres like disco/rock/pop/ can be modifier (or it can be a fusion genre) = disco-funk pop, country-rock jazz, blues-rock, post-punk jazz, electropop metal, indie-rock country, etc. This is not an real argument. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 18:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion discussions are not required to adhere to neutral point of view. The goal of them is to express points of view. Gigs (talk) 22:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
^{[citation needed]}. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 14:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPOV only applies to encyclopedic content. Not talk pages, and definitely not AfD discussions. Gigs (talk) 21:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
thats_the_joke.jpg, show me where's on the wikipedia is the rule that is saying "articles - NPOV, AfD - POV". Also you're wrong, there are some rules about AfD. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 12:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to solicit a third opinion on the matter if you'd like. Gigs (talk) 13:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, seriously, I've think about it "long time" and found out that we should don't remove this article, we should create a boogie (genre) article (already done) and in post-disco article we should mention that is an era that influenced mostly 80s genres like hi-nrg, Italo, hip-hop, boogie, house, techno, etc. My opinion is that post-disco is an important era in the music history. Change it, not remove. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 14:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 20:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Power.corrupts. Post-disco IS a real genre (it's the same like post-punk, post-rock, post-country, post-post.. etc .. and meaning is all the same = after the punk, after the rock, etc), it's NOT only an era. We can also speculate that Disco is not a kind of music, because RollingStone defined it per the word "discotheque" [26] -> disco is all type of music that is playing on discotheques. ~~So much WP:SYNTHESIS gonna get ya on Disco article, I recommend to nominee a Disco article~~. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 18:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC). By the way, *cough* Google test: 76,900 raw results. Last.fm have tag with post-disco (there are same artists that are in the post-disco article). It's just a proof that something that is called as "post-disco" is real. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 15:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC). This is the problem that is needed to be fixed. We should run a positive campaign, we should avoiding any personal attacks and we should be more cooperative. We change post-disco article from the ground. People has spoken, that article is full of OR synthesis and other crap, we should clean that dump. Don't be shy. We have nothing to fear but fear itself. Let's make a final decision! RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 18:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A number of search results in Google is not an argument for the existence of this article here. So isn't the Last.fm directory. -- Appletangerine un (talk) 11:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Read the last sentence. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 14:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also by the way, I found this http://www.sonicclash.com/michael-jackson/thriller/ (not a blog): "Not many artists could pull off such a variety of styles (funk, post-disco, rock, easy listening, ballads)" - this is a mention (about "post-disco is a genre") that Appletangerine un always wanted. Seems like repeating "Post disco is a genre" will have some result here. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 18:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article's main source, AllMusic, seems to just be using "Post-Disco" to fill a gap in its hierarchical taxonomy of music genres, providing parentage to certain genres (house, in particular), which otherwise would've been too closely aligned with disco or left as orphans. By AllMusic's own vague definition, it's not a single genre but a range of genres which arguably aren't related, except by virtue of having been part of the era immediately following the one dominated by disco. AllMusic is not a reliable source for genre definitions (as has been brought up in relation to electronic music and heavy metal), and the fact that they scrubbed their contributors' names from most of their site a while back further undermines their credibility. Other sources haven't provided a convincing case for post-disco as a genre, per se, but rather as a temporal qualifier. I might support a rename and change of focus to "boogie" (the main "post-disco" genre which has more traction), but at this point I don't think boogie, being limited to the realm of probably a few thousand DJs worldwide, is a mature enough term to warrant more than a paragraph in the main Boogie article. —mjb (talk) 01:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, however boogie article is saying nothing about some "boogie disco" from 80s... is it this line: "In the late 1980s and the early 1990s country bands released country boogies"? Maybe post-disco is in real some country music subgenre, I don't know. Boogie-woogie is not related to 80s- "stripped down funky electronic not-a-disco music". However, AllMusic with support of anonymous is a WP:RS anyway --> that provides post-disco IS a real genre. In Wikipedia there so many articles that they've have only 1 source. US garage... what-the-something is "US garage"? That article is full of WP:SYNTHESIS and there's no reliable sources, why AfD post-disco? Why not US garage? I can put here over 9000 wikilinks with no sources and full of unpublished synthesis, if you want. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 18:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: By all means, if you find other poorly sourced genre articles with dubious notability, put them up on AfD. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is never a good argument. — Gwalla | Talk 19:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would rather vote for deletion of that messy article. The WP:SYNTH concern of that article is not new, and it had been discussed before: the first discussion, the second discussion. It has already been noted for several times, that none of the references in that article mention a genre called post-disco: all of them, from the first to the last, are just a carefully compiled into a collection of the uses of the prefix "post-" and "disco-" together, found in any sources that could likely be considered as reliable. Moreof, some of those references simply advocate someone's POV and do not list any reliable sources: [27], [28], [29], [30]. Many of those sources are misinterpreted: one brief analysis of the sources here.

The most reliable source for the article, a short AMG article on post-disco never says in text that post-disco is some genre of music. Here is the link for that article, you may read it yourself: [31]. The claim that post-disco is a genre of music appeared because that AMG article page has a huge 'Genre' word, located above the note/article itself. I still would be curious to see how that page could be accurately used to reference the claim post-disco is a genre: it's simply impossible, as that information is absolutely insufficient for that type of claims and every try to point to that word linked to what is said in the article itself will be a kind of Original Research. In a few words, what the AMG article actually says is that post-disco is a particular era in the history of popular music: "While it's entirely accurate to say that disco led to house, there's a distinct era between the dissolution of the former and the solidification of the latter — covering roughly half a decade, between the late '70s and early '80s — that is often termed post-disco. " -- Appletangerine un (talk) 14:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So post-disco is a genre, that AMG source says that. Are you trying to discredit a reliable source? They say that between disco and house era is an post-disco era, but they also trying to explain what's "post-disco" as a genre. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 14:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't think that timelessly repeating "Post disco is a genre" will have any result here. The article doesn't support your opinion, and that is. What it describes is exactly what it defines, eg. an era in the history of popular music. -- Appletangerine un (talk) 11:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't say what I think or not, you're not in my head. It's not an AMG definition, it's your definition, that's the difference. I see, we're blind or something. Let's read the head of the article: "allmusic - allmusic, allmovie, allgame"/"who is the US president? Hillary Clinton (click)"/"--> explore music... / explore by.../R&B/Hip-Hop/Urban/"Post-Disco (send to friend)"/"Genre". See? genre, g-e-n-r-e. ジャンル. Genere. 流派. (Google translator 4eva!) RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 14:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have always seen this as "Barely a Genre or a Fringe Genre" but existing as a wiki article is another story so looking at the sources and especially seeing the rationale by user:mjb above i agree to delete this article using same rationale as mjb--Wikiscribe (talk) 03:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's a conspiracy. All haters of the "post-disco" article are here, so your vote reminds me WP:JUSTAVOTE/vote per somebody. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 12:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It may remind you of that but it is not please read the section to that portal you put to try and discredit my opinion and read the section called "per nom" though i believe in this case user mjb(who is not the nominator) has made a powerful arguement with his rationale in my opinion but the determining if that is a strong enough rationale is up to the ADMIN to decide not me,also stop being paranoid it makes it seem like you have an unhealthy obsession with this one subject and does not look good on you also take heart in the fact this is not just a vote really anyway, there must be a good rationale for deletion.Not to mention wikipedia is not a Democracy--Wikiscribe (talk) 17:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As he mentioned in the first thread above (in case anyone missed it), RockandDiscoFanCZ has started a Boogie (genre) article to apparently provide a home for the post-disco article's relatively uncontentious material about what some DJs are calling Boogie, which is the post-disco-era's re-funkified but still kind of disco-ish wave of R&B, and he is adjusting infoboxes accordingly. As I said in my vote comment, I don't think this genre is yet notable enough for an article all to itself, but I won't oppose it; Boogie has a following on a number of blogs, and may well have more coverage in reliable sources than I'm aware. —mjb (talk) 08:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. So we have "post-disco" as an era that gives birth to styles like Techno, Boogie, Alternative dance (AMG fabricated genre), House, etc. Most of sources saying something like "techno/house/etc is a post-disco dance music", so post-disco also should have some footer to indicate House/Techno/Boogie/etc is a form of post-Disco music (it's not a dogma that everybody knows it, some people would say: "electropop music is a musical style from 1940s and typical electropop artists are Pantera and Red Hot Chilli Peppers"). I guess post-disco is a bridge between disco and house articles and that's the why post-disco should be "saved". RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 12:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources exist, meanings differ, but the concept is notable. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 05:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to be a notable concept, article is not adequately sourced JBsupreme (talk) 16:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There seems little doubt from the references provided in the article that the term "post-disco" is used by reliable sources. The question is, are they using the term to refer to basically the same thing, or is it an ad hoc adjective being used to mean different things, making the article synthesis. My reading of the source material provided in the references is that they are talking about essentially the same thing: dance music during a somewhat vague but still identifiable time period. As is argued above, "genre" is probably not the appropriate way to describe it, but the article as currently re-written more appropriately refers to an "era", which seems more in accord with the sources. And there are more than enough sources for notability. So since it is notable, sourced, and not synthesis, it should stay. Any other problems can be solved through editing. --RL0919 (talk) 17:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as OR-created term Lots of the references are inaccessible, but there is a pattern in those I see that "post-disco" is meant literally, not to define a genre. There are several which specifically refer to a resurgence in some other named genre (e.g. R&B) after the decline of disco. Indeed, the related list article (also up for AFD has a column for "genre" in its listings. It's also clear from the talk page discussion that this classification has been controversial from the beginning. Mangoe (talk) 14:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment who says "post-disco" is a genre? (forget that AMG crap, it's just about that article) O.o ~ P.S. also the term is defined by AMG as a genre, so it's not original research, read article and references correctly, thanks. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 14:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 19:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ankur Sharma[edit]

Ankur Sharma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Brought here from proposed deletion by Salih that was declined since it's a recreated article that was twice deleted as non-notable/self-promotion. References don't discuss article subject, search doesn't turn up significant coverage of Sharma, only trivial mentions. Hekerui (talk) 20:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fix and keep Complete vanity page, peacock, autobio, the whole slew. We should have an article on the car, not him - yet at least, he may become famous later. By the way, did he really create the car by 21 years old, all by himself (not a single professor in the background?), or was he more humbly coordinating the team, spokeperson, or whatever. Massive prune to focus on the car, rename to the car, and redirect him there. Power.corrupts (talk) 20:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 23:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to car. Remove all the self promotional parts; mention him as part of team. --Sodabottle (talk) 06:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This article is bordering on self promotion and fails WP:BIO. The sources provided do not address the subject directly. Even the notability of the car is questionable. The claim that it is India’s first solar car is not substantiated. This is the best reliable sources I could find, but the article does not even mention the name of the subject. Salih (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom and Salih. Shadowjams (talk) 11:14, 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, Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 05:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Keep the car and dump the kid. In any event BHEL has been making solar powered automobile since the late 1980'sAnnette46 (talk) 11:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources do not address the subject directly and this blatant vanity page is about as obvious as they come. JBsupreme (talk) 16:06, 22 December 2009 (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. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 05:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Provoke Films[edit]

Provoke Films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Possible advertising/promotional entry. Article's creator and primary editors almost exclusively edit articles relating to this company and its members. On the subject of claims to notability, the first claim (regarding NAB selections) is not backed up by the link provided; in regards to Asia Voice Independent Music Awards nomination, I can frind no corroboration frm reliable sources - the provided link is dead, and the only mentions of the category claimed come from posts promotion eithre the company or the short film. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 21:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 21:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an advert. No rs that I can find. WildHorsesPulled (talk) 00:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a real fact company existence. About the first claim, the link provided backs up the nomination of the company at the National Association of Broadcaster Event in 2009. The person who claim it doesn't, seems that didn't check carefully the reel video from reelexchange.com at the link provided or doesn't truly know about the NAB Show event.

In regards to Asia Voice Independent Music Awards, a new link has been added that corroborates that the first music video from this company was nominated in early 2009. And again, doing a simple google search or contacting directly NAB promoters, AVIMA, or even Armada Music company, they can all corroborate the existence and work of Provoke Films Greenjeans60 (talk) 03:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - no one is arguing whether the company exists or not - the question is one of notability and/or inappropriate use of Wikipedia for advertising. While there is the possibility that one or two of the company's projects might have some notability, that does not confer equal notability on the company istelf - in fact, the new link provided about the award nomination for a video doesn't even mention Provoke Films. In fact, none of the references listed (as of this moment) mention Provoke Films even once. Only the last YouTube link in the external links section mentions the company, and only in passing in the description. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The company is not doing any kind of advertising. We are Ciro Ayala's Official club of fans since 2008, and we have been following his works in Asia and Europe. We are not advertising or promoting anything, just providing information about his biography and projects (which they all have/had notability in Taiwan, Argentina and Europe). About the link new link provided, for ethic reasons they won't put Provoke Films or Ciro Ayala in the description, but there is mention of the music video that Provoke Films and Ciro Ayala had produced 1 year ago and for which they have been nominated and representing Taiwan for the Awards. There is even a link [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCdHlF2npFg link ] with a radio show interview for Radio Taiwan International RTI, in which Ciro Ayala and the musician artist are discussing the awards nomination in early 2009.

The question of notability that you are arising, is only based on personal doubt. If this is not the case, so let me know what else I can do. For us it was a long and hard work to put all the information (from 2002 to 2009) that we found about Ciro Ayala together. And again, we are not promoting or advertising anything. All the info that we are providing is based on what the newspapers in Asia and interviews on radio and TV to Ciro Ayala had provided. Greenjeans60 (talk) 14:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - You do realize that, as part of his official fan club, actively editing his article and his article only, you have a clear conflict of interest in regards to Ayala and his company? You're certainly trying to promote him and his company with these pages. I've also removed your second "keep" vote - you don't get to vote twice in this matter. Also, as a final point, your statement that all your infomation is based on information that Ayala provided gets right to the heart of the problem - you have very little in the way of significant coverage from reliable third-party and/or independent sources. If your information is based on material provided by Ayala, that's essentially a primary source, and should not be used as the basis for an article. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I didn't make the statement that, as you said, "the information is based on information that Ayala provided". That's really Untrue. I wrote the wikipedia article based on news coverage and magazines articles where this film director appears since 2002. I don't want to promote him or advertising. This person didn't have a wikipedia article and I was the first to create it. Later, I started a fans club since he's been making lots of well known music videos for Europe. So I keep thinking that your point of view of not knowing this person or his works yet, clearly makes you the wrong point of view. Secondly, I followed the guidelines that lots of people from wikipedia told me when writing the article, and there wasn't any problem until these days, when you suddenly appears (after almost 7 months of having wrote this article) and starts to make statements based on your personal opinion.

And finally, you didn't answer me the question of what "not trivial" link should be provided to show the notability of this film director. Greenjeans60 (talk) 20:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenjeans60 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability and verifiability. Neither the sources cite nor my searching cuts it. --Glenfarclas (talk) 22:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the "NAB 2009 - REEL EXCHANGE Editing VFX and Animation Showcase 2009" link shows notability, along with other VFX production companies. Link Source is reliable and verifiable [ http://reel-exchange.com/members/250b0ae9/profile/5a4a0f0da826ab6647184202d826dcda/video_player.html ] The AVIMA Nominees link still lacks verifiability, but the [ http://www.arminvanbuuren.com/news/264/ AvB: Blue Fear Music Video Storyline ] from Armin van Buuren's site can be considered as notable and verifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daviderudit (talk • contribs) 08:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC) — Daviderudit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - Really? Considered notable and reliable by whom? TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Considered to be removed from wikipedia by whom? I have just checked the comments and information provided by the person who wrote the article, and the links and references provided are enough facts that the company and specially his founder, has notability in Asia and Europe. Specially, 1) the link for AVIMA awards, where is very evident that one of their projects appear as being nominated for an award,2) The link to Reel Exchange.com, which is a subdivision of Millimeter Film Magazine, which is published monthly in both print and digital formats. Daviderudit (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reel Exchange.com is "a professional networking website connecting film and video professionals with clients and collaborators in the industry." (from its About Us page) It is simply hosted by Millimeter magazine, not published by their editorial staff - it is user-generated content, so any content on that page would have been supplied by Ayala/Provoke Films, and is thus not a reliable third-party source. The AVIMA nomination list does not mention Provoke Films at all - a case could be made for the notability of the video itself, but the sources do not back that up for the company - notability is not inherited. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 18:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Because I was the person who wrote the article BASED on the wikipedia guidelines that you mention, I will response one by one the criteria and requirements needed when writing this article, 8 months ago:

I. "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject": The [ http://digitalcontentproducer.com/reel-exchange/contentproducer/ciroayala/ link] is a secondary source, reliable by the fact that it's a print published American film magazine specialized in Independent Filmmakers from all over the world. That article has a bio about Ciro Ayala, which was published in August 27 2007. The article has been written and copyrighted by Millimeter Magazine.
II. "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability": The amount of links provided shows the existence of the music videos, and 2 of them (FACES and BLUE FEAR) have articles from independent sources that clarified they were directed by Ciro Ayala, produced by Liu Ming Fei, and Provoke Films.
III. [ WP:ANYBIO ] : Point 1: The person, Ciro AYaa, has received 1 AVIMA Awards nomination for the music video Think About You in early 2009, in the category Most Mind Blowing Music Video. There is a direct link to the AVIMA awards nominees link, and the music video appears on Provoke Films Official Website with all the relevant information about the Credits and Behind The Scenes. The [ http://trainspottr.com/nosa-recordings-presents-think-about-you-the-music-video/2048 ] also provides information about the Director, Artist, Record Company and Film Producer Company. That the AVIMA link doesn't mention Provoke Films is not my problem, it's mentioning the nomination of the Music Video which was directed by Ciro Ayala, and the rest of the links, even those from the record company "Nosa Recordings", provides and sustain the rest of the information needed to show that Ciro Ayala and Provoke Films have been involved in the production of the music video. LINKS [ http://trainspottr.com/sona-nominated-for-an-avim-award/2102 ] and [ http://trainspottr.com/nosa-recordings-presents-think-about-you-the-music-video/2048 ] and [ http://voize.my/music/avima-2009-full-nominee-list-are-you-ready-for-the-biggest-indie-music-awards-in-the-world ] and [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCdHlF2npFg Interview to Ciro Ayala and Sona Musician on Radio Taiwan International RTI, about the Award Nomination]
IV. [ WP:ANYBIO ] : Point 2: The Music Video BLUE FEAR for Armin van Buuren, enters in this category, and has enduring historical record in "Trance Music" field. And all the sources and links provided clearly shows that.
V. [WP:ARTIST] : Point 3: Ciro Ayala has a significant and well-known work in TV Commercials in Asia and music videos for European artist, which have been the subject of multiple independent reviews. The Music Videos links (specially [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlD0adpJ8kg ] where you can see the Name of the Director at the beginning of the video, and is published at the Official Channel of the music artist, [Andy Moor] who was nominated for a Grammy Award in December 2008 ) clearly validate this point. Also, this music video has been broadcasted on MTV Netherlands in August 2009. Most of Ciro Ayala's works have been broadcasted on European and China/Taiwan TV Stations. And Finally, if You really follow the Wikipedia Guidelines, you should then reply me my previous question about How can improve the article if you still consider it not proper for wikipedia. Greenjeans60 (talk) 19:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of independent reliable sources sufficient to establish notability. MikeWazowski (talk) 05:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 05:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is simply an attempt to promote a non-notable company. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:32, 22 December 2009 (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. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 05:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Italian inventions and scientific discoveries[edit]

Italian inventions and scientific discoveries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

A largely indiscriminate collection of articles gathered onto one page, presenting subjects covered elsewhere predominantly in a non-neutral way. I42 (talk) 22:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Wikipedia is not a collection of lists; this serves little purpose aside from nationalistic boosterism. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 23:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while it may be possible to create a timeline of scientific advances located in italy, or a list of italian inventors, this article is hopelessly flawed, not even sure where to begin critiquing it.. i cant see how this could be fixed up without a total rethinking and rewrite. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The mere fact that you cannot begin to criticise it does not provide a good reason to delete it: you must criticise it! Now it has been rewritten in Neutral form. It is also not an indiscriminate collection of articles. It is a collection of Inventions made by Italians. As such there is a discriminate logic behind it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Altes2009 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article appears to be an attempt to bolster Italian pride, which is inherently POV. this belongs on a website promoting italian culture and accomplishments (which is a fine idea of course). the list is of controversial discoveries, presumably predating non-italian inventors of the same ideas, but no references outside of the Italian are given. this is extremely suspicious. surely at least one valid reference can be given in english. Da Vinci is not here? huge omission. Enrico Fermi was pretty much an american when he worked here. is this italian or italian american, or any person of italian ancestry? and i really dont think that he "invented" the nuclear power plant. they came later, and there are many people who worked on them. some technological accomplishments are credited to groups of people, not always one person, depending on whether they are systems creations or just small, precise implementations of technology. there is no adequate lead paragraph defining the list, or defining whether its meant to be a list or an essay article. if its a list, it should show significant blue links to actual articles on various inventions. the redlinks of the section headings is totally against WMOS, and the use of references for each section is not WMOS, and shows an lack of familiarity with WP writing methods. this is a big red flag, unfortunately, for whether any of the content is accurate. the language is often overly promotional. your blanking the page is WP:OWNERSHIP, this is NOT your article, once its posted here, its free for anyone to edit, and no one can arbitrarily blank it, even a major contributor. YOU need to provide reasons for what you add, AND what you remove. the criteria for admission to this list are somewhat unclear, as i said above, but what is actually here doesnt appear to be anywhere near complete. this appears to be a huge attempt to simply promote alternate theories for the timelines for particular inventions, with a bias towards Italian origins. based on this last point, this list must absolutely be rethought from the ground up. i dont see any content, even the references, that need to be saved to rewrite. i would suggest you (or anyone else interested in this subject) rewrite this in italian, and post this article on the italian WP, and if it stands there, transwiki it. i would hope its not acceptable there. and if this article stands here, i will be happy to work on it, but im holding off right now because i dont see it surviving afd, no matter what is done with it.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not a fan of these weird lists. Does wp have a policy on this kind of view on data like this? ErikHaugen (talk) 19:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - From link in my vote: Wikipedia is not a collection of lists. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 22:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep It definitely needs work, but the topic of Italian claims to having invented or discovered something generally credited to others is a topic of interest. The author hasn't yet learned the Wikipedia style and format for sourcing, but I can see the potential for this. I suspect that User:Altes2009 has a fluency in Italian and English, and could make contributions to our red-white-and-blue website. Since it appears that this is in danger of deletion, I recommend Altes might want to userfy this and polish it up. Mandsford (talk) 22:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I just don't see the reason for maintaining lists that provides little in the way of additional information, while acting as a kind of content fork that allows people of nationality 'X' to make claims to the discovery of a particular invention in a place where it is insulated from the article itself. If there is clear knowledge of the location where something was invented, it can be noted in the specific article; if there is a dispute (with reliable sources on both sides rendering it arguable) then that can be noted. Making a special article to extol the virtues of a particular region (in the form of "look what it gave to the world") has none of the benefits of technology specific timelines (e.g. Communications, Transportation) and significant costs (people don't edit war over the order in which technologies were introduced, they will over which country lays claim to an invention). —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 22:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - ShadowRanger summed it up nicely. I agree with the nominator; the facts could be covered better elsewhere. Also, I'm sure many many more discoveries than just the few listed were made in Italy or by Italians. Airplaneman ^talk 02:19, 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, Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 05:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is simply a regurgitation of taking citations from other Wikipedia articles and then simply pasting it on an article created without any outside or external sources given to make qualified claims to the so-called Italian inventions. Not only is the article not Wikified, it is not encyclopedic in nature. Listing patents that Italian inventors were awrded likewise only tell the reader that they were either the first to file a patent caveat, or to patent an improvement on an invention already accomplished by a previous claimant. Keep in mind, first to file does not exclusively entitle a person to make the claim of first to invent. There is nothing referenced in the article to suggest otherwise that these Italian inventors truly were the first to invent what is listed on this sloppy attempt to create an article. If the creator of this article knew anything about United States patent law before adding U.S. patents to the article, he would have also realized that the U.S. unlike other countries around the world only recognizes inventors who make a claim of first to invent rather than the claim of first to patent. And to assume that just because these Italians were awarded patents therefore means that the United States Government recognizes them as the original inventors does not have any merit. An innovator who files and is awarded a patent does NOT necessarily or definitively mean that he or she was the original inventor of the claim in question. If this article is intended to inform readers about Italian patents, then great! Re-name this article Italian patents to reflect the content. Otherwise, this article has little to no information whatsoever about so-called Italian inventions. Therefore, if the attempt was to solely create an article on Italian inventions, it has failed indeed. I would like to nominate, like the majority of other posters, to delete this article. --Yoganate79 (talk) 07:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Yoganate79 and ShadowRanger. A clipfile of Wikipedia article contents about some likely inventions and some unlikely/disputed inventions, perhaps with a goal of nationalistic pride. Edison (talk) 20:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but much rework is needed.Greyhood (talk) 21:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the reasoning behind your recommendation? I42 (talk) 22:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that in the current form the article is terribly shaped "collection of articles gathered onto one page". However the very idea to collect Italian or any other nation inventions and discoveries into one page is not bad at all and obviously quite encyclopedic, at least as much as List of Chinese inventions and other articles of the kind. That's why I think the discussed article should be reworked and perhaps also renamed, but no reason to delete it completely. Though, the amount of needed rework seems to be so much, that deletion and starting new page in better format is also an option.Greyhood (talk)

comment if someone can find a series of sources that themselves extoll or elaborate italian contributions to science,an article about each of those sources (books, movies), if notable themselves, would make sense.hm, the point about chinese inventions is interesting. my take on that is this: China has a long list of well documented innovations, and their history of this is highly notable. i would be inclined to NOT include too many modern inventions in the china article. Italy: not so much (rome,yes, that is not the same). this list stretches out the contributions to cover too many trivial facts. also, the chinese inventions are traditionally credited to the nation/empire/culture,as the individuals are not known. for modern times, lists of innovations by nation probably belong in the articles on those nations, not as a content fork.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Madras Tamil[edit]

Madras Tamil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Totally Original Research. Non-notable - no verifiable or reliable sources to attribute any portion of this article. On top of the above, non-encyclopaedic content forms the majority of this article. Note, the nominator has not left the reason in talk page (IP nomination). Felt that this should go through a proper AfD and deleted. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 04:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any confirmation of the existence of this hypothetical language. I would love to be proven wrong, if someone can pull up real information on it, so we can just trim this article down to basics and leave it be. But until I see something -- anything -- this has to go. Avram (talk) 05:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because the sources below look strong enough. I do wonder whether this should be renamed-- I still have trouble finding sources that refer to this language as Madras Tamil. Avram (talk) 18:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Exists. Tamil is diglossic and dialects vary from region to region and from caste to caste. The article is OR, but most of it is accurate. A citations required template needs to be added and left as such. Search for "Madras Dialect" when searching in English language books/web. [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42],[43].--Sodabottle (talk) 15:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In scholarly works, this is sometimes mentioned as part of "Northern Tamil" like here [44]. There is a mention of it in Tamil wikipedia article for madras. There a lot of sources in Tamil itself both online (like this [45], [46], [47] and [48]) and offline. Despite the temptation to AGF, i am thinking that the nominator IP was either playing a prank or didn't like the fact that such a dialect exists.--Sodabottle (talk) 15:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I believe there are more than 800 dialects in India. We know they exist. Now, are they notable? Where is the boundary drawn for each dialect. I am sure many of these terms are used differently in different parts of Chennai and its suburbs - now what is the correct categorization in terms of verifiability? I would like to know how the level of details given in this article are important to be written in such detail in an English encyclopaedia. Should it belong elsewhere, like the Tamil Wikipedia or "Learn Tamil dialects" book or other such area? Guidelines, precedents and/or senior editors' opinions would be very useful on this subject. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 15:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
what is the correct categorization in terms of verifiability? There is enough scholarly work which has already been done on the categorisation of the dialects of Tamil. They specifically mention "Madras dialect", "madras tamil dialect" etc. IMO it is enough notability for inclusion in English language wikipedia. Should it belong elsewhere, like the Tamil Wikipedia. If it warrants inclusion in Tamil wikipedia, why not here. I don't like to use "other stuff exists" line of argument, but here are some examples with other languages dialects of hindi, Yorkshire dialect, American Spanish, Quebec French etc. And WP:NOTDICDEF says " Descriptive articles about languages, dialects, or types of slang (such as Klingon language, Cockney, or Leet) are desirable. Prescriptive guides for prospective speakers of such languages are not". I agree with you on the content part, most of it is OR and has no citations. Article needs a rewrite and not a delete.--Sodabottle (talk) 16:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did some random checks and I find that words like naina are included as examples in the books about the dialects. My concern is the enormous amount of baggage (WP:OR) that is being inserted here. I myself can vouch for some of the items in this article. But most of it cannot be found in references / searches - most of the article is per WP viewpoint OR and some are just random words taken out and explained in a dictionary fasion. I would find only 3 to 4 paragraphs in the article that would be left of a thorough rewrite (end up as a stub?). Also, I take back the order of questions I had asked. I was wondering about all the terminology being notable - but asking it first meant that it is looking like I asked whether the dialect is notable. That was not my intention.

I wonder if there is material that goes into similar analysis of this dialect, like the other examples you have mentioned, to keep at least stub-level content. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 17:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources provided above by Sodabottle shows that the topic is indeed notable, and a dialect spoken by a significant number of people (the city's population is about 4.5Mn, while not all of them will speak the dialect). If there's OR in the article, it's a case for editing, not deletion. -SpacemanSpiff 16:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per SodaBottle above, and also because Madras Tamil is a recognized dialect of Tamil per Ethnologue. The article tends to get cluttered over time, and needs to be periodically cleaned/pruned (I used to do this before my priorities changed), but that's not an excuse for a hasty deletion nomination. --Brhaspati\^talk/_contribs 18:58, 23 December 2009 (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. (X! · talk) · @232 · 04:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If You Will[edit]

If You Will (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Largely non-notable Minnesota band. Author removed PROD, see talk page, but this act doesn't meet WP:BAND: getting airplay in Minnesota is not being "placed in rotation nationally by [a] major radio network"; finishing in the top 12 (out of how many?) at the local Christian nightclub does not mean you "won or placed in a major music competition," etc. SCC TV appears to be a public-access station. Glenfarclas (talk) 04:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing about them seems to meet notability criteria per WP:BAND. --Sothicus (talk) 04:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 04:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 04:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not finding any in-depth coverage; does not appear to meet WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 04:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:MUSIC, author's deprod comment (on article talk page) basically says "they should have an article because their music is available on the Internet." That's not enough. NawlinWiki (talk) 05:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, contrary to author's opinion, existence doesn't justify an article. Nyttend (talk) 20:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly does not meet WP:BAND. Enigma^msg 17:34, 22 December 2009 (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. Consensus is that the subject is sufficiently notable to merit inclusion; content issues can be dealt with without deletion. AfD is not for cleanup. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Dickson[edit]

Kenneth Dickson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable California politician who has so far only been elected to a school board. He is now running for a seat in the state senate; article reads as though produced for campaign purposes. Glenfarclas (talk) 03:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies WP:NOTE, has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Cirt (talk) 05:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You obviously have a long and distinguished record of contributions, so I'm willing to be corrected here -- but what am I missing, exactly? He was a lieutenant colonel, but that hardly makes him Patton; he on his town's school board fercryinoutloud, he's got nothing in major news . . . and this article contains totally unencyclopedic lines like "Judge Turrentine told the North County Times that Dickson did a 'great job' as a law clerk"; and "Col. Rakowsky said that Dickson was an expert in contract law, and a hard worker, noting, 'He was very much a team player, always asking, "What else can I do to help?"'" I mean, "[His] children graduated as valedictorians from Murrieta Valley High School, in 1995 and 1996"? One or two fawning pieces in the local press aside, I don't see anything at all to indicate that Kenneth Dickson is a [m]ajor local political figure[] who ha[s] received significant press coverage" per WP:POLITICIAN. And you've got to admit that this article reads like complete campaign advertising . . . so really, what am I missing? --Glenfarclas (talk) 05:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC). Edited to add: my point isn't that the article needs rewriting; it's that stripping away the article's tone and flourishes emphasizes the overall non-notability of this local political candidiate.[reply]
The article satisfies point 3 of WP:POLITICIAN. Cirt (talk) 05:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is extremely well cited with reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. As Cirt points out above, that satisfies much of the general notability guidelines outlined in WP:N. Most of the sources are from reliable news organizations, which is satisfactory according to the section of WP:Reliable dealing with those sources. Regarding Glenfarclas' comment above about "major news" coverage, that policy doesn't state all the sources have to be The New York Times or The Washington Post or some other national paper, just that it be a mainstream media source. And furthermore, I don't think the fact that this article is of more regional interest than national interest should preclude it anyway. This is a comprehensive, paperless encyclopedia, and I think it should have more of these articles, not less. And finally, any problems with the encyclopedic writing of the article can be improved as we go along, or via a peer review... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 14:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although he's not held high enough office to qualify as a politician, he easily passes the GNG. Nyttend (talk) 20:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets notability per WP:GNG due to the references provided in the article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is as if written by a promotional team. Off2riorob (talk) 17:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a content complaint that could be addressed on the article's talk page. Cirt (talk) 17:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever, its a fluff piece to advertise the subject. Off2riorob (talk) 18:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there's a tone issue, then that's something to fix. Here we're considering if it meets inclusion criteria and is notable. Cirt (talk) 18:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tone issue? The content is written as if an advert and enlarges the notability of this person, sorry if you are the writer..but I support the nominator, delete promo fluff piece . Off2riorob (talk) 18:18, 24 December 2009 (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. obvious hoax DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Centraltower Interstate Center[edit]

Centraltower Interstate Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This is not a real proposal by the CTBUH's guidelines, and is likely never to be built. See this discussion. timsdad ^(talk) 03:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Hoax. I was just going to delete it when DGG declined the speedy in favor of the AfD, so I think we can wait for it to snow. It definitely looks like a white Christmas in New York. -SpacemanSpiff 04:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot verify the existence of the architectural firm in GNews, or even in Google--outside of this article. That makes this very lokel;y to be a hoax entirely. I note that we cover many things that are not actually real proposals by that guideline & are very unlikely to be built. See Template:Supertall proposed skyscrapers . I declined a speedy so it could be discussed here,in case anyone could find something, but after the gsearch, I conclude I made an error. I have restored the speedy--and , to avoid further waste of time, deleted it also. DGG ( talk ) 04:26, 21 December 2009 (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. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 05:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arya Tea Estate[edit]

Arya Tea Estate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Fails WP:GNG; Only references given appear to be commercial sites Polarpanda (talk) 11:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Lots of search hits, though as nominator noted, most if not all are mentions of it on tea-selling sites or in articles discussing a nearby power station. On the other hand, the estate does have a long history, and the article does not appear to be overly promotional. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:11, 7 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) 00:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It certainly seems notable, based on reviews of their teas on high-end websites and blogs. Priyanath ^talk 05:14, 16 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) 03:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Broaden & move. This is part of the Eurasia Group holding company that I added in my recent edit. If the tea company doesn't make notability, probably because we can't find any non-trivial mentions outside of its own website, then perhaps we could make a stub for the holding company and redirect Arya there. The holding company looks like it should reach notability on its own merits. Avram (talk) 05:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A tiny and not notable tea estate. If Makaibari doesnt have its own wiki page then this one isn't even at the starting gate. Annette46 (talk) 11:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 19:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Catalyst Collective[edit]

The Catalyst Collective (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

offshoot of the notable CrimethInc., but they, themselves, haven't done anything newsworthy yet. Hopefully nothing will get blown up now that I've said that. Pirate^Argh!!1! 10:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a little bit of coverage here [49] and something here [50] so perhaps they can be merged into the parent article. Polarpanda (talk) 11:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I hadn't finished the article - I'm new to wikipedia. Anyway, there's more info available for them like they participated in and helped supply the two week Feral Futures Call For Direct Action Camp in Summer 2009 (http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=20090416163631815) at the Piedra River in Southern Colorado, an event which hosted a stop on the Earth First! RoadShow's 2009 tour (http://colorado.indymedia.org/node/1730). I just ask that you guys keep the article up so it can be expanded on. It's a group of organizers not saboteurs so I doubt they'll be blowing anything up anytime soon, but I still think they're worth a couple paragraphs. While we're at it, I think Feral Futures deserves a page too, and Black Mesa Indigenous Support, but maybe I'm misunderstanding what is worthy of a wikipedia article. Anyway, I was going to continue expanding on this article, adding philosophy and such, which differs considerably from the overarching CrimethInc. group, but I guess I'll wait and see if it gets deleted before I do. Greenrevolutionary (talk) 18:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenrevolutionary (talk • contribs) 14:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 7 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) 00:15, 14 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) 03:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This coincidentally-similar-to-my-username group doesn't appear notable, and it isn't covered in any reliable sources (Google only turns up self-published material and other uses of the name, there are no relevant news documents, and the only book sources refer to an organization from the 1970s.) As for the two sources mentioned by Polarpanda, both were published before the subject of the article was founded and therefore must be referring to different groups. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 04:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above and WP:ORG. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Alderson[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Tim Alderson

Articles for deletion/Tim Alderson (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Tim Alderson (3rd nomination)

Tim Alderson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

First round draft pick, however not notable yet. Alex (talk) 02:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Pittsburgh Pirates minor league players. ~~-Spanneraol (talk) 04:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

Change to Keep per Epeefleche and HBWS. --Spanneraol (talk) 00:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable. See here and here.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)][reply]

Merge to Pittsburgh Pirates minor league players.--Yankees10 06:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG. First-round draft pick, former member of US national Junior team, California League All-Star. Profiled in East Valley Tribune, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Baseball America's 2010 Prospect Guide (subscribers only), etc. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 19:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, though I didn't mention it, he's currently on the Pirates' 40-man roster. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Plenty of coverage to support notability. Rlendog (talk) 15:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's notable, but that page hardly makes it apparent that he is. It needs expansion, not deletion. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources demonstrate significant coverage.--Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 16:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Akin[edit]

Brian Akin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable minor league player. Alex (talk) 02:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has enough sourcing to satisfy notability guidelines. Spanneraol (talk) 04:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Span.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Spanneraol. Rlendog (talk) 15:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG per above.--Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 16:10, 27 December 2009 (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. (X! · talk) · @233 · 04:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IoFTPD[edit]

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

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 02:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not notable, no reliable sources found to improve article. Mattg82 (talk) 02:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: non-notable, no references, unable to find any reviews or anything that would help to assert notability. --GreyCat (talk) 20:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources, no article. Miami33139 (talk) 01:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This source and the pseudonymous name of the creator make me think this server is used mostly in the warez scene and similar (probably on compromised boxes too) for certain reasons: it runs on win32 boxes, ability to handle high load, and no GUI indicated there. If more reliable sources write about, it could be recreated. Pcap ping 15:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like I was right. Pcap ping 15:36, 27 December 2009 (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. (X! · talk) · @233 · 04:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GMapCatcher[edit]

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

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

This was speedy deleted by DragonflySixtyseven which it can't be speedied because it doesn't fit any speedy criteria. I took it to DRV because of that to request that it be restored and taken to AfD. When the closing admin restored it, he put a prod tag on it. Hobit removed the prod on November 26 with the comment "Removed prod. There seem to be enough moderate sources that this should go to AfD for discussion and hopeful improvement." I requested AfD so that no one would have to go through the prod process and deal with this if it was found to be non-notable. I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 02:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not notable, no reliable sources found to improve article. Mattg82 (talk) 02:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find anything either. Pcap ping 09:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I searched both Google News and Google Books. [51] [52] Due diligence is done. JBsupreme (talk) 07:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 14:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One Last Chance[edit]

One Last Chance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

fails WP:NSONGS, no notable coverage and hasn't charted anywhere. one sentence doesnt make an article. Mister sparky (talk) 22:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. That this song failed to chart is by no means a deal breaker, but I can not find any significant coverage for this song; does not appear to meet WP:NSONGS. Gongshow ^Talk 00:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 00:28, 15 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) 02:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Last Chance (a disambiguation page) as a plausible search term. The song (no link) and album (wikilinked) are listed on that page. -- saberwyn 02:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 14:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

El Matador Tower[edit]

El Matador Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Sourcing on this 44 story building is restricted to a passel of advertisments and press releases on Google News Archives. I can't tell if construction has started or finished on it. But the lack of independent sources means one thing for sure; it fails Wikipedia's verifiability and notability rules. Furthermore, even if one accepts the sources as independent, they don't make claims of notability; the building is small by Dubai standards, it will have terraces, it had an easy payment plan. I get the impression that it was a bit downscale, with smaller loft apts. Deprodded. Glittering Pillars (talk) 21:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - another building that will never be built in Dubai. Less than non-notable. Bearian (talk) 01:49, 15 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) 02:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Emporis link says this building has been approved, but construction hasn't begun. Emporis also says that the Jumeirah Village area of Dubai (in which this building is) has 177 planned buildings, of which only around 15% have even started construction (and only one has been finished!) — given the economic situation in Dubai, it's looking increasingly unlikely that many more buildings will be started at this point. Zetawoof_(ζ) 07:30, 21 December 2009 (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. All star appearances plus being league president satisfy WP:N from what I can see. Malinaccier (talk) 17:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Mealey[edit]

Jack Mealey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

He may or may not be notable enough for a page. He did manage and play for quite a while, however he might not be notable enough still. Alex (talk) 21:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, If the nominator is not even sure it should be deleted then I vote for keep. Mah favourite (talk) 00:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think articles that should be deleted necessitate a nominator once the suggestion has been made. The question is really whether a minor leaguer is considered notable -- I'd think not, unless this one was special for some particular reason. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:54, 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) 02:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This guy had a fairly lengthy career as a player/manager, a few all-star appearances and a stint as league president. I'd say that makes him notable. --Spanneraol (talk) 14:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 19:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nightlife industry[edit]

Nightlife industry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This entire article is "stating the obvious" but it's also Original Research. There is no substantive topic that it covers competently. It has no useful references. Chutznik (talk) 18:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nightlife and Street team seem to be by the same person. Northwestgnome (talk) 18:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not really an article. It just mentions some things that might be included in the "nightlife industry." No statement is made about the importance or history of the industry. And of course no sources. But still a sincere try to make a contribution to WP. Northwestgnome (talk) 18:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

merge with nightlife which needs some expansion. Polarpanda (talk) 19:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's odd that WP does not already have a good article on nightlife. Northwestgnome (talk) 14:32, 17 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) 02:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 13:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dementra[edit]

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

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

Non-notable band using a Wikipedia page as a subpage of its official website. Canniba loki 17:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The supposed chart topping albums were on the MP3.com charts (http://www.greenozone.com/brianaaa.htm) and released on a minor label. According to our article on the site, the original MP3.com shut down in 2003, so it is impossible to get information about their charts from an independent source (not the producer or the band). This means it doesn't meet WP:MUSIC and together with the promotional tone and a lack of independent sources, this leads me to support deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:16, 15 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) 02:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 04:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 13:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Bravest of the Brave[edit]

The Bravest of the Brave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Not clear how this book would pass WP:NB Yeah yeah yeah nah (talk) 16:42, 14 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) 02:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this book. Joe Chill (talk) 02:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 13:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pacto de Sangre[edit]

Pacto de Sangre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable MySpace band, the article was created by vocalist Héctor "METALOMAN" García (this version). Canniba loki 16:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot find 3rd party refs. Gbooks hits all point to Pacto de Sangre (album) (by another band). Reviewed the first 150 Ghits ("Pacto de Sangre" Puerto Rico) [53] - nothing beyond fans and CD/band promotion. Power.corrupts (talk) 21:29, 14 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) 02:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 19:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

THE SLAP[edit]

THE SLAP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable book - note this is different from The Slap by Christos Tsiolkas. JaGa^talk 16:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral seems that Roger McDonald is a reasonably well-known author with a few significant awards under his belt, but that said I can't find any reliable sources that are actually about this book, just a few passing mentions like this and this in discussions of the author's other work. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The verifiable information is already covered in the article about the author and the title is misspelled, so a redirect is a bad idea. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:55, 15 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) 01:57, 21 December 2009 (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. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tamplin v James[edit]

Tamplin v James (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This appears to be a legal brief of a non-notable court case. JaGa^talk 16:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This case is notable: a search of the lawbooks indicates it is a widely known precedent in contract law (see here just for Australian cases). This would clearly pass WP:Notabilty (law) (currently a proposed guideline. The problem is the article is terrible, and perhaps includes a copyright violation of a law report (the headnote reads like a law report). I will aim to fix this article over the next day or so. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Based on the link provided, I agree this is a well-known precedent case, but the current version makes me think it might possibly be easier to start fresh than to fix this entry. I'll wait and see if Mkativerata can work this out. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Sorry, by "fix", I meant "re-do"...! --Mkativerata (talk) 19:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~. Agree with MacGyverMagic, the best solution would be to see if this can be cleaned up. Agree that notability of the topic exists, though. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)Moved to Keep, below. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have done my work on the article now. My comments on the article's talk page set out some further areas of improvement that are beyond my access to resources and legal expertise. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mkativerata's excellent work. Notability seems clear. Well done. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:41, 17 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) 01:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 19:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yaasir Mario[edit]

Yaasir Mario (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Contested prod. Article about a person who was not notable in his own right while alive but is claimed to have achieved posthumous notability by being the 9th journalist to be killed in Somalia in 2009. Unfortunately this fails WP:VICTIM: "a victim of a crime should normally only be the subject of an article where an article that satisfied notability criteria existed, or could have properly been created prior to the crime's commission". andy (talk) 09:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 14 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) 01:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable freelance cameraman only named in the articles/references. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:28, 21 December 2009 (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. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 05:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alya Nuri[edit]

Alya Nuri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Laudable though her motives and actions may be, this individual has not established notability, either through WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR. ^Bongo_matic 04:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - article currently has enough apparently independent reliable sources sufficient to establish notability. MikeWazowski (talk) 05:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which one? I have reviewed each and don't find a single reliable source cited (let alone providing non-trivial coverage). ^Bongo_matic 13:50, 18 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) 01:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nice kid, just not notable, and there are too few news articles to show she is prominent Nationally. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 18:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are a lot of sources, but none of them are reliable enough. As Bearian (more or less) said above, she isn't quite notable enough, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 16:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Wizardman 19:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Karan Mahajan[edit]

Karan Mahajan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This person is not notable. He has written one novel and been featured on a couple blogs, but has never been profiled in a major media outlet. Article appears to be a vehicle to sell his book. Cjs2111 (talk) 04:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk) 05:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added several references. His book was been reviewed by several major media outlets, and he has been in the news on other matters before his book was published. Alternatively, the article could be moved to Family Planning (novel). -- Eastmain (talk) 05:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the book might meet notability standards while the person may not. I don't think the additions regarding his dorm room eviction or museum of another non-notable person really help make the case, though, if they were intended to. Cjs2111 (talk) 20:44, 14 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) 01:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Khushwant Singh has reviewed his book (and him) favourably. http://www.tribuneindia.com/2009/20090124/saturday/above.htm Annette46 (talk) 11:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He's a notable author whose book was reviewed in numerous national publications in the US and the UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.64.126.231 (talk) 17:04, 21 December 2009 (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 Killing_in_the_Name#2009_Christmas_Number_One_campaign. Consensus is leaning toward delete/redirecting, and the article's subject has requested deletion. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 05:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jon and Tracy Morter[edit]

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}}.

Jon and Tracy Morter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Fails WP:ONEEVENT - the couple is only known for starting their online campaign to push "Killing in the Name" to the Christmas No. 1 in the UK. Per WP:ONEEVENT, Wiki should only be covering the actual event (which is already detailed in the song article), and not the individuals involved. Madchester (talk) 01:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:1E - this is one of the worst violations of that guideline I've ever seen. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 02:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. All person-based entries must by definition begin with one event. Where these two campaigners are concerned, the 2009 campaign is actually the second event of that kind. Finally, their effect on British social, cultural and political history may turn out to be much greater than the previous writer anticipates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.62.74 (talk) 02:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The couple are notable on their own. Last year, they were involved with a similar campaign for Rick Astley [54] So this is not just a one event thing. They were also instrumental in leading the campaign by creating an important grassroots organization that captured the imagination of over 1 milion followers achieved a huge success against the status quo. Had it not been for their visionary idea and valiant effort, this would not have been possible. They were actually the individuals who suggested the Rage Against the Machine song Killing in the Name. Just that fact makes them notable. It could arguably be any other song, but it was "their" initiative to nominate this specific #1! werldwayd (talk) 02:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Normally in this situation, the article is titled after the event, not the person. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Development of this page will also allow more references and more details not actually possible on the song page. Their campaign tactics go far beyond just a RATM song and has far more important impact than the song "Killing in the Name". werldwayd (talk) 15:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect any relevant content to Killing in the Name#Christmas Number One_.E2.80.93_2009 campaign, in order to comply with the ONEEVENT section of the notability inclusion guideline. If further coverage/happenings show that these people exceed ONEEVENT and meet the notability inclusion guidelines for people, then the relevant content can be split back out. -- saberwyn 02:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to the appropriate section in Killing in the Name. WP:BLP1E definitely applies, indeed it's a textbook case. And it is one event, the Ultimate Rick Roll effort last year got to #73 and Morter got not one mention in the press. I love the campaigns against the X Factor though: I bought Jeff Buckley's Hallelujah and Rick Astley - Never Gonna Give You Up last year, and Killing in the Name this year Fences&Windows 02:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 02:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 02:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 02:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems a textbook case of WP:BLP1E. They are not notable outside of the Facebook campaign, which can be adequately covered in the Killing in the Name article.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 03:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge but consider creating an article about the event itself. The event itself has a claim to notability as the only #1 on downloads alone and the most downloads in the first week after release, and possibly (although this is a bit crystalbally) will have knock-on effects in the charts for years. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the only #1 on downloads alone - see this BBC story from three years ago -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Killing in the Name#2009 UK Christmas number one campaign and redirect to the same (it should be mentioned that those rare people - like me - who don't use Facebook knew about the campaign). Also, to Chris: Leona Lewis' version of Run made No1 without having a physical release. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 11:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Delete as only notable for this one event and can be adequately covered in other articles, particularly Killing in the Name#2009 UK Christmas number one campaign. Adambro (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- First off, is it one event? No, its at least two, as has been previously been pointed out. If this were the Rick Astley thing, then yes, this is a one event deal, but since its two different occaisions, that refutes that part of the policy. Two- have the subjects been trying to maintain privacy? Not really. The fact that they're back in the news for doing the same thing they did before pretty much negates that part of BLP1E as well. With BLP1E out of the picture, I see no reason to delete. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per saberwyn. The article can be recreated if notability independent of this single campaign can be established. Hekerui (talk) 15:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Killing in the Name#2009 UK Christmas number one campaign. Did wonder about 'keep' when Simon Cowell offered them jobs today, but unless independent notability emerges they are likely to fade from public view. Peteinterpol (talk) 17:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - completely non-notable; heck if Vanessa George's article gets deleted at AFD for being "non-notable" (despite being headline news at least once a week), then this article is a flagrant violation of Wikipedia rules - this couple are about as notable as my dog; I have NOT heard mention of this couple ever in the print media or TV/radio, only brief mentions online, mostly in blogs. Rapido (talk) 18:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about interview on prime time BBC News http://video.aol.co.uk/video-detail/bbc-news-rage-against-machine-1-jon-morter-interview/1406151991 and "UK Press Association" coverage: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5hZ7jeEUpVhXZYksNa_qJeuOUMCAg and for international impact of the Morters the "Toronto Star" biggest newspaper in Canada http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/article/737734--simon-cowell-vs-600-000-facebook-punk-rock-fans Hardly brief online mention, mostly blogs is it?werldwayd (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about proving they are more notable than Vanessa George? I'd like to see that. Rapido (talk) 17:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHER. George is irrelevant. Werldwayd, we know Morter's been interviewed a bit about it, but that's not going to save the article. He's only known for one event, and unless an event is pretty bloody spectacular (which this isn't) we don't have articles about such people and their 15 minutes of fame. Fences&Windows 02:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This event has gathered international interest and has been reported everywhere for the last week or so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riksweeney (talk • contribs) 18:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And we have it covered adequately in the article on the single. Fences&Windows 02:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Killing_in_the_Name#Christmas_Number_One_.E2.80.93_2009_campaign, not notable by themselves per WP:BLP1E. Chris Rocen (talk) 19:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep entirely inappropriate to try and cram details about this couple into the Killing in the Name article. Either it gets an article of its own or it is gone. How did Wikipedia ever end up with a policies that do not leave room for things like this? Be kind, give it a bit of space, this near instant call for deletion is unpleasantly hostile to new editors and good faith contributions. Is this proposed deletion really representative of the joyless exercise Wikipedia has come to? -- Horkana (talk) 03:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's perfectly normal for a section in article to be as long as this, so there shouldn't be any worries about "cramming". Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but mostly because other than mentioning their names once there is no good reason to merge any information about them into the article for Killing in the Name. Be under no illusions, a merge is not appropriate here. Keep and delete are the only options. -- Horkana (talk) 00:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why isn't a merge appropriate here? The only information about the couple themselves in this article is their names. Everything is directly relevant to the push to get Killing in the Name of to #1, and can easily be incorporated into that sectio n if it isn't there already. This is standard practice. There's room to argue with Wikiepdia's deletion policies, but putting your own interpretation on the policy and then complain about it is not helpful. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep - as an example of the positive aspects of the Great British spirit BBC article regards, Lynbarn (talk) 12:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. Not notable in their own right outside of this campaign. Rob Sinden (talk) 13:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

M&R per above. The JPS ^{talk to me} 17:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Most of you have heard of the Million Dollar Homepage, right? You know, the guy who sold pixels for a dollar each. Take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Tew. Same thing as this couple - clearly one-eventers - they are KNOWN for one event; I have not heard media coverage of their Astley attempt, except web articles where it's mentioned in conjuction with coverage of the current Rage Against The Machine campaign. I have not seen an article from a year ago saying "this couple are trying to get Rick Astley to no.1". Think about it carefully, guys. It's the event that is famous, not this couple. Rapido (talk) 20:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as above. This is a typical "famous for 15 minutes" type event. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know. Cowell has offered them a job. They have refused. They're going to do it again next year. On the other hand they were "previously unheard of". But I guess everybody has to start somewhere. --can dle •wicke 03:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Missing redirects: Tracy and Jon Morter, The Morters, Morters, Morter, Jon Morter, Tracy Morter, John Morter, Tracey Morter. --can dle •wicke 03:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We didn't want to create too many redirects particularly since the article may be up for deletion soon. Once the fate of the article is decided we can go ahead and creating them. But thanks for the reminder werldwayd (talk) 07:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The event is notable for the volume of sales and media interest but J&T themselves wont go down in history. A mention of them as the instigaros in the relevant RATM/KITN sections shoud be enough to give them the credit as instigators.Gavinturner (talk) 13:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Come on, anyone could set up a facebook group. Ok, so not many would have reached the outcome they did, but are they worthy of an article? There is enough mentioned in the original Killing in the name article as their is. Thenthornthing (talk) 21:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete For all the previously listed reasons. Who these people are is not at all relevant to what they did. A simple mention of their name in the Killing in the Name article is lucky enough for them. Having an article about them would make a mockery of the notability guildlines if this article is kept. --Tom dl (talk) 04:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the ITN Main News item then which even interviews Jon Morter and credits him with the achievement [55]. He boldly declared to ITN: "We have given The Christmas No 1 back to everybody else" werldwayd (talk) 22:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - relevence? How does this video prove anything more than this couple being WP:ONEEVENT? Rapido (talk) 22:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is in the talk page of the article (I don't think the poster is aware of how to respond to AFDs, however it's obviously a delete contribution): Rapido (talk) 11:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am Tracy Morter, and this page really does need to be deleted (apart from being a little incorrect in places) we do not need a page! Everyone made rage number one, we just had a silly idea. Not worthy of a wiki page. moogyboobles (talk)

OK, someone saying they are Tracy Morter has made this contribution. (But on the Internet who knows if it is her?). In any case, it makes no difference one way or the other to this debate. It is the rules of Wikipedia notability that that should determine this. This contribution is irrelevant to that. Peteinterpol (talk) 12:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even if she is what she claims she is (Tracy Morter herself) which I somehow doubt, are we saying the individuals about whom a page exists actually own the page and they decide if a page is appropriate on them or not. So it's a type of veto one gets over page that talks about him/her? werldwayd (talk) 05:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note on why we should delete this: The wishes of the subjects of articles can and should be taken into account if they are not public figures: "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus may be closed as delete." (WP:DELPOL). I think this is Tracy Morter - she uses the same name as her Twitter account, and she does know about the article. In reply to someone on Twitter saying she might have fun editing this article she said "ah yes found it now, more like deleting!".[56][57]). We should delete this article even in the absence of consensus. Fences&Windows 22:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above contribution about "relatively unknown, non-public figures" certainly doesn't apply to these two. After countless interviews on prime time television, on radio, and front pages of tabloids, and international coverage of the Morters named specifically in virtually all international media outlets and news agencies, how can they expect to be treated as some "non-public figures" that should have their privacy and stay away from any public coverage or scrutiny. And since when having a Wikipedia page discussing their impact has become such a shame. Well you cannot have a cake and eat it too. Either you are a public figure, or you are not. So if you are oh so private, why bother to do anything so public as to boldly claim we won't allow an X factor single to become number one. And then go the additional way of "personally" and "specifically" choosing a very ominous American shout song that says: "Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me" and you expect people to do exactly what the song tells you NOT to do. Now once you have gotten your way and made people do exactly what you wanted them to do, you did your round tour and did interviews with every media outlet there is, you suddenly become oh so private and not worthy of a mention in Wikipedia... Yeh, right! To editors of Wikipedia, I say: Think about it. Had it not been for the Morters, there would possibly be a protest song, but that song would not ever be in most probability "Killing in the Name". It would be SOME OTHER SONG, but never the Killing song, undoubtedly a PERSONAL favorite repertoire of the Morters themselves. So if it is "Killing in the Name" is what we got at #1, I suggest it is entirely and 100% on the choice the Morters made and falls squarely on their shoulders we had an entirely un-Christmas song this year. And if Wikipedia has this so-called "Killing in the Name" Christmas section anyhow, it is a Morters credit "par excellence" and wouldn't be there WITHOUT their personal choice of song. To the Morters, all I can say (if they actually are the ones who put the note) So you played the game, (and good for you that you did) so take the blame too (.. or the credit if you will). Having said that, I see the general concensus is already for a deletion. Delete if you will. I cannot go on defending a page I created. But do not delete based on the wishes of the Morters. Delete because you think it needs deleting. werldwayd (talk) 01:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep This is equally in the talk page of the article (I don't think this poster either is aware of how to respond to AfDs, however it's obviously a Keep contribution): werldwayd (talk) 04:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC) "They are already historically significant figures on the UK music scene. Szczels (talk) 23:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - that doesn't say keep, it's just the dubious statement of being "historical figures". Whereas the supposed Tracy Morter comment said "this page really does need to be deleted". Rapido (talk) 09:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't actually say "historical figures". It says "historically significant figures". Significant means notable. werldwayd (talk) 22:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - You're right, it does say "historically significant figures", I apologise for that mistake. However it doesn't say keep. Rapido (talk) 22:40, 27 December 2009 (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. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 04:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Vegetable Game[edit]

The Vegetable Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Article about a drinking game with absolutely no sources other than two YouTube videos. While the videos may prove that it exists, they're not sufficient to demonstrate that this game is worthy of an encyclopedia article. I've searched for reliable sources on this game, both under this title and under the altnerate title given in the first sentence, and I can't find anything even resembling a reliable source. Nyttend (talk) 03:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk) · @250 · 04:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep [58], [59] are both reasonable sources. [60] is a book that appears to cover a non-drinking version. There were a few other sources including one [61] that uses this article as a source/reference. Hobit (talk) 09:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the first or the third as reliable sources — they appear to be essentially self-published — and the second doesn't give substantial coverage. Nyttend (talk) 13:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The book is the third one, published by B&N. It appears or to have a whole section on the topic (not available on-line). I'm curious why you think realbeer is self-published (looks like a small, but real company). Hobit (talk) 15:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's submitted by an individual. Moreover, the company is publishing it — it's not known to be a reliable publisher of information. The confusing bit is that I forgot that you gave four sources — read "first", "third", and "second" as "first", "fourth", and "third". I don't see the second as reliable either, however. Nyttend (talk) 15:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we'll need to agree to disagree. The book appears to have a fair bit of coverage (describes the game in full I think) but we can't see it with the format given. I wouldn't use some of those sources to source an article in the Arab Israeli conflict, but for a drinking game I think they are fine. I do suspect a merge somewhere would be the best bet, but I don't have a clue where. Hobit (talk) 02:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sources Hobit cites indicates substantial coverage, just mentions of the game, establishing its existence, but nobody has questioned its existence. There is no evidence anywhere of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, those are full descriptions of the game. If reliable sources cover the game in depth (and yes, explaining the whole game is depth), it's notable on Wikipedia (see WP:N). If those sources _are_ reliable is debatable (the book certainly is, the websites I'm less sure of but I think at least one of them is), thus my weak !vote. Hobit (talk) 15:02, 14 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) 01:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No indication of notability beyond being yet another of countless drinking games. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Other than the sources? Hobit (talk) 22:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
None of the "sources" even attempt to show notability, they just summarise the rules among a directory of hundreds of similar games. Besides, we haven't stooped to considering stuff like "www.studentdrinkinggames.com" a reliable source. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hummm, for the topic I'd consider it reliable. Asked the question at the RS noticeboard. Further, yes, coverage of the rules by a reliable source (that's independent, etc.) does count for WP:N and meeting our inclusion guidelines. The book is clearly a reliable source. Hobit (talk) 05:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, does this website have a high reputation for fact-checking and for good editorial oversight? I don't see any significant coverage that solidly fits the definitions at WP:RS. Nyttend (talk) 05:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously arguing they got the rules wrong? Or are you arguing that because they don't have a reputation for fact-checking they don't count toward WP:N? I'd disagree with both, but I'm curious where you are coming from. Hobit (talk) 23:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a paraphrase of matters in WP:RS. Sources that don't have a good reputation for checking their facts aren't reliable, and we need reliable sources to establish notability. Nyttend (talk) 02:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but when we discuss reliablility of sources, we also discuss "reliable for what". The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica is a reliable source, but not for most issues of science. The question here is if that site is reliable for drinking game rules. Are you seriously claiming it's not? Hobit (talk) 04:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete YouTube is not a RS and the videos don't prove the game exists beyond the world of those videos, and even if they did it seems that as a simple point and shoot documentary it would be a primary source, and secondary or tertiary sources would still be needed. Realbeer and studentdrinkinggames are not RS; they are not "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The book House party games and amusements for the upper class and other folks can't be read online, but since it's said above not to be presented as a drinking game there, using it as a source would be WP:OR of the WP:SYNTH variety. I am confident that there are some drinking games that are notable and can be reliably sourced, but this does not appear to be one of them. Шизомби (talk) 05:27, 23 December 2009 (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. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 04:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Schaefer Youland[edit]

Ryan Schaefer Youland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Joke biography of non-notable person Bobrayner (talk) 01:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable. Almost speedy as no particular claim of notablity in the article.Obina (talk) 09:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable and references are provided.(Cbleake) 11:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC) — Cbleake (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. To the extent that this is sourced at all, the sources are self-published by the labs he worked with rather than reliably published secondary sources about him. And working on a couple of undergraduate research projects is very far from the level of academic success we expect from someone notable for their research. I don't think this sort of article should be speediable (there are legitimately notable researchers who have articles almost this bad that should be cleaned up rather than deleted) but it's a very obvious delete. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. A medical student, falling far short of satisfying WP:PROF, with no evidence of passing WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 01:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this one probably could have been speedy-deleted if not for the mischief of the creator. Not notable in the slightest. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:11, 27 December 2009 (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. — ξ ^xplicit 01:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hard Times (MC Major song)[edit]

Hard Times (MC Major song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This is an exact copy of Sk8er Boi with a different title Smokizzy (talk) 00:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged it for speedy deletion (A10). Mattg82 (talk) 00:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 15:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Lockhart[edit]

Jack Lockhart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

It would seem as if he is a non-notable minor league manager. Alex (talk) 00:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable minor league manager. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG.--Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 00:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above. --Glenfarclas (talk) 02:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. -- Spanneraol (talk) 04:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:BIO. Warrah (talk) 17:14, 21 December 2009 (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.