Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 December 27

< 26 December	28 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 Redirected to Connecticut International Baccalaureate Academy. Non admin closure. ascidian | talk-to-me 14:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Connecticut International Baccaulerate Academy[edit]

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

Misspelling and duplicate of existing article See Connecticut International Baccalaureate Academy. Most of the relevant material is in the correctly spelled article. Two tiny exceptions - the reference to the bridge and the reference to the three programs. I could not find RS for either; if someone can, and finds the information relevant, it could be added to Connecticut International Baccalaureate Academy--SPhilbrick T 01:09, 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. Rough consensus favors deletion, and their arguments seem to outweigh the reasons for retention. –MuZemike 06:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

J.A.I.L. 4 Judges[edit]

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

This is a big giant op-ed piece on a non-notable organization that grossly violates the no original research policy. Moreover, the organization's web site listed at the bottom of the article redirects to a Network Solutions page. Further, the citations from reliable sources (e.g. The New York Times, CBS 2 Chicago, Northwestern University School of Law) don't even mention the organization described by the article while the link to the Fresno Bee citation doesn't even work. At best, two paragraphs consisting of 10% of this 10,000-byte op-ed could be salvaged for an article called South Dakota Amendment E (2006), which 89% of the South Dakota electorate voted against (the article itself admits that this hasn't even had sufficient signatures to appear on any other state's ballot). OCNative (talk) 23:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is a mess, and the suggested move to South Dakota Amendment E (2006) may be appropriate. Deletion, however, is not. Once notable, always notable, and the group (or at least the amendment) was arguably notable in 2006, based on this National Public Radio story (inexplicably listed under "External links" rather than References) and this coverage in Dakota Voice. The New York Times in this editorial called the amendment the "wackiest and potentially most far-reaching of the judge-bashing schemes", and this Google News archive search shows further coverage of the organization's activities. Amendment E was clearly a bad idea, but I think that it and the organizations that supported it are both notable on the basis of the media coverage at the time. I would argue that any citizen initiative that makes it to the ballot is notable, although the less controversial ones could be included in the article on the election which included them. — Eastmain (talk) 03:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It should be noted (in terms of assessing notability) that many of sources noted aren't about the group J.A.I.L. or Jail 4 Judges or whatever it's supposed to be called, but about the initiatives; as this article is supposedly about the group, that makes it a different category (he says, starting to rethink his Mild Keep). (And to explic the "inexplicable", the reason those things weren't in "References" is that there wasn't a reference list on this article until yesterday, when I did a little cleaning up converting inline direct links to more appropriate references. It was only in doing so that I saw what a mess it all was.) - Nat Gertler (talk) 15:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mild ~~keep~~ delete - the group has gotten enough coverage elsewhere that it does have a valid place in wikipedialand. However, this article is a mess. I've cleaned up some of the formatting, but it is heavily underreferenced, reads like a personal essay in many points, has rather blatant POV slants being added to it even now (I just saw a new edit that seems to make it a goal to prosecute judges for mere controversy in their rulings), and there's been some major WP:COI involved; the webmaster of the group has edited repeatedly, the page was founded by someone who was later bounced for making death threats against a user, and appears to have been material taken from the group's website. It really needs some editor with time and willingness to strip it down severely, and leave an objective and direct short piece. This is not an organization that has had a substantial effect; it's a history of failure with no lasting impact, and thus doesn't need much depth. - Nat Gertler (talk) 04:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC) Added later: their lack of impact does cause notability concerns; the coverage is more about the amendment than the group. Their lack of impact fails to give a sense that this is merely an unfortunate overlook in coverage. - Nat Gertler (talk) 21:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. J.A.I.L. 4 Judges itself is not notable. The 2006 Amendment E race may be notable and worth an article. This article is a mess, full of original research, non-reliable sources, POV, and a conflict of interest. --Weazie (talk) 22:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but gut and completely rewrite. I would argue that any grassroots movement able to raise as big a stink as this organization did should be considered notable, but I would not object to a move to South Dakota Amendment E (2006) in the alternative. Groupthink (talk) 14:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's relevent information and such information is likely be of interest of people. --Île flottɑnte~Floɑting islɑnd ^Talk 00:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That it could be of interest to some people is not a good reason to keep. There are tons of things that could be of interest to people that don't belong in this encyclopedia... Spiesr (talk) 15:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is basically a long essay in favor of the ideas of the group, which seems to have little notability in itself. The article may qualify as a WP:coatrack, "a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject. The nominal subject is used as an empty coatrack, which ends up being mostly obscured by the "coats"." --MelanieN (talk) 18:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
Comment. The current state of the article is not germane to the question of whether or not it should be deleted. The thing to consider is not "Is this article broken?" but "Is this article fixable?" Groupthink (talk) 23:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and start over The material here is too biased to be kept, even in the history. It could only be fixed by rewriting from scratch. There is one adequate source for a article titled this way, not under the name of the amendment, the ABA one. [1] DGG ( talk ) 00:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The material can be rewritten from scratch without resorting to deletion, and it should be kept in the history as a referencable record of what doesn't belong in the article. Groupthink (talk) 07:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SilkTork *^YES! 02:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Got Grip?[edit]

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

Film does not meet WP:NF. No (reliable) sources found. Prod tag removed by article's creator. No additional info added before or after removal of the PROD tag. Jarkeld (talk) 23:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found zero sources. Joe Chill (talk) 23:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, as per speedy deletion criteria G11 and A7. OCNative (talk) 00:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet notability guidelines and is, as far as I can tell, unverifiable. Can see nothing significant in google or google news.--Beloved Freak 22:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Does not even claim notability, much less demonstrate it. It's basically just talking about a bunch of kids who filmed themselves skateboarding. --MelanieN (talk) 19:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
Speedy delete under A7. Doesn't seem to indicate notability in any way. Cocytus [»talk«] 20:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Melatonin Magik[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable future album per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NALBUMS. References are currently a social networking site, blog and press release. Steamroller Assault (talk) 23:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. RP459 (talk) 23:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 23:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NALBUMS: "unreleased albums are in general not notable" but may be "if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources"; this album does not. TheJazzDalek (talk) 13:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the sources are from reliable official press releases and confirmed Hip Hop articles published online, and the record label War Lab confirms this release. MarioVega0 (UTC)
Keep Seems to be legit. A quick google search turns up tons of underground hiphop sites and official press releases on it. Zodiiak (talk) 08:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Verifiability, while indeed an issue is not the heart of the matter here. The main issue is if it has received significant independent coverage in reliable sources, which means it needs to be more in-depth than "Canibus is working on a new album to be called Melatonin Magik." If you have found coverage of substance in a reliable source (i.e. not a blog or press release), please update the article or at least post the link here so someone else can. TheJazzDalek (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nobody is questioning if the album is scheduled to be released or not. But there is a definate lack significant coverage by reliable, third party sources (and no, hip-hopkings.com is not a reliable source). No confirmed track list. As such, it fails WP:ALBUMS, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 03:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Aldred[edit]

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

Deprodded, this long dead person is not notable. As near as I can tell from the article, the links given in the article, and my own internet searches, he was a Jesuit priest(?) who lived, built a house, and died. That is all. Abductive (reasoning) 23:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Canterbury Tail talk 23:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom individual fails WP:NOTABILITY RP459 (talk) 23:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. OCNative (talk) 00:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 03:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frankie Hayze[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Please note that both references used to substantiate notability (a) lead to nowhere, and (b) don't seem to be about the same subject as indicated in their URLs. An actual search for "Frankie Hayze" on Billboard reveals nothing. Also note that User: Yunglilhaze is recovering from a block, during which he was informed of many Wikipedia policies. It now seems he is attempting an end-run around those policies for the recreation of this page. Steamroller Assault (talk) 22:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sources don't lead anywhere, nn. fetchcomms☛ 23:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:Notability & WP:BIO nothing notable period about this person. RP459 (talk) 23:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 23:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt, fake sources, self-promotion, non-notable. NawlinWiki (talk) 01:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 02:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not finding anything, either, to indicate this person meets WP:MUSICBIO. Gongshow ^Talk 07:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:MUSICBIO. Cocytus [»talk«] 20:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Totally fails WP:MUSICBIO. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jean de Mailly[edit]

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

Also nominating:

Jean D'Mailly
Peter D'Mailly,Barn Conti
Madeleine de Maillé

Nobility is not notability. Notability is not inherited. No references. Reywas92^Talk 18:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Nobility sometimes makes one notable as a member of a national parliament. An English baron from that period would be automatically notable as a member of the House of Lords. Did being baron de Conti automatically make him a member of France's Parliament? - Eastmain (talk) 21:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then the notability is from the membership, not the nobility. Don't ask me; the article doesn't say. No notability is established. Reywas92^Talk 23:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, being a baron in France did not automatically make him a parlementaire héréditaire, a privilege only accorded to those who were recognized by the Crown as hereditary members of the Parlement de Paris -- most, but not all, dukes. But that can't be the criterion since it is entirely Brit-centric: the Maillys were influential and well-known nobles in French history without being peers, the individuals' notability deriving substantially from their membership in that prominent family. Rather, this article and its relatives deserves to be deleted because it is vandalism by virtue of being mostly fabrication: "Jean V de Mailly" died young and childless. The references to his spouse and descendants, e.g. 'Marquisa Renee Delapommellaire, Louis Wallerund du Bois, Jacquin d'Neville, Peter de Mailly, Casper Mabille', etc are fictitious -- and where they are not fake, most of the details given of their lives and filiations is fake. Like a proliferating class of Wiki articles, this one appears made up to support a fantasized noble origin for someone, whose surname is (I'll wager) "Mabee" or the like ("Mailly" presumably being the nearest-sounding name the vandal could discover to that of an aristocratic family). It should be deleted because it is largely bogus as well as non-notable (the subject having died too young to live up to his family's reputation -- for instance, by reproducing heirs who held the same high status at the French court), and without reference to the debatable claim that "Notability is not inherited" -- in which I cannot concur. FactStraight (talk) 01:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions.
Comment Certainly seeing a lot at books, but some could be about different people than the subject of this article. Merits further research, but the article itself is not in great shape at the moment. Cirt (talk) 14:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 1)This individual was not notable, having died around 1528 at the age of 16. 2)The reference Dragoon1988 posted earlier stated that Jean d'Mailly died sans posterite(without issue), which he speedily deleted[2] after I had pointed out it contradicts the fictional history he is creating. Peter d'Mailly, another article without ANY references, is most likely a fake individual considering that Jean d'Mailly had NO children AND the House of Bourbon-Conde was in possession of the title "Conti" through Eléanor de Roucy de Roye.
The bigger picture is Dragoon1988's attempt to invent a fictitious genealogy using a fake mistress of Louis XI[3],[4],[5], unsupported by any references.
Also please note that Demailly 1986[6] is most likely a sock of Dragoon1988, and is being used to create more fictitious genealogies. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jean D'Mailly for now, but excise the hoax.
- Delete Peter D'Mailly,Barn Conti as a hoax. Edward321 (talk) 14:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- DeleteMadeleine de Maillé as hoax, now that it's been added to the Afd. Edward321 (talk) 23:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Jean D'Mailly, died without issue and virtually nothing is written about him, except in fictional genealogies.
- Delete Peter D'Mailly, most likely a fictional person that supposedly inherits a title from a person that had no children!
- Delete Madeleine d'Maille, unless this article can be supported by reliable 3rd party sources, I see no reasonable notability. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fences&Windows 22:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for spurious history.Red Hurley (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 03:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Heloísa Aalling[edit]

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

Concerns have been raised about notability. Personally I thought the fact that she is a professional model and is listed under the fashion model directory, and has featured in notable magazines and modelled for notable fashion companies/adverts in her own country I thought this met the professional requirements... I wasn't aware they had to have modelled in Paris to be notable, although it seems this model has modelled for NEXT and has appeared in fashion in Paris, New York City and Sao Paulo..... As fashion is not exactly a subject I know much about perhaps the community could shed any light on whether this article is acceptale or not. Thanks. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 22:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I believe that the article would have to show notability above and beyond being listed in a 'model directory'. I think she still would have to be documented by a reliable source as having been reported for something more than just doing a typical run of standard commercial modeling (though obviously a very successful run). Scott P. (talk) 22:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete complete lack of reliable sources. nothing in gnews for long name [7]. one hit without middle name. [8]. LibStar (talk) 14:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN per my original prod. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 03:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Galleguillos[edit]

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

The article lacks reliable sources verifying this person's notability, and I wasn't able to find such sources with a Google News source. Prod removed by creator without the addition of reliable sources. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep.~~ Delete. (See rationale for vote change below.) I found this- an Opentopia.com bio on him. He appears to be the owner of WorkSessions, a sort of competitor to Napster. It took me a while to pull this up, but the info is there. I'm going to put this link to the bio info in the article. Scott P. (talk) 23:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like a Wikipedia mirror site and therefore not a reliable source. It may be a copy of a previous version of the article, as it has been deleted before [9]. Cassandra 73 (talk) 23:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After taking a closer look, they got me. Looks like probably only one or two individuals have been promoting the Galleguillos Wikipedia article and the Opentopia writeup, which has much of the same wording, though sequenced slightly differently. Thanks. Scott P. (talk) 23:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteas non-notable. Unverified, unsourced. A Google search turns up only websites, facebook, etc. --MelanieN (talk) 19:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
Actually, from what I can tell, WorkSessions deals with music but does not compete with Napster. This might be better for the WorkSessions page rather than this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TribalElliot (talk • contribs) 14:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources for the material found; a few local mentions of a homework help site. Nothing to support the rest of the self-promotional bio; parts of which are clearly imanginary. "nearly forced to declare personal bankruptcy", at the age of 14 or 15? Nothing comes up on his other stuff except for what appears to be dedicated SEO. Kuru (talk) 16:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note the article creator has attempted to remove !votes and alter others here. Kuru (talk) 16:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One of the sillier bio's I've read. I love that the infobox show his salary as less than 578,000 and net worth is less than 2.6 million. So is 99.8% of the US. What the hell is that supposed to tell us? Fails WP:BIO. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 03:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Times obituary of Adam Smith[edit]

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

Article about an obituary is not notable. It has no significant coverage or sources because it is itself a source. It would be a ridiculous precedent to maintain articles of obituaries in an encyclopedia. The text of the document is already at Wikisource -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as nominator. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a primary source, no secondary sources analyze it. Abductive (reasoning) 23:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as a primary source (and I would expect in the public domain) the document itself (if not already) could be posted online and linked to Adam Smith. Northwestgnome (talk) 23:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see it's already in Wikisource. An opinion with the link such as, "Very interesting", to direct readers to it would probably be forgiven or overlooked by WP strictness police. Northwestgnome (talk) 23:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do we soft redirect to Wikisource, as we do to Wiktionary? That might be in order, here. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in favor of Wikisource version. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as commentary, this is original research. Bearian (talk) 05:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this reads as one person's personal research/reflections on the obituary. As such, it doesn't strike me as encyclopedic or meeting the notability guidelines. Since the document itself is already on Wikisource, I'd say a deletion here is fair enough. Cocytus [»talk«] 20:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For all the good reasons already stated. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joachim Cronman[edit]

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

The subject of the article did nothing to warrant an article. Being a colonel and having gotten killed before a war officially began is not significant enough. Gerbelzodude99 (talk) 21:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: User:Gerbelzodude99 has now been indef-blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Torkmann. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All three nominations were by the same person, who is now banned from Wikipedia for the three nominations, each as a sockpuppet, and other disruptive AFDs. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Per WP:SNOW, this is the 4th RFD for this article, and it's unlikely that it will be resolved any differently from the other three. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 21:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think enough time has passed. Thank you, and I did my research on this one. Let's stop using SNOW to stop all discussion and see how this plays out. Merry Christmas! Gerbelzodude99 (talk) 21:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep For other disruptive nominations of my articles by Gerbelzodude99 see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir Charles Johnston and ‎Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loew's Cemetery and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eversharp. I think he is lashing out because I caught him commenting at an AFD without actually looking at the article. If he had read the article, at ‎Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loew's Cemetery he would noticed that the New York Times was not the sole reference in the article, instead he repeated the error of the previous voters stating that it was. See here where he says "I have a feeling the author of this (and other New York Times-based articles) sits in a room full of century-old pulp newspapers and sketches out stub articles based on the contents thereof. I don't know if this is politically correct, but perhaps the author of these stubs suffers from autism or Asperger syndrome? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... I'm really concerned that this article is going to be a permanent keep merely because it keeps getting nominated by people with a record of frivolous AfD-nominations. I just want to stress that although it has the superficial look and feel of a being about a relevant encyclopedic topic, the image pretty much falls apart upon any closer inspection of the references. The major problem is that none have any trace of synthesis, analysis or secondary treatment beyond mere summaries of primary sources, and certainly anything that confirms genuine notability. The lack of descriptions of anything remotely interesting beyond a slavish listing of offspring, relatives and military assignments just doesn't strike me as being relevant Wikipedia content. Peter ^Isotalo 22:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone else have a sneaking suspicion that User:Drawn Some and User:Gerbelzodude99 and User:Torkmann are the same person. Of all the articles in Wikipedia and of all the articles I started, why would three people be drawn to this same article over and over? All three accounts exist only to nominate articles for deletion, and all three concentrate on articles that I write. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't understand: 1. Why someone would want to write an article on this person, 2. Why someone would bother to nominate it for deletion. However since he seems to have been fairly important and documented in published, reliable sources we might as well keep him. Northwestgnome (talk) 23:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is impeccably sourced to many reliable sources, thus meeting WP:V. WP:N is certainly met given the coverage of this subject in reliable sources, and being a high-level officer who commanded a military installation of some importance is certainly a credible claim to notability. Although this was a bad-faith nomination, I don't think the AfD meets any of the criteria at WP:SK. That said, this discussion is somewhat premature; the third AfD was closed as "no consensus" under two months ago, and the second AfD was closed the same way one month before that. During that time, there have not been major changes to the article, so I think it's unreasonable to expect a consensus to emerge this time around. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep another bad faith nom. There is one delete !vote by a non-banned user, otherwise I'd request somebody to close as speedy keep. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 13:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC) Really?! Another AFD, just delete it. I have yet to see anything that would make this dude pass WP:GNG TheWeakWilled (T * G) 13:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is the same person nominating under different names each time to be disruptive. And, btw, he meets every requirement of WP:GNG. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All I see is trivial coverage, nothing significant. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 17:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If fulfills all requirements except the first one, significant coverage, which is the only one that really matters in terms of notability. The rest is just more specific application of WP:N. None of those sources describe Cronman in any detail. Compare with the example given in the note at WP:GNG, and keep in mind that it's referring to something as minor as a news article. Cronman gets roughly the same amount of textual coverage in considerably longer academic articles and full-length books. Peter ^Isotalo 18:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

10 facts from 10 sources is the exact same depth of coverage as 10 facts from 1 source. Mathematically there is no difference. He appears in Finnish history books, English history books, and Swedish and German books. While other people in Wikipedia will have 100 facts and others 1,000 and 10,000 facts known about them, he meets Wikipedia's requirement for an entry. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not conferred by "being in books". That's what the "Three Blind Mice"-example is trying to say. It would qualify millions of living and deceased ppl, and untold numbers of installations, objects, groupings, phrases and whathaveyou, for their own perpetually stubby articles. We're talking about stuff that would probably make even staunch inclusionists suspicious. If you want this to actually be about following guidleines I suggest lobbying for a change of the wording in WP:GNG. Peter ^Isotalo 21:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, delete! Stop being paranoid, Richard. Also stop making accusations with NO proof. The article keeps getting nominated for deletion because the article needs to go, bro. Mr. Richard, stop being a WP:DICK about it. Torkmann (talk) 17:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE User:Torkmann has been indef-blocked for abusively used one or more accounts. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again using math: The odds of three random people nominating the same random article is 3 million cubed. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I started a SPI [here because of some weird similarities between three users that have nominated this article for deletion. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 17:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sock allegations above are irrelevant. This article is problematic because the subject is not notable in the general sense. This would all seem to be about a pattern of article creation to lower the bar of inclusion in the direction of "every person who ever lived". Jack Merridew 18:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt you can come up with 16 references for each person on Earth, I don't have any in GNews or GBooks. You might get one fact from a telephone book, or 5 facts from a person in a funeral notice, but they would not have a claim to notability. 16 references for someone from 300 years ago is pretty well referenced. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. 4 AFDs in just over 90 days is ridiculous and disruptive; no reasons for deletion soundly based in policy; and peculiar indicators of hounding an editor. We should have better things to do. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and mark the sock puppet AFDs on this article. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 19:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Drawn Some

Keep on the merits. Commander of an important military base. Keep also on the grounds that 2 previous attempts have found no consensus to delete, and an earlier delete decision was reversed at deletion review. I think it is finally cleafr enough that there is no sufficient consensus to delete the article nor is there likely to be, so keep is the way to settle this. DGG ( talk ) 20:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Riga is the "important military base" in this context. Dünamünde was an outlying fortification which no one has been able to secure much info on. If you want to extend notability from minor military installations to all of its commanders, regardless of their achievments, than at least stick to that argument instead of inflating the importance of minor details. Peter ^Isotalo 21:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I said important; Riga was no doubt more important, but notability does not limit itself to that. I think the key thing we look for is in fact an independent command substantial enough to be of some historical note. Anyway, another ed. seems to have mentioned just below the article on the place, which perhaps justifies "very important" --and I see the Latvian Wikipedia article is 3 times larger still, and the Polish & Russian yet longer. DGG ( talk ) 23:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daugavgrīva

Keep. Knock it off. A 4th AfD nomination by an account suspected by sock puppetry by itself points toward a keep vote. However, sticking purely to the merits of the article, a commander of a major fort is also notable in his own right, as forts were mostly operated as tactically independent units in this eta. Tomas e (talk) 22:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator has been banned from Wikipedia for this nomination and other disruptive nominations. All the past three nominations for deletion have been from the same person using sock accounts. The first nomination was closed by the administrator using a Wikipedia:supervote to negate the two keep votes. Lets have a contest to see who is the first to detect what account name he creates and starts his disruptive edits with next. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep of bad faith nomination by a now indef-blocked sock of an indef-blocked user... in a total abuse of process and guideline. His thumbing his nose at the processes set in place by the community aside, the article is well-sourced and meets precedent and guideline for such historical articles, and notability outside the United States is notability none-the-less. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I can't see what harm this article does and it has been carefully researched. But it gives no indication that he did anything notable at all - and it would be nice to know why on earth he is worth an article. NBeale (talk) 12:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per my prior votes.--Milowent (talk) 19:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The bad-faith nomination makes this a speedy keep, and I ask an uninvolved admin to close it as such since no new arguments for deletion have been brought forward. That being said, I stand by my delete from the last two AfDs – nothing has changed, as far as I can tell, and neither has my opinion. Amalthea 19:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Time to close. --IP69.226.103.13 19:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by IP69.226.103.13 (talk • contribs)
Speedy Keep Bad faith repeat nomination by blocked sockpuppet of blocked user. Edward321 (talk) 00:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 03:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ERacks[edit]

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

Supplier of computer systems. Are they really notable? Sgroupace (talk) 20:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, also unambiguous advertising: eRacks has given back to the community, both by offering an easy means of donating to open source projects and by donating hardware to organizations in need.... - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No outside confirmation of notability. --MelanieN (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
Delete Nothing notable here. Miami33139 (talk) 07:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –MuZemike 06:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Silent Three[edit]

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

Sources are very thin on the ground here. Not at all sure about notability, but as I know very little about this subject I thought that I'd bring it here to se what you people think. Theresa Knott | token threats 20:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete.~~ Move. (See rationale for vote change below.) Unable to find any references. Scott P. (talk) 00:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I clicked on the Google Books link above and immediately found what appears to be a chapter on them in a book [10] which is a good start and that was just the work of moments. (Emperor (talk) 17:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
CSD as patent nonsense. --EEMIV (talk) 06:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I did speedy it but then changed my mind and brought it here because of the comment on the talk page (which I urge everyone to read). Theresa Knott | token threats 09:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this article has been vandalised a number of times and I have restored the version to the way it was before this took place - it is unwise to base an AfD on an article that has been deliberately made into a mess. (Emperor (talk) 17:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Keep as this BBC documentary explains "School Friend refreshed the traditions of boarding school tales in girls' story papers and ushered in a new era of comics for girls. The million-selling first issue cover, which was illustrated by Evelyn Flinders, featured The Silent Three at St Kit's, sleuthing in their capes and cowls." Sharksaredangerous (talk) 18:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I decided to change my recommendation from delete to move for the following reasons: The un-repaired vandalism was somewhat misleading. Before the vandalism repairs, the idea of "crime solving assassins" just seemed a bit too wacky for me! I'm glad someone fixed this. After doing a bit of Googling, it seems that a search for the terms: "school friend" comics turns up 66,000 apparently very relevent hits. A Google search for the terms: "silent three" joan peggy betty turns up only 73 hits. I suggest renaming the article to the more widely known name: "School Friend (comic book series)" and fleshing it out with both some info regarding the comic book series and the info regarding the Silent Three. (Note: It turns out that there is already an article in Wikipedia called School Friends (novel series). This article is about an apparently unrelated novel series currently being written and published.).Scott P. (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Worth noting that the proposed disambiguation isn't appropriate, following WP:NCC. The right location would be School Friend (comics). It is an option I'd certainly favour - with comics anthologies it is going to be easier to prove notability for the comic than it would for individual stories (I was surprised someone had started an article on the story and not the title), so a move could lead to a more rounded article and if the section on the Silent Three was to get a lot more sources we could then look at splitting it off into its own article but, for now a move looks like the best idea. (Emperor (talk) 04:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Move to School Friend (comics), following my reasoning above. (Emperor (talk) 04:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Keep and rename and rewrite, per Sharksaredangerous, Scottperry, and Emperor. The magazine appears to be a notable topic after all. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dougie Swallow[edit]

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

Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Singularity42 (talk) 19:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesnt fail WP:NOTABILITY though. 82.132.139.13 (talk) 19:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ENTERTAINER is a guideline of how WP:NOTABILITY applies to entertainers. Yes, it is possible to met the general notability guidelines without meeting the entertainer guideline, but it exceedingly rare. How does the article's subject meet the notability guidelines? Singularity42 (talk) 19:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He has been on television with his act a number of times now, he's rather well known throughout the United Kingdom for his act and now works on the new Richard and Judy show searching for new talent. Rather than proposing it for deletion straight after the page is created, how about waiting a few minutes until references have been added for it. If you have a problem with how it it layed out, why not be bold and change the layout to fit more as an entertainer. Thanks for your comment. 82.132.139.13 (talk) 19:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to always assume good faith. I did do a Google search for this person. I found some YouTube videos and some Facebook postings. Neither are reliable sources to support notability. I'm not sure where you are coming from saying that I am opposed to the layout of the of article. All I am saying is that he does not meet the notability guidelines for entertainers. Appearing on television is not in and of itself automatic notability. There should generally be coverage of the subject by multiple, independent mainstream media. So far, I can't find any, and the burden is on the person proposing the article. Singularity42 (talk) 19:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am the performer in question, I found that two friends created this page without my knowledge, I was indeed as referenced by Youtube on Britains got Talent, and Richard and Judy's New Position, I agree with a comment that just auditioning is not notable, however I was asked to return and featured on another program (R&J). How about to retain the article we mention more about my other skills such as web development and my websites? --Andrewds (talk) 02:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Auditioning for a talent show is not notable. And speaking as someone who's in the United Kingdom - I've seen no evidence he is "rather well known" (as stated above) or "famously known" (as stated in the article). I42 (talk) 20:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument for whether he is rather well known or famously known, is simply original research. There are a number of people who have an article on this website who I have never heard of? Does that mean their page should be deleted? No. I am getting suitable references for the article. 82.132.139.13 (talk) 20:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely your assertion that he is notable is the original research? I am merely disputing that. I42 (talk) 20:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, as I have sources for them, I'm just rewriting the article at the moment in order to try to make it flow better and make it more obvious that he is notable. Doesn't help when I'm on here trying to save it from being deleted when people don't give editors a chance to get their sources all together.82.132.139.13 (talk) 20:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) WP:BURDEN lies with the editor that adds or restores material. Therefore, in this case, it lies with the editor(s) who have created the article. 2) There's no rush. This discussion will last a minimum of seven days. Plenty of time to add the references. Singularity42 (talk) 20:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ive heard of this Dougie person one of my favorite impersonators and not sure where you live but he is very well heard of in the Derbyshire/south yorkshire area of the uk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leedsalex23 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, you created the article on the person. I would hope you have heard of the person before you created the article... Unfortunately, you saying he is well known is your own opinion. What you need to do is show us some reliable sources that indicate that he is well known. Singularity42 (talk) 20:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ive also heard of him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leedsalex6 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC) This user is an admitted sock of Leedsalex23, who !voted keep above. Singularity42 (talk) 23:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As one of the comments above says, simply auditioning for the X Factor is not notable enough. If that was the case, we would have to let pages exist for everyone who had applied to be on a talent show! I was holding off nominating this article for deletion so I could look into this and find any reliable sources to support this person, but all I can find is a few YouTube videos which can't be counted as reliable sources. In case it's of any interest, I too speak from the UK but I can't recall ever seeing or hearing of this person before --5 albert square (talk) 21:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He hasn't just been on a talent show though. He was invited back for a special, and was also invited onto Richard an Judy's TV show. He now works for them following that, and is entering Celebrity Big Brother next year. Your views are misguided and incorrect.

Delete this unnotable performer. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 22:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Delete comments clearly do not take WP:POTENTIAL into account. 82.132.139.65 (talk) 01:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POTENTIAL is an essay (rather than a policy), which refers to the potential of articles. It does not refer to the potential of people to meet the general notability guidelines, and does not supercede that policy. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In any event, what part of WP:POTENTIAL#Ways to spot article potential does this even meet? Singularity42 (talk) 01:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Points 1 and 4. Thanks for your comment.82.132.139.65 (talk) 01:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, WP:POTENTIAL is an essay an does not supercede the general notability guideline. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 02:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it has context - but not context that could demonstrate notability. Yes, it cites a secondary source, but not a secondary source that could demonstrate notability. As Dylanfromthenorth indicates, WP:NOTABILITY is policy. WP:POTENTIAL is an essay that reflects the views of some editors, and must fall within policy. So the question is: does this article have potential to demonstrate notability? The answer is a resounding no. Singularity42 (talk) 02:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. 82.132.139.130 (talk) 00:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this performer is absolutly unnotable, and in my opinion also fails potential criteria. Needs to be deleted immedeately. benedikt.achatz (talk) — benedikt.achatz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Well considering how you are a member of a website which doesn't even like him, your views are completely irrelevant and completely biased. 82.132.139.130 (talk) 00:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benedikt is a friend of someone who I dislike, and that person in question probably asked him to write that comment. This comment is personal hate and should not be classed as a reason to delete this page. --Andrewds (talk) 02:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page is to discuss whether the article in question should be deleted. Let's try to stay on topic, and assume good faith.

I believe that all the posters voting delete have something against Dougie Swallow's act. Therefore there is a conflict of interest and I do not believe that these unnotable users should be allowed to participate in this discussion any further, as clearly they cannot remain neutral. Please try to remain WP:NPOV. Thanks 82.132.139.130 (talk) 00:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! That's a good one. According to your logic, anyone !voting delete must be implicitly against the subject and hence has a conflict of interest of participating in this discussion. I wonder why other users haven't thought of that to get shut down AfDs they don't agree with. Seriously, though, is there anything in my contribution list to indicate I have any specific interest in this individual or with any entertainers? Please start assuming good faith for a change. Singularity42 (talk) 00:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please adhere to Wikipedia policies. You are against the subject, hence why you want his article to be deleted. That is a conflict of interest. Please leave the discussion, as your views are blinkering the issue here, which is that the article shouldn't be deleted as it has useful information about the subject. Your dislike of the subject's act is causing you to influence other people's opinions, of which I believe is rather unfair and unethical. Clearly you are not assuming good faith so please practice assuming it before telling others to do so. Thanks. 82.132.248.12 (talk) 01:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see any conflict of interest going on here nor can I see that anyone is in breach of WP:NPOV. I did research this person and cannot find any source that states that he works or worked on Richard and Judy that complies with WP:RS. Please start assuming good faith.

Why don't you practice what you preach? I am attempting to keep this article as it has some knowledge on it (agreed it needs a little work) and I do not agree that we should delete any source of knowledge. So why don't you assume good faith too. 82.132.248.12 (talk) 01:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am the performer in question, there are lies such as Celebrity Big Brother, and working for Richard and Judy, however the rest is true. --Andrewds (talk) 02:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, as you say that "unnotable users" should not be allowed to participate any further in this discussion, I take it you are including yourself in that? --5 albert square (talk) 01:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, as I am not a user. 82.132.248.12 (talk) 01:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Might be notable one day, but isn't there yet. Fails WP:ENT as far as I can see. And I see trying to shoehorn him in under GNG as an endrun around the fact that he really isn't notable as an entertainer. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that all the people voting delete are all sockpuppets of eachother, so at this moment in time this debate (and article) needs to remain until a sockpuppetry investigation has taken place. Clearly the fact that they all mention he is unnotable and many of the users mention assuming good faith is enough evidence to suggest they are linked in some way. They use the same style of language too. I challenge all of you who have voted delete to provide reliable sources to prove you are not sock puppets. Thanks. 82.132.248.16 (talk) 00:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are more than welcome to open a sockpuppetry investigation. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 00:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural delete to allow Rotorua Regional Airport article to be moved to the new title. Mjroots (talk) 17:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rotorua International Airport[edit]

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

No airport by this name; a new user just created this page, and simply copied all content from Rotorua Regional Airport Jasepl (talk) 19:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep / Rename / Redirect the Airport became International on 12-Dec-2009 - source http://www.rdc.govt.nz/Services/Airport.aspx Annette46 (talk) 22:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Rename the Regional Airport article as International and have redirect from Regional (hope this makes sense). Better to keep the edit history of the original Regional article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete duplicate article, then rename Rotorua Regional Airport to Rotorua International Airport per RDC link above. Looks like a copy-paste move (WP:CUTPASTE). XLerate (talk) 23:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just because it started getting international flights, doesn't mean its name changed. The airport continues to call itself Rotorua Regional Airport, as is evidenced here. Jasepl (talk) 06:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The airport website doesn't appear to have been updated yet (last news item is from almost 5 months ago). Stuff.co.nz has a December article which says - "the newly branded Rotorua International Airport". XLerate (talk) 07:49, 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 speedily deleted. TN X Man 17:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyo Industries (UK)[edit]

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

Nightclub which doesn't appear to be particularly notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP (though I'm not sure if CORP applies). Article's creator is named User:Tokyoindustries, so there's probably a conflict of interest going on too. Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 19:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - A7. Singularity42 (talk) 19:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - As per above A7 with also a note about it being an unsourced article, and very difficult to verify as they seem to have almost no third party coverage. Mkdw ^talk 22:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 00:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Meets criteria for A7 and G11. Created by User:Tokyoindustries, so obvious advertising. Wexcan Talk 17:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Consensus seems to be leaning towards Speedy Delete. WP:A7 notice in place on article, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 17:19, 31 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) 15:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-Siberian American Aborigines[edit]

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

Improve or delete The lack of proper references, and the controversy of this subject, suggest this article is little more than WP:POV speculation. It should be sorted out or deleted, especially as it has significant potential impacts on a whole swathe of racial, land rights, religious, scientific and other issues. Andrewjlockley (talk) 18:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Andrewjlockley (talk) 18:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe keep It certainly is an important topic, whatever the facts turn out to be. The article is no ~~worse~~ more poorly sourced and written than many on WP. Is there another one on early American pre-history where it can be merged? Northwestgnome (talk) 23:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless something more substantial than a few costumes and a few random irregularities in tested theories show up. This looks like pure speculation of the "grasp all the odd things and try to create a link" school. It offers no evidence of how these proto-Australoids would travel 10,000 miles, and be found all across the Americas, but leave nothing but a couple of costumes, and a couple of canoes, either of which could more easily be explained by parallel development--if one group came up with it, another could, and usually have--and then lose all knowledge of craft of that quality, and not leave evidence all over the Pacific and Indian Oceans. Are there any peer reviewed papers? And how was the reception among specialists in the various fields? DNA groups? Various other technologies? I'd say it needs real sourcing and a complete rewrite if there is any credible evidence, or deletedMzmadmike (talk) 05:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteOriginal research. There are no Google Scholar sources using this phrase so not even a useful redirect. There is one Google Book source, published by Alphascript -- but all that they publish is reprints from Wikipedia (their statement) although their home page says "one of the leading publishing houses of academic research". Any useful content can be redistributed, see Talk:Pre-Siberian American Aborigines#Reads Like Original Research To Me. Dougweller (talk) 07:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fix it or delete - this is more of a synthesis situation than original research, because there are some citations and a considerable biography. Bearian (talk) 05:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete article: Article must be fixed and sources put in . Although some will find the theory controversial, it has not come out of the blue : Some of the scientific theories were raised by serious Brazilian Scientists involved with studies in the Northeast region of that country. Therefore deleting the article could only show that some user's are using the deletion very quickly when they are not open to discuss scientific theories which contradict the "establishment " . It is too early to come up with the idea of deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.169.226.31 (talk) 23:59, 29 December 2009

DeleteThis article appears to be a synthesis of multiple sources, it's not cogently put together and is written from the authors POV. I would say fix it, but I don't think it can be fixed until more published sources that specifically spell out the hypothesis, come to light. Until then you could add as many sources as you want and it would only become well sourced synthesis. BrendanFrye (talk) 04:07, 30 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. –MuZemike 06:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OggConvert[edit]

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

In the previous AfD, two of the three people who voted for delete are currently involved in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf/Evidence. After I closed it, Pohta ce-am pohtit pointed this out to me, so I have decided to rerun this AfD. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this seems to be a genuine Open Source software project available in many language options. Its also positively reviewed, recommended and linked to from many linux distro websites. http://www.linux.com/archive/feature/123574 Annette46 (talk) 21:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find more online reviews? Samboy (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YES. Satisfied users[11] and [12] and reccos [13], [14]. Apparently in the linux world it is one of the few converters to do Matroska <--> Dirac conversions [15] Annette46 (talk) 20:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or merge to GStreamer. It's true that it has one fairly long review, which was ignored in the previous AfD, but that's about it. It's not mentioned at all in any books. From the linux.com review I gather it's just a front-end for GStreamer, so a merge there should make sense. Pcap ping 00:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The policy for keeping a software program’s article in the Wiki is multiple third-party independent notable sources. So far, we have found only one. Books and Scholar searches on Google have zero hits. Samboy (talk) 18:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not exactly the policy (actually it's a guideline). The wording is "Multiple sources are generally preferred", and there are some footnotes explaning that it's acceptable to write from a single secondary source as long there's enough depth, and NPOV can be observed, but also that the "lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic". So, either outcome could reasonably be decided for this article. Pcap ping 19:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - One of the things I really would like to see is to have WP:Notability (software) be an article that reflects consensus of Wikipedia editors; I’ve already worked on the article to get rid of ideas which don’t seem to reflect consensus like trying to make magazine reviews forbidden when deciding whether to keep an article. Samboy (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, still. This still fails notability guidelines. We still are an encyclopedia and not a software directory. Is there evidence of any other non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications, aside from linux.com? JBsupreme (talk) 21:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The linux.com article is a fine enough source for this stub. I don't think it should be merged to gstreamer. Just because it uses gstreamer as a backend doesn't mean that it belongs there in the absence of a stand-alone article. --Karnesky (talk) 01:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Pcap. This is written from a neutral point of view, and even though there's only one third-party source, it's in-depth coverage so I believe WP:N is met. I would support a merger, but as Karnesky points out, there doesn't appear to be a suitable target article. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 03:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overdose (software)[edit]

(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) 18:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 18:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The main project site appears to be fragmentary, and only written for perhaps a small group of friends. Search results on Google for the terms, '"overdose software" yahoo chat client' yielded only 19 results. Clearly not widely known. This article has had no real updates for over a year, except for vandalism and vandalism repair. Scott P. (talk) 20:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems even less notable than the discontinued YCHT protocol itself. Zero secondary sources that aren't just software catalogs. No historical significance. Pcap ping 03:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete'. Not yet notable at this time. Perhaps one day it will receive non-trivial coverage from reliable third parties. Perhaps. JBsupreme (talk) 21:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing notable here. Miami33139 (talk) 07:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Angel and the Rain[edit]

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

Unnotable album. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:N. "Reviews" added appear to be user reviews and from primarily non-reliable sources, per WP:RS. Only one even says more than a few lines about the album. Was redirected to the artist page per WP:MUSIC, but article creator disputed without discussion. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge and Redirect~~ Keep. (see reason for change below.) Agreed, per the Wikipedia WP:MUSIC policy, this article makes no attempt to document, via unbiased third party established music reviewers or sources, that the album is notable. Until notability can be properly established and documented in this manner, it can only have a redirect to its artist. Wikipedia is not meant to be an advertising site. Scott P. (talk) 18:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 19:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Stop!!! this platform is an english language Encyclopedia not only United Kingdom, many other people from the world are here readers, the album is narrated by few magazines in the world (orkus, Hard Rock, Zillo, Metal Hammer etc.)! the album is big rated in the USA, who had this english wikipedia platform many readers! a many people to get his information from here, therefore is the article right, he must only expanded! -- (User talk:Zombie433 · 23:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Zombie433. After following through with User:Zombie433's suggestions, I started by finding more established reviews at the first two searches I did at, BellaOnline and RockEyez.com. I've put these review links into the article. Next time I'll do more of my homework first. The original AfD nominator was correct regarding the poor quality of the original sole review that was in the article, however further searching seems to show that reliable reviews do exist. Scott P. (talk) 00:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are any of those actually reliable sources? BellaOnline looks like a low-end About.com type copy, with all editors being "ordinary men and women" and not actual music critics, with little editorial control or vesting of contributors beyond making sure you don't plagiarize and will churn out articles every week. Rockeyez looks like someone's self-published personal site, and again not an actual reliable sources. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Band and the album is also listed by MTV and the music videos runs at Night on the Programm of this Television, the band pio can find here: The LoveCrave - Bio at the German MTV site and its English translation, many other band articles who is here rated can i not find on several pages or in this MTV database. The band played since 2007 every year at Camden Underworld in London, according to this had the band a big fanbase in the UK and the fans will read here by wikipedia over his loved band and this album. (Zombie 433 talk) 00:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So? Being aired on MTV German does not make it notable. Many music videos air on music channels. Again, like all topics, it needs SIGNIFICANT coverage in reliable, third-party sources and the claimed size of a fanbase is irrelevant. Without actual coverage, it isn't verifiable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep bellaonline is actually worse than about.com, since the latter employs some working journalists in a few categories, whereas the former actively discourages them. But laut.de and zvuki.ru seem reputable enough. Both have reviews of this:[16] [17], adding to these the mtv mention, this looks good to stay. There's probably more in print, too; systemic bias and all that. Also rockeyez has a staff page listing its contributors, who have written for Metal Forces, Creem, Hit Parader etc. so it's not as bad as it seems. Metallers just like sites that look that way. 86.40.58.26 (talk) 05:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are any of those links actually reliable per Wikipedia standards? Can this be shown, not just presumed? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not correct to call it a presumption. I linked translations of their "about" pages which editors can go look at: they look good to me. This is a pretty solid way of determining the worth of a source when dealing with unfamiliar cultures or areas that are otherwise out of your expertise. I'm not going to wade through translations of web pages playing the old circular this-site-is-cited-by-another-site game when the "about" pages look this solid. You may wish to? Rather you than me, in any case. 86.40.58.26 (talk) 05:33, 30 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 Fred Figglehorn. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fred the movie[edit]

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

Endorsed PROD that has been contested. Non-notable future film per WP:NFF. Steamroller Assault (talk) 18:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just saw this piece in the New York Times. I'm curious if this is enough to satisfy WP:NFF, which requires the production of the film (and not the film itself) to be notable. As it stands, this article is not about the production of the film. Not sure about this one. Maybe a merger to Fred Figglehorn? Steamroller Assault (talk) 18:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. I agree with User:Steamroller Assault. This article is essentially a pre-release announcement of a movie based on a You-Tube series. The article makes no effort to document the notability of the pre-released movie, and therefor, by Wikipedia policy, ought to be merged into the article about the You-Tube series. Scott P. (talk) 18:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There was already a discussion about this. The result was redirect to Fred Figglehorn. The discussion can be found there: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred: The Movie. Armbrust (talk) 20:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there is already a redirect about this. Armbrust (talk) 20:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fred Figglehorn per the earlier discussion. EALacey (talk) 21:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this recent version without prejudice. As User:Spartaz noted in closing the last AFD just 2 weeks ago, "The sourcing isn't quite there yet but its close. the NYT is one but we need more then one really decent source and arguably this belongs with the main article until the coverage is more substantial, So I'm closing this as a redirect with a specific caveat that this can be undone as and when the sourcing improves without need to refer to me or have any further discussion." The way I see it, the film has been completed, is getting more coverage, and will quite soon merit an independent article. So being a bit proactively BOLD, I went ahead and just spent a few minutes creating a better-sourced article about the Fred movie and just moved the improved version to WP:INCUBATE at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Fred: The Movie. With respects to the authors of earlier versions, the Incubator is the better place to expand and improve the article as more becomes available. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect as per the extremely recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred: The Movie discussion. Do not merge as there is nothing here worth merging. JBsupreme (talk) 21:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CSD as recreation of already deleted/redirected article per a ridiculously recent AfD already linked by others. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With respects, the newer version included additional information, so it was not "a sufficiently identical and unimproved copy", though the subject matter was the same. I will be happy to WP:AGF that the author of the second article was unaware of the first AFD discussion... one where the article was noted by the closer as almost-but-not-quit-ready for mainpages, and I make pparticular note of the closer writing "closing this as a redirect with a specific caveat that this can be undone as and when the sourcing improves without need to refer to me or have any further discussion". So I am sure the authors of both might be happy to work with WP:Incubation in adding additional sources and content in preparation for its return-without-prejudice as the release date for this completed film approaches. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NFF. Enough said. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Checking available sources show that film has enterered and completed principle filming, and has growing coverge that is approaching requirements of WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan (disambiguation)[edit]

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

disambiguation of Pakistan is nonsensical Arjun#talk 18:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At first blush, it may seem that way, since most people don't think of Bangladesh as having once been East Pakistan, nor do they think of both West and East Pakistan as once having been part of British India. It's not unusual in separating between various articles, however. We also have United Kingdom (disambiguation), Germany (disambiguation), Korea (disambiguation), etc. Mandsford (talk) 20:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Mandsford points out, it's not unusual to have a disambiguation page even where the main use is by far the most common one. It always makes me laugh to see the disambiguation page for AfD contains Appetite for Destruction, even though no-one ever abbreviates album names like that! I've editted the article, added a couple more things to show what I mean, I'm sure there's dozens of articles that could be added. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 23:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to explain change in use of name over time, but take off links to football teams, etc. Northwestgnome (talk) 23:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep Keep the links to both the historical regions of East and West Pakistan. Remove the links to articles such as the Pakistan Army and whatnot. Canadian (talk) 00:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article only contained link to East Pakistan and West Pakistan when originally nomed - I added the others. If it's not appropriate for these to be on a disambiguation page then feel free to remove them, I'm not particularly experienced with this kind of page. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 00:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As said above, The article only contained link to East Pakistan and West Pakistan when originally nominated. My logic to nominate the page was that Bangladesh was referred to as East Pakistan and not Pakistan. Arjun#talk 12:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But we do have an article on East Pakistan, West Pakistan and Pakistan so disambiguation is appropriate Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 14:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mandsford. TomCat4680 (talk) 05:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination is nonsensical. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 11:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nomination may seem nonsensical, but it appears to have been made in good faith. Mjroots (talk) 10:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The disambiguation page is indeed helpful, but I think I can sympathize with this nomination. Sports teams have no place on this dab. JBsupreme (talk) 21:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, when the nomination was made just East Pakistan and West Pakistan were on it . I added the rest. I'm not experienced with disambig pages but thought I'd have a go. Very sorry if thats put your nose out of joint (as the edit summary for the article seems to suggest). Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 22:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per users above. Georgiebest7 (talk · contribs) has added one more useful (and interesting) link to the page—Pakistan, India.--Zvn (talk) 21:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per users above and especially since there is a link to Pakistan, India. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems like a reasonable and useful (at least now it is) disambig. Cocytus [»talk«] 20:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 03:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday Inn, Townsville[edit]

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

Endorsed prod that was contested without reason, discussion on the talk page or any attempt to improve the article. (The relevant editor has previously removed maintenance tags without resolving the identified problems at this and other articles.[18][19])

Unreferenced article containing several dubious claims that fails to assert notability, other than it's the tallest building in Townsville, Queensland, Australia. At 120m, there are ferris wheels bigger than this. AussieLegend (talk) 17:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The building appears to have become a symbol of the community, according to this claim: "The Sugarshaker is used in many logos like the Townsville Sun or sport posters." It was probably written up in one or more architectural, construction or hotel industry publications when it was first built. - Eastmain (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"It was probably written up" doesn't help much. The article was created by one of a pair of editors who have recently been uploading lots of copyrighted images, claiming them as their own, and adding copyrighted text to various articles. Despite this, I haven't been able to use what's in the articles to locate any facts and figures on an authoritative site (this appears to be thye first article they've actually created from scratch) to confirm what was originally added. The other one of the pair has since extensively changed what was originally there and I can't confirm the new figures. If we keep this article, all the unconfirmed figures will have to be removed which will make it a one line, unreferenced stub, something along the lines of "The Holiday Inn is a building in Townsville". --AussieLegend (talk) 22:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ It appears that this deletion proposal is based on the article being poor and the other editors refusal to improve it (removing templates when improvement is needed sucks). That is a shame but both the building and the hotel appear to be notable. I would like to see more coverage on the actual building but a Google News search shows that there is coverage. Google Books shows some mentions in travel books, also. I lean towards the general notability guideline being met even though some of the coverage is trivial. Wikipedia:WikiProject Hotels and Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture do not have specific notability guidelines which would have helped but the subject falls under those topics so notability isn't that it is kind of tall (even though being a significant part of that city's skyline could be considered). It looks to be an iconic building in a city but more sources are needed to verify that claim. Someone local who is actually interested in improving the article (it sounds like some weren't playing ball) might be able to see if there is anything mentioned in local printed press and magazines.Cptnono (talk)
The nomination is primarily based on the general lack of notability. Once you get rid of the accommodation directories, which really can't be used to justify notability, otherwise every seedy motel could have an article, there's very little mention of the building anywhere. The article creator included a number of claims and specifications, which were then severely edited by the other major contributor to the article. As I indicated, I haven't been able to find anything to confirm or deny what either of those editors added. Most of their contributions to date have been lifted from various websites so it has been easy to identify the sources through a simple google search. On this building, the search was unsuccessful and, from the tone, it appears they must have had to create this one from scratch, such is the lack of coverage. Even editors who voted "keep" doesn't seem to have been able to find much. The building just isn't notable. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I wasn't trying to say your intent was malicious. I thought it might have been out of frustration, though. I am striking my keep. I still assume there is coverage out there but I am not having any luck finding what I personally feel would be appropriate. The status quo for buildings seems to allow for a stub for such an article but since there isn't a specific guideline to point us in the right direction I can't tell if that is just a previous lack of diligence. I also noticed tham some of the recent coverage was based on one incident taking place at the hotel. I'm still on the fence but am not comfortable whole heartedly supporting. If this article is deleted, I feel that it would take little more coverage wise to meet GNG. A couple write ups on the initial construction, its relation to local ordinances, its iconic status, or similar would help.Cptnono (talk) 12:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - see WP:CHAIN. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 17:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesnt appear to be notable not mentioned in the Townsville article either as being of note. MilborneOne (talk) 23:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In regards to WP:CHAIN, it appears to be more than a hotel. In regards to the Wikipeida article, that is a poor basis unless it is spectacular in the assessment scale. I actually came across a PDF on the city's website that referred to it as an icon. It was only a trivial mention though. As I said up above, I ~~am assuming notability on this one but~~ understand a couple solid sources are needed.Cptnono (talk) 23:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For what it's worth, the building does dominate Townsville's skyline, so there's a reasonable chance that it is notable on the basis of coverage in the local media. The building would be utterly unremarkable in a larger city though. Nick-D (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a hotel and it's a funny shape. Not all that notable as far as I'm concerned. Wexcan Talk 08:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along with Jauerback per WP:CHAIN. Tons of precedent left and right on how these are treated in all sorts of forms and this is an example of why we have that to point to. Even if it's "popular" locally and has a distinct look, those are moot points. Unless it fits into the extremely narrow specs of uniquely artistic or original architecture, I'm not sure how one could even start a talking point to claim notability with literally nothing to work off of other than that it's proven to exist. For completion's sake, I'll say that It's far below the consensus on building height suggesting notability, and "tallest locally" isn't outlined in any way. Though I do respect hard work efforts done in good faith to make a "complete" set of articles for one's subject of interest, Wikipedia doesn't promote notability merely for existing. Importance and notability are entirely different, and a Wikia would be the forum where such concerns are rarely raised. We have lots of comprehensive areas of fine articles for smaller communities, so to the authors I say you have every right to keep your chin up. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 20:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC) Edit forgot my signature for the first time in ages. Sorry![reply]
Delete. I'm not aware of any criteria that this passes notability under. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No one but the nominator recommends deletion. (Non-admin closure by Intelligentsium 00:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

C10k problem[edit]

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

In my attempts to find information on this topic, every page I found that mentioned "C10K problem" either used the term as a given without justifying it, or referred to the Kegel page referenced in this page, which implies that such a limit exists, without substantiating the implication, and then deal entirely with ways to increase the amount of traffic a web server can handle without any of that text relying on a 10K limit in particular. I don't see that this is a notable topic because it seems to be one person's name for an unsubstantiated phenomenon, and I don't find any evidence that that 10K limit exists. So, possible WP:N and possible WP:V. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP - C10K Problem is very real. Simoncpu (talk) 13:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have evidence for this? Since the problem I cited is that I couldn't find real evidence of it, and none is given in the article, we need more than a repetition of the belief that it exists to help us out. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Kegel's thesis is the evidence of the problem that we have been experiencing for quite some time now. The C10K label caught on because that label makes sense. Many software developers need not much convincing of its existence because it's pretty obvious. My first impression that someone was questioning its WP:N was "duh." WP:V is possible though. Here are some of the links that reference the C10K Problem. Simoncpu (talk) 07:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1534139
    - DOI.org
    - http://www.wandisco.com/pdf/dcone-whitepaper.pdf
    - http://www.lanl.gov/radiant/pubs/hptcp/tcpwindow.ps
    - http://www.eecs.umich.edu/~kaushikv/papers/sirocco_febid.pdf
    - http://cs.uni-salzburg.at/~ck/teaching/CS-Seminar-Summer-2004/claudiu-survey.pdf
    - http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~mdw/papers/seda-hotos01.pdf
    - The first two links above describe something that was given the name "reverse C10k problem" based on the existence of the alleged C10k problem. Every other one of these mentions it and refers the reader, every time, to Kegel's page, http://www.kegel.com/c10k.html. And on that page, all he says is, "It's time for web servers to handle ten thousand clients simultaneously, don't you think? After all, the web is a big place now." He, like all the other sources, makes a remark that presupposes there actually is such a limit as the C10k limit, while not providing us with any evidence that anyone has ever actually found there to be such a limit of approximately 10,000 connections. I'm not saying I disbelieve it, but I am saying that so far the "evidence" that has been provided doesn't lift it above the level of "a common conception", doesn't distinguish it from any urban legend or old wive's tale. —Largo Plazo (talk) 08:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the problem is not really the 10K connections. The problem is that if the server is not programmed with this "aim", then the server has capable of serving few connections (more than hardware supports). Servers that attach C10k problem, really attach the problem that programming it for that the limitation was the hardware of the server and not the software. And 10K connections is a reasonable limit for such aim. But it's true that there is only one reference (in essence). Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xan2 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 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) 02:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep If there are published academic papers referring to a variant of it (the reverse C10K)m, then it seems reasonable that the problem that is the basis for that name must be very well known in its field. I think the evidence shows some degree of notability. Question, though: is Kegel notable enough for an article--if so, there's a possible merge .
- Hoaxes, legends, and misconceptions can be very well known. I think the issue here is whether it's real. If a topic in information technology were notable, it's very hard to imagine that it would be so difficult to find anything substantiating it on the Web; and if no one can provide any resource (unlike the ones given above) that substantiates it rather than presupposing it, it's tough to see what an article on it could be about. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:22, 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, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep To clarify, the "limit" is certainly not any kind of hard limit; as noted above there won't be any citations found to support this limit. It is simply a recognition that certain kinds of very popular server architectures can't get much beyond a few thousand simultaneous connections. See yaws (web server) - different threading systems are one way to get beyond this limit, lighttpd uses another, select/poll/epoll. I'm confused by this AFD proposal. Can someone enlighten me about the WP:V complaint? Is there some question that web servers like apache run into these limits? WP:N is just crazy talk - see the papers linked above, see the lighttpd article - it was created in response to c10k! ErikHaugen (talk) 21:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "...there won't be any citations found to support this limit". You're saying strongly that we should have an unsourced article about something that doesn't exist because something similar to it does exist. I'm quite certain that somebody is capable of writing an article about the phenomenon that does exist, under a title that does not imply the existence of the phenomenon that doesn't exist, with reliable sources that document the real phenomenon, rather than a link to a document that doesn't in any way support the fake phenomenon other than to claim (falsely) that it exists. —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It isn't a fake phenomenon. http://www.sics.se/~joe/apachevsyaws.html See the little blue and green squiggles in the left side of this graph? This is real. C10k is a name used to describe it. It's overly precise and won't always be accurate, but it is nonetheless a name used for it. ErikHaugen (talk) 00:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - What is it with people providing references that don't even mention, let alone, support, the thing being claimed? There is no mention on this page of a C10k phemonenon. There is no mention of the number 10,000. All this page shows is that Apache seems to be limited to this number of simultaneous connections, while Yaws seems to be able achieve that number of simultaneous connections. In fact, the number achieved by Yaws is 80,000, which, to the best of my knowledge is much more than 10,000, so while somehow you have the impression that this page in some way supports the existence of a phenomenon known as the C10k limit, it actually seems to be a demonstration I might present it to show that there is no such limit. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - The link shows the difference between Apache, which like "most web servers" mentioned in the wp article uses a separate o/s thread/process for each connection, and exotic web servers like yaws or lighttpd, which don't - they have "solved" the c10k problem. The graph shows the enormous limitation that web servers constrained by the c10k problem suffer; they are only able to use a fraction of the available hardware. It's quite a dramatic experiment, and clearly demonstrates the failure of the conventional model to handle lots of connections. ErikHaugen (talk) 18:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the last part of your question, you answered WP:V yourself: you said "the 'limit' is not any kind of hard limit ... there won't be any citations to support such limit". This "limit" isn't verifiable because it doesn't exist. End of story: the article doesn't satisfy Wikipedia's criterion that articles must be about verifiable topics; if it's false then it certainly isn't verifiable. That there is some limit isn't remarkable: at every single point in computing history, there has been a limit on processor speed, a limit on storage speed and capacity, a limit on network bandwidth and number of connections. The whole point of the alleged C10K problem is that some special, perplexing limit of around 10,000 connections—near enough to warrant the name—has been reached and has been a special source of frustration. And yet, here you are, telling me that it's a fiction, and in response to my concern that there doesn't seem to be any corroboration supporting it, you confirm that there isn't any such corroboration—and yet you feel strongly that this article on this unverifiable, nay, false topic should be kept. I don't get it. And let's not even get into notability, unless someone wants to rewrite the entire article to be about a notable gross misconception prevailing in some quarters that some limit called "C10k" exists. And even then, to avoid being an original research piece, that article would have to provide citations to resources that address this misconception (widely accepted hoax?), rather than making the first-person observation that there are a lot of references to C10k out there. —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thread/process based servers that many were/are using, such as Apache, hit a limit of a few thousand simultaneous connections, thus underutilizing the hardware for non-cpu/etc bound services. What is hard to understand about this? This isn't controversial, is it? In a few years, better hardware might mean the limit is typically 20-30k instead of a few thousand, sure - but the problem is still referred to as c10k, at least for now. The shortcomings of this architecture are surely interesting enough for an article. What else would you call it? Should we rename the article? Is there another we could merge it with? ErikHaugen (talk) 00:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nothing is hard to understand about your first sentence. Your first sentence, however, is not what this article says. Your first sentence has nothing to do with whether there's a specific phenomenon, as claimed in the article, called the C10k phenomenon, that supposedly has something to do, specifically, with the number 10,000? If you'd like to write an article about connection limits on various platforms and their progression over the years, and can provide sources that support what you write about them, please feel free. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've tried to say this elsewhere - I think it might be helpful to stop getting hung up on the number 10,000. The problem is called the c10k problem, and perhaps that is a lousy name since it will probably be 50k in a few years, but that is a name for the problem, and the name is quite popular. Not much we can do about that here. ErikHaugen (talk) 18:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Let's go back and look at the very first sentence in the article: "The C10k problem [1] is the name given to a limitation that most web servers currently have which limits the web servers capabilities to only handle about ten thousand simultaneous connections." I didn't make up that this problem is supposed to have something to do with ten thousand connections: it's the salient point of the lead sentence of the article.
      1. Are any references given in the article that support this? No.
      - Is your point that the article needs more references, or are you unconvinced that the phenomenon is real? ErikHaugen (talk) 18:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        My point is that all the references provided by people determined to document the problem turn out to be non-references, which convinces me even more that there are no actual references, and the whole concept of the C10k problem as defined in the article (and also as implied by its name) is not verifiable. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      1. Do any of the references provided by anybody in this discussion corroborate this? No.
      - I provided experimental results demonstrating that conventional server architectures can't get past a few thousand connections. See Simoncpu's links above - other academics cite Kegel's article in discussion about how thread/process based architectures don't scale as well as event-driven architectures. Is the fact that this phenomenon is discussed in academic papers good enough? ErikHaugen (talk) 18:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        As I already said, at any given technological point in history, any medium or device has various capacity limits. I'm sure that 30 years ago there were limits to the number of connections a system could support, and 20 years ago there were limits as well, albeit larger than the ones 10 years earlier, and there are such limits now. I have yet to see where, in this natural progression, C10k suddenly comes into it, and why 10,000 connections calls for special note. You've said elsewhere that I'm "hung up" on the number 10,000. Well, 10k: there it is, right in front of me, in its name, and also in the article's lead section. This deletion discussion is not about deleting the concept of C10k, and it isn't about deleting the concepts of connection limitations or processing inefficiencies or model improvements. It's about deleting this article, which, as it stands, is about something that doesn't exist, and identifying it by a name that you claim doesn't really mean what it says--except that the article claims it does mean what it says. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        C10K is a term people use commonly to describe the problem. You're right, it is not a very precise/accurate/timeless name (we're going in circles here, I think, about this), but it is the name people are using. Many links have been provided here to support the contention that the name is in widespread use, throughout academia and industry. You seem to agree that an article about the phenomenon itself is potentially reasonable to include on Wikipedia? So... sounds like we can either rename the article or merge/redirect it with another one that describes the problem (is there one?), or you can modify the article to clarify that the 10k limit is not a magical hard limit. Do any of these sound good? ErikHaugen (talk) 23:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      1. Do any of the references provided in this discussion state in any kind of authoritative way what the C10k problem is, as opposed to taking its existence for granted? No.
      - Irrelevant. Maybe it would help to think of c10k as a cultural thing. Clearly it exists, because people are talking about it; referenced from papers, etc - do a google search. The phrase "C10K" is not obscure, and needs an article on its own even if the concept is bogus. It isn't bogus, of course, but that's just gravy as far as whether or not this article should be deleted. In any case, to answer your question, the Kegel article explains what the problem is. Nobody else needs to, because it's explained there. Look at this page: http://www.javafaq.nu/java-article572.html - this is a description of a library that uses c10k in the description and defines it. See how this is being used? Clearly we need this wp article! ErikHaugen (talk) 18:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - We don't carry articles in Wikipedia about things about whose existence some people are convinced exists. We carry articles about things whose existence is supported by reliable documentation. Was there a Year 2000 problem about which Wikipedia should have an article? Yes, there are thousands of sources that explain in detail what the Year 2000 problem is, that indicate what it actually has to do with the year 2000, that indicate in detail what the specific problems were that needed to be addressed, that indicate what kinds of measures were taken to address it, that indicate what kind of failures resulted from inadequate measures taken to address it. In response to the same kind of question about the C10k problem, we are shown sources that imply that it exists or in which the writer is under the understanding that exists, but nothing that shows that it exists. We are shown sources that show that different platforms are limited to different numbers of connections, the general issue of connection limits as opposed to a very specific phenomenon that this article purports to be about. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For create a common consense. In my opinion, Largoplazo is right in that the article has _not_ realiable sources. We only have the lighttpd and nginx paragraphs and it's not enougth for any enciclopedia. So we must search sources of this problem. For the other hand, the 10K limit is trivial. It suggests that web servers not benefit from all hardware power of servers. It seems that if the programmers don't program web server for doing it, the web server serves most few pages than it could be serve for hardware limitations. So 10K is not a hard limit. It's a soft limit. A limit for remind this situation. I propose that we create another article: "Software limitations of web servers" or something else and redirect C10k to this page and note in software limitations.... that C10k is one term used to refer to this situation, but as a limit, is soft. What do you think?--Xan2 (talk) 16:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - "A limit for remind this situation." - well put. wrt your suggestion, sounds good, go for it! Please leave c10k intact until you create the other article, though, so people can find it when they want to know what c10k means. ErikHaugen (talk) 00:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps c10k can redirect here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_server#Load_limits but this section would need to to be fleshed out quite a bit first, it doesn't even touch on c10k (ie, it should be fleshed out anyway!). ErikHaugen (talk) 18:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Largoplazo - you said above that "Hoaxes, legends, and misconceptions can be very well known. I think the issue here is whether it's real." I don't think this is the issue, actually. The issue is whether the page should be deleted. We have many pages devoted to hoaxes - piltdown man, etc. I don't think there's any question that we want a page for a particular hoax if it is notable enough. These WP:V discussions belong on the article's talk page - should the c10k article say that c10k is a hoax? That's not the debate here. (c10k is, of course, not a hoax, I'm just saying that whether it is or not is not germane to this AFD.) ErikHaugen (talk) 18:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Either edit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_server#Load_limits to cover c10k (it doesn't ATM), or keep the page with some 'unstubbing' (it doesn't look as a correct, developed article now); everybody on this AfD agrees the conception exists, even if hard to verify clearly (UFOs are way more unverifiable, but they still DO exist UFO, even if only as an urban legend or the name of objects that can't be identified properly), there are many benchmarks supporting its existence (see the sources provided above); the point is (in my opinion), that Largo Plazo doesn't understand that while the name 'y2k problem' is less commonly used (albeit still used) to cover many similar problems (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y2k#Date_bugs_similar_to_Y2K refer ), the name c10k refer to a limit that's only CALLED c10k (and it's not 'soft' in the sense of being easily changeable by upgrading the hardware or software - it's 'soft' because it differs between various specific H/S configurations); the article could be as well called 'Simultaneous Web Server Connection & Load Limits Due To The Underlying Software And Hardware Problems And Limitations' - but IMO that would be redundant, as this particular one is already known in the jargon as the 'c10k problem'... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaxquis (talk • contribs) 21:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There must be thousands and thousands of pages about UFOs on the Web, such that the Wikipedia on UFOs could reference them, and one could look to them to corroborate and expand on what's written in the article. I am not talking about pages where the someone uses the word UFO in passing, or says, "Here's what we can do about UFOs" without giving any background in what a UFO is or is even supposed to be. I'm talking about pages about UFOs. Not one person in this discussion has managed, despite all their insistence, to provide one comparable page about the alleged C10k problem. Why is that? —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is your point that C10K might be a bogus concept? Why are you asking for this? Anyway, to answer it, several have been mentioned above. What is wrong with these: http://www.javafaq.nu/java-article572.html http://www.kegel.com/c10k.html Help me understand what is missing and why it matters. ErikHaugen (talk) 06:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info Directions Inc.[edit]

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

Twice nominated and once deleted per A7, fails WP:CORP. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep gnews produces [20] and a few similar. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 00:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. -- Eastmain (talk) 01:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there is no claim to notability in accordance with WP:CORP. Having products, an office and some staff is not notable in itself, and this article reads like a PR piece or business directory entry. Notability to come, perhaps. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Notability is asserted by the uniqueness of the company's products and by the company's appearance on various lists such as the Inc. 500 and (less interestingly) the Rochester Top 100. It is not necessary that a company be fascinating to the layperson for it to be notable by Wikipedia standards. - Eastmain (talk) 18:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not notable. Sources provided are routine business coverage. Miami33139 (talk) 07:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. To Names of the United States, as long as that article exists. — Sebastian 02:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hoa Kỳ[edit]

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

I believe that this should either be merged into another (as yet unidentified) article or deleted. On the talkpage, it's twice been suggested that it shouldn't be here, with no formal action taken. ~~The term is acknowledged in the article as no longer being in use.~~ I misread the article, it's still the official name of the USA in Vietnam, but other countries names for different countries are generally redirects (Royaume-Uni & Pays de Galles for UK and Wales respectively, French to English. España to a disambiguation for the use also shows that we don't give specific pages to countries own names for themselves.). I don't really think it's a notable term. Fol de rol troll (talk) 01:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's extensive material at Flag_of_the_United_States#The_.22Flower_Flag.22_arrives_in_Asia which could be considered too long for that article; maybe both could be merged into a "Flower flag" article... AnonMoos (talk) 02:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article. This is a rather notable subject and deserving of coverage at our encyclopedia. Badagnani (talk) 03:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Could you please explain why it's notable, it might give me a clearer idea of why the article should be kept. Fol de rol troll (talk) 04:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather curious as to why you're vouching to keep this article - you were the only one to suggest deletion/move to Wiktionary on the talk page... GraYoshi2x►^talk

Keep Seems well worth including in the encyclopedia. A possible merge can be discussed on the article's talk page. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete (or Merge if an appropriate target can be found and agreed on). There doesn't seem to be enough to say about this to justify an article. Propaniac (talk) 19:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC) See below. Propaniac (talk) 15:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's amazing that this article has been here for 2 years and nothing has happened to it, especially since Wikipedia != Wiktionary/trivia site. At the very most (and this is a stretch), it should be redirected to Flag of the United States. GraYoshi2x►^talk 22:04, 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (WP:NOTDICDEF) to United States of America (not Flag of the United States) since the term refers to the country, not the flag. —La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 04:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "Flower flag" is the title of the Flag of the United States article in Chinese Wikipedia. It has a stand-alone article in the Japanese Wikipedia, separate from the article on the US flag. While this article itself might appear redundant, I agree with AnonMoos that the current redirect of Flower Flag could and should be reconsidered. I would argue that it may well merit an article of its own. --Shirt58 (talk) 11:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I now realise that my comment was off-topic. The article under discussion is about the name of the United States in Vietnamese, instead of what I wrote the name of the flag of the United States in Vietnamese, or in others of the CJKV Sprachbund. This is of course outside the scope of AfD-ing. --Shirt58 (talk) 13:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It would be informative and interesting to have a Wikipedia article on names of the United States—with direct transliterations—in other languages. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 22:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You know, I had the same thought while looking at this. Propaniac (talk) 15:42, 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, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to the newly-created Names of the United States, perhaps by adding a "Notes" column to the list on that page. Propaniac (talk) 15:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I question whether that article is even appropriate for Wikipedia; it seems like a good candidate for deletion seeing as Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, or for that matter, an international phrase list. GraYoshi2x►^talk 20:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge This term is being used by US representative offices in Vietnam and it has its own history. Therefore, I think it is notable and is encyclopedic enough.--AM ^(talk) 02:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Merge. The article should be a redirect to Flag_of_the_United_States#The_.22Flower_Flag.22_arrives_in_Asia, where the origin of the term is explained. The French name for the U.S., États-Unis d'Amérique, is a redirect article -- even though this is just a literal translation of the English name. Kauffner (talk) 17:47, 30 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, that is, not for really anything. –MuZemike 06:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is, there is a stronger consensus for a rename or a merge/redirect, but there are other venues for that. –MuZemike 06:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

High-end audio cables[edit]

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

Confused mess of an article rife with original research. Is this an article about high-end audio? Well... no, it appears to be about a niche market in audio cables, but that niche is ill-defined and no clear standards are given. Besides which, the "high-end" audio market is already covered in the audiophile article. Is this an article about audio cables? Kind of. It reiterates information about speaker wire, coaxial cables, plenum cables and others, but again there's no clear definition of what exactly it is talking about. There's also some info on metallurgy, mentions of a few consumer products tests, etc. With no definitive subject there can be no article. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 14:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Audio cable, or merge with Speaker cable. There's a valid topic in here, and it can be saved. (Audio cable currently redirects to Audio and video connector, which isn't about cables at all.) Pburka (talk) 20:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not at all. The audio and video connector article is about audio cables, namely RCA connectors and phono connectors that use coaxial and patch cables. Speaker wire may be terminated with a few different connectors, or simply threaded directly through a binding post. And what about the power cables discussed in this article, does anyone have an explanation of how these qualify as "high-end audio cables"? There's a lot of random info in this article, but no one topic, and not much worth salvaging. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect: to High-end audio which seems like a very similar article. Mattg82 (talk) 22:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 'high end' is meaningless marketing speak. --Wtshymanski (talk) 01:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is exactly about the controversy surrounding cables sold with such "meaningless marketing speak". Pcap ping 11:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Rename to Premium audio cable. There is an established market for this sort of stuff and it's not going away. "High end" is a terrible term, since many of these cables perform identically to their more reasonably priced counterparts (e.g. a 6 foot Monster SPDIF cable) where as sometimes there is meaningful added value (particularly for analog signals in noise-sensitive environments - like electric guitar cables). But in all cases, these products are priced/overpriced - for which "premium" is an accurate term. Reswobslc (talk) 21:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A better title would be Premium audiophile cables, because it also covers super duper mains power cables sold to those that believe such cables improve the audio quality of their equipment. Pcap ping 11:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge to High-end audio. As this article stands, it is a blatant POV fork. It looks like it's only intention is to disparage the high-end audio cable market, without discussing any of the positive arguments about it. However, there is some useful information in this article, and I recommend that the non-POV data gets merged into the parent article. (X! · talk) · @771 · 17:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a POV fork. The premium cables business, and the controversies surrounding it are sufficiently developed sub-topic, so a separate article is justified. Feel free to add a WP:SUMMARY to the main article. Pcap ping 11:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I see that High-end audio is surprisingly short article. A merge would be possible, although I'm worried that the cable controversy is longer than the rest of that parent article! Pcap ping 11:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a well known controversial topic in audio circles as evidenced the many references. The article can be made NPOV by citing all relevant opinions and science. The topic is not inherently POV. Pcap ping 01:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment. The problem with the term is there are no objective standards for membership in the class. One can readily carry out measurements to identify a 50 ohm transmission cable, or test to see if something really is a 1000 amp cable...but the "high end" description is just written on the box. If I charge $100 for a roll of 14 AWG zip cord, is it a "high end" cable? --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is not a list, so you don't need "objective standards for membership in the class". You just need references discussing the topic. And there are plenty in the article. Pcap ping 11:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Audio cable (which is a redirect to Audio connector right now. The naming convention of this article right now is all wrong, and having these very similar articles separate is an administrative nightmare. It would be much easier for a reader to have it put together coherently in one article rather than spread out among three or four. Shadowjams (talk) 03:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is not only about audio cables. It also has a section on super duper mains power cables sold to people that think those would make a difference to their audiophile experience. I suggested above it be renamed to Premium audiophile cables instead, which better describes the article's contents. Pcap ping 11:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That just seems unnecessary. That's an uncommon phrasing. I would search for audio cable, maybe for high-end audio cable. I can never imagine searching for audiophile cable. Obviously redirects would be in place, but it still seems unnecessarily clunky. Shadowjams (talk) 23:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Rename This topic has been covered in many audiophile magazines (from both sides) and certainly needs its own article but the current article title doesn't suit the topic. Premium audiophile cables is a much better title and is more representative of this subject. I was surprised to see that the article currently doesn't mention the "cryogenically treated" power receptacles which have undergone a cryogenic treatment and are resold/marketed by some of the companies in this industry as I would have expected to see those noted along with the mains cables. (And where are the braided Cat-5 speaker cables?) --Tothwolf (talk) 20:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Proposal - What if we expanded it. High-end cable, for instance. There are going to be the same processes in creating them, similar price points, and there could be sub-sections of each. In the unlikely event one of those subsections grows too large, it can be forked under the traditional fork criteria. But I think right now it meets a lot of the merge criteria. What I don't want to see is lots of tiny articles overlapping each other, with contradictions and errors that overlap is prone to. Shadowjams (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm really not sure what title we should give the eventual article but I don't think the term "High end" fits. Perhaps something like Premium cable assemblies? The origins of these type of cables are from the audiophile market, but it has indeed spread into computing as well. I doubt many people here have not seen the fancy gold flash-plated D-subminiature cables or the "mega-high-performance" USB and network cables, who's manufacturers make all sorts of interesting claims ;) --Tothwolf (talk) 19:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possibly rename to Premium audio cable. I agree with the assertion above that this topic is notable and can be written from a neutral point of view. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 03:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shekhana kalan[edit]

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

Contested prod; non-notable, unreferenced, pov issues. etc. Falcon8765 (talk) 16:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be just part of a town, and not uniquely notable. Priyanath ^talk 00:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesnt warrant a separate article --Sodabottle (talk) 02:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced article with a dubious non encyclopedic claim of notabilty is one of the best area of this town . MilborneOne (talk) 23:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to support notability. --MelanieN (talk) 19:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Continue discussion of the article's improvement on the relevant talk page. (Non-admin closure by Intelligentsium 00:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Andrej Grubacic[edit]

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

Subject of article doesn't meet notability guidelines MarkNau (talk) 14:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. So I am not the maker of this page. I was one the people editing it.

The subject of this entry is a yugoslav (now serbian) anarchist. His relevance resides in the fact that he is a well known anarchist theorist. His influence is important there. He is arguably the best know anarchist from the Balkans.

I happen to know this because my parents are from croatia and I still spend a lot of time there.

We moved to redwood city, ca, few years ago.

I am also an anarchist and a student and i am familiar with the importance of the author for the international and regional anarchist movement.

I gather this is why his entry was made in the first place.

I looked at other living anarchists on wikipedia. The subject of the entry is better documented then many, if not most other anarchists. What i see as a mistake is that he is listed as an academic, which is clearly misleading.

His importance is in realm of anarchist theory and activism. I believe that this should be evident, both in English and local languages. Maker of this page, as well as myself and other editors, inserted verifiable references as to the importance of Grubacic to the anarchist world. Action and theory. So I suggest that we remove anything that indicate that Grubacic is important as an academic. Don't get me wrong, i don't want to be unfair. He is a scholar. There are not too many anarchist scholars around.

That is important.

As me and others tried to emphasize, he is the author of two very important books for the contemporary American anarchist movement.

I am referring especially to the recent Wobblies and Zapatistas. They are reading groups all over the country and that book serves as a reference point for many anarchists and Marxist rethinking their practice and relationship. It is read from Ireland to Croatia, and reviewed by likes of Chomsky and Zinn and Graeber (another important theorist).

He also is one of the leading anarchist propagandist in the US and the Balkans.

There is an abundance of links that speak of his anarchist propaganda tours and talks.

But what I am really trying to say is that this should be seen in the context of his anarchism (theory and action).

To sum up, my voice and suggestion goes to keeping the entry, but to make it clear that Grubacic's relevance is that he is an anarchist activist and anarchist scholar. He is one of the few. He is internationally relevant for the anarchist movement. There are enough references, I maintain, to testify to this fact.

I also made a comparison with other anarchist from the Retort collective, like Iain boal, or other important living anarchists from the United States, like Cindy Milstein, and it seems clear that, comparatively speaking, his relevance and notability has been established by relevant sources.

So, I say, let's keep the entry and change the lead (important anarchist, not academic). Bobmarley13 (talk) 21:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skomoroh, who is the maker of the page, will write his position on this during the holidays. I am curious as to what he has to say. Bobmarley13 (talk) 00:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. —GregorB (talk) 01:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The only cites on GS are 6, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1. That's all. Subject, as academic or anarchist, does not appear to pass WP:Prof #1 or any other category. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. I believe that, in the world of anarchist thought, the subject does indeed pass. As i remarked before, this is well referenced for a living anarchists. It needs tiding up. I strongly insist that anarchist task force should look at this and make a recommendation.Bobmarley13 (talk) 18:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It seems incongruous that anarchists, who so vehemently reject structured institutions, should seek to be recognised in a structured institution such as Wikipedia but, of course, this does not make them unWP:notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

This is an incorrect understanding of certain elements of anarchist theory. Primarily, anarchists reject institutions of power and authority. Certain anarchists may reject institutions in general, preferring "organic" organizations which do not outlive the short term goals of their founders. Others prefer organizations of varying size and composition which they may accept as institutions intended to outlive their founders. Examples of the latter which anarchists have founded, or co-founded, include the IWW (a non-anarchist institution co-founded by anarchists such as Lucy Parsons) and the Anarchist Black Cross (an explicitly anarchist project founded by multiple anarchists, which has undergone a morphology as it as been disbanded, recreated, and split into decentralized formats). Similarly, the Anarchist Task Force of Wikipedia has been founded as a long standing institution intended to provided editors with an interest in anarchist related articles. It is currently ebbing in activity, but will remain to continue its mission as its original founders move on. --Cast (talk) 23:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been listed as an Anarchism task force deletion discussion.

Comment. Interesting point about anarchists and structures. I am an anarchist in my 20's, and most of my formation happened back in the "old country'. But my understanding of anarchism, which might be different from other peoples understanding, and more cultural-specific, in a sense of a post-socialist experience and all, is that anarchism is not opposed to structures and institutions. It is the nature of structure/institution that concerns an anarchist. Is it democratic, or directly democratic, is it hierarchical or less hierarchical. For me, anarchism is a form of organization, networked, decentralized, democratic. I am all for democratic and free institutions that make for a democratic, free society. I am new at wikipedia, but this is why I decided to join. My impression is that wikipedia is a decentralized, networked, democratic project. I was very influenced by Grubacic and Graeber (and Milstein) who are writing about anarchism from this pro-institutional, pro-democratic perspective. There are some newer anarchists who are against everything, all structures and communities, but that is not my thing. Many anarchists I know are very pro-institutional.Bobmarley13 (talk) 03:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Reviewing the activity of the article creator, Skomorokh, I see his original intention of steering this article clear of original research, and unverifiable sources. It seems that after he stopped maintaining it, several editors began "enhancing" the article with unhelpful, but perhaps will intentioned additions. I note that the AfD nominator, Bobmarley13, is among these, and in a further display of misunderstanding, as brought this editor to AfD despite not actually desiring to delete it. The nominator simply wishes to encourage a process of consensus towards an end he(?) favors. AfD is not clean up. AfD is not arbitration. AfD is not the appropriate space for this nomination. In the future, I hope the nominator will not nominate articles for deletion after having himself taken part in the corruption of the article.--Cast (talk) 23:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

agreed. but it wasnt me. i am not the AfD nominator for this one. Bobmarley13 (talk) 16:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon, I apologize profusely. I completely misread the nominator entry due to the absence of a "Keep" notice preceding your commentary. --Cast (talk) 03:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though I am unversed in the subject matter, I can accept in complete good faith that Skomorokh, an administrator with over 50,000,000 edits and over 150 articles created seems to have a pretty good idea of what and why a subject is notable enough for Wikipedia. I also accept in good faith that the nominator might not have been aware of this. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The person who originates an article is not a criteria for notability. MarkNau (talk) 04:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am admittedly unable to knowledgably pass judgement on this article's content. Per WP:AGF, I believe I am allowed to accept that a senior editor and admin with 50 thousand edits and 156 created articles pretty much knows what is notable and what is not before he authors a Wikipedia article, and that he would not have wasted his time on something non-notable. WP:AGF allows that I may show confidence ijn his knowledge and understanding of WP:N and bow to his expertise as editor, admin, and long-time contributor to the project. User:Skomorokh has a well-deserved reputation as a contributor, so I can easily consider that fact when weighing the value of his contribution. After all, its not as if he had only been here a few months or had less than 200 edits. We'd all do well to emulate his efforts at improving the project. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep when dealing with unfamiliar fields, I do to a very considerable extent accept the judgment of Wikipedians I know to be good editors of long standing who do work regularly in the subject, whether they comment here or write the article. His principal English language book, [21] has indeed been reviewed, & he has severa larticles in anthologies. The ones not in English I cannot judge. but several American libraries have them. DGG ( talk ) 05:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As I think removing the article would not benefit wikipedia's readers. (But this is true of many articles, particularly of noted academics, that are deleted). Grubacic seems to me notable within US (and perhaps Yugoslav) anarchism. But we do not seem to have any guidelines to help us in this area of fringe political propagandists/commentators. Most of the evidence seems to me to be is self propaganda, self published bloggish type things and things published by involved niche publishers which the author is connected with. But this is likely to be the case whereever an activist who is involved with pushing his views is concerened. Despite the fact that Wikipedia may be being used as part of this agenda (and I think the tone - and the relationship between one of the article's main editors and the article's subject lend support to this view) this is not justification for deletion - rather the article needs in my view modification. I think it needs to be given a more neutral tone. Also many of the cited sources did not seem to support the claims being made. I myself have been "warned off" from improving the article. Finally I think it is the role as a propaganda or view pusher that he is known and the using the books for notability should be in this way rather than as if they were academic books since he might then be judged according to our very harsh academic criteria. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 09:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

The book Wobblies & Zapatistas: Conversations on Anarchism, Marxism and Radical History has been reviewed here: Anarchist Studies, 2009 by Jun, Nathan. This includes the potentially useful quote "Andrej Grubacic, a younger intellectual who is esteemed in anarchist circles but not as well known outside of them". The journal Anarchist Studies has a page and so does it's editor Ruth Kinna (Msrasnw (talk) 13:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Neutral but leaning toward delete per Msrasnw, for now. Yes I said per editor who voted keep. S/he stated it perfectly in my opinion; "Most of the evidence seems to me to be is self propaganda, self published bloggish type things and things published by involved niche publishers which the author is connected with." and "Despite the fact that Wikipedia may be being used as part of this agenda (and I think the tone - and the relationship between one of the article's main editors and the article's subject lend support to this view)" I do believe this justifies deletion. Firstly, subject is not Croatian, he is Serbian, thus mis-placed in this deletion sorting. The sources listed as the one with most weight (#6 and #18) claim they are major Serbian newspapers - NOT SO. These are diaspora publications in Canada, and such publications by Balkan emigrants in diaspora are not very independent and reliable. Also, there are obvious COI issues by editor BobMarley who has contributed nothing to the project except this article since July of 2008. Article subject may have great ideas and theories, and I would bet anything he will become notable in the future. However, that time is not now, and this article would only serve to artifically inflate notability of subject prematurely. Turqoise127 (talk) 18:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you are mistaken there turqoise. what you read as diaspora papers are reprints from glas javnosti, a journal that has a contract with toronto papers. glas javnosti is a major serbian daily paper. i repeatedly said that grubacic is from serbia, not croatia, and that his relevance is of an anarchist, not an academic. i might be new to wikipedia, but that should not affect this article (i am not its maker). i do want to make the effort of getting more actively interested and making entry pages of my own. back to the facts: grubacic is a well known anarchist, not a well known academic, so we should keep this entry. most of the well known anarchists, if not all of them, are fringe authors publishing for small anarchist press. that does not make them not worthy or notable. best wishes, Bobmarley13 (talk) 19:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am not disposed to accept the unsupported opinion of any editor, no matter how distinguished. In view of the large amount of political POV pushing that this AfD has generated I think that it should be dealt with strictly by the book. It seems that the subject does not meet any of the criteria of WP:Prof. Does he pass on WP:Author, WP:Politician or other criteria? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I am skeptical. We are talking about an anarchist author (living anarchist author). Like with most other activists on what someone dismissively called "the fringe," authorship cannot be judged "strictly by the book," i dont think. There must be some flexibility. That is why i kept pointing out to other relevant living anarchist authors. If you take a look at Cindy Milstein entry, or Iain Boal entry, you will see that there is no great monument there. But their influence in anarchist circles is paramount. Grubacic, Graeber, Milstein are authors of the new anarchism concept. There must be a more specific way of dealing with this. Moreover, some people keep addressing anarchism as being somehow the "fringe," but I find this to be profoundly misleading. Anarchism is the very center of global social movements today; this movement is not fringe but a serious counter-hegemonic force to be reckoned with. Another thing is that I believe it is a methodological problem to ask people who do not know anything about the subject matter at hand--anarchism in this case--to respond to contextual relevance of particular subject. I dont know much about physics, I am an international studies major, anarchist and artist. It just doesnt make sense to me that I should impose my own judgment on a subject matter unknown to me. I am not saying that should not be general guidelines. Of course. But there must be some good faith and some flexibility, in leaving the specialists in the field room to decide whats notable and whats not. Hope this make sense. Bobmarley13 (talk) 00:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not pass WP:Prof. Evidence that subject passes WP:Author or WP:Politician is lacking. Subject appears as fringe political activist who has yet to break through to mainstream notability. One of the many articles created too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Keep "widely cited by their peers or successors"; "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work" Pohick2 (talk) 23:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/question - I think Pohick (just above) is referring to the guidelines No1 and No3 for notability for creative professionals. Does Grubacic qualify as a creative professional? If so the No.1 "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors" seems possibly enough to establish notability. But the full text of number 3 reads "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." And the qualifying "has been the subject of ... " renders no.3 more problematic in my view. Can we use "creative professional" for an "activist" or an author who is voluntarily doing things rather than doing them just for money - (do we have a creative amateur category?)? Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 00:02, 25 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Comment good point, walking through the idea - co-creating ...well known work ...that has been the subject...of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews = 2 quoted reviews (WRL & ISR - i could dig up more). Creative professionals = Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors... now you could argue it's a fringe well known work, but it seems to me he has a body of work [22] in the field sufficient to be notable. Pohick2 (talk) 01:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 15:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Sure looks like an encyclopedia article to me - well written, well referenced, well sourced article about someone who has published widely in multiple languages, and is notable within his field. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 16:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think we should keep the article but I do not think that it can be legitimately claimed that it is well referenced/sourced. There are lots of references for sure but there are in my view many problems with them. I have raised some of these on the article's talk page to little avail. For example line three states. A partner with Peoples' Global Action and other Zapatista-influenced direct action movements, Grubačić's primary political investment is in Balkan struggles. and this is referenced to "Civilno društvo?", B-92, 9 June 2004. But this is an article by Grubacic that doesn't seem relevant to this sentence. Line two has four references but they don't really seem to me to support that sentence either. (Msrasnw (talk) 21:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Comment Thanks Msrasnw; I can't read most of the original documents cited, and so I have to rely on what it looks like it is rather than what it is; I would note however that being published on B92 is a sign that he is part of Balkan politics, in the same way that being having a body of work published by Z Magazine is a sign of being sympathetic with its leftist politics (to grossly oversimplify both media organizations). Edward Vielmetti (talk) 01:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My worry with the article is not with the facts as such just that that the citing and referencing appear almost random and the tone seems to be over-exaggerating his importance. Also references 6 and 7 don't seem to refer to the information in their sentences either! (Msrasnw (talk) 02:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

please be WP:BOLD, and restate what the sources say. Pohick2 (talk) 03:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are similar problems with many of the refs but one example is we have the last sentence in the lead "His affinity towards anarchism arose as a result of his experiences as a member of the Belgrade Libertarian Group that derives from the Yugoslav Praxis experiment." this is then cited to http://www.hour.ca/news/news.aspx?iIDArticle=18381 . This is about Grubacic and Global Balkans nothing about Belgrade Libertarian Group and the Yugoslav Praxis experiment. It seems to me the sentence has been taken directly from here http://www.pmpress.org/content/article.php?story=andrejgrubacic (but it could be they took it from wikipedia - but it think we plagiarized it from them.) I am reluctant to edit the page as I have been "warned off" on the talk page by Grubacic's student/research assistant who has been editing the page. (Msrasnw (talk) 03:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Comment Apologies for my belated participation here. As far as I as creator of the article am concerned, Michael Q. Schmidt and DGG above have the right idea. Although this is a topic area whose norms and culture are notoriously difficult to translate into the neat academic/commercial/entertainment pigeonholes we find useful as Wikipedians to judge notability, I can confirm that Mr. Grubačić is beyond doubt deserving of an article. Alongside his collaborator David Graeber, he is one of the leading figures in the field of contemporary anarchist scholarship, and is just the sort of neglected topic of real-world significance Wikipedia in general needs more coverage of. As much work as there is to be done on this article, I do not think the encyclopaedia would benefit from its removal. Regards, Skomorokh 21:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which particular categories of WP notability does the article satisfy? It certainly doesn't satisfy WP:Prof. Does it satisfy WP:Author or WP:Politician? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. Sure, this is an article that needs some work, but the references seem to support the subject's notability. Honestly, if people simply did away with their "mother tongue" and did everything in English, our job would be much easier. In regards to Xxanthippe's remark, is WP:N not enough, subject is discussed in-depth in a couple of reliable sources? Drmies (talk) 02:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which couple are you referring to? Xxanthippe (talk) 09:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Keep - In my opinion, he meets WP:ANYBIO, quite easily, under point number 2: "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." Noam Chomsky et al. are enormous figures within current anarchist thought, and he's been involved with him and others, so I'd say that this fellow merits inclusion, at least under ANYBIO. Cocytus [»talk«] 20:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he belongs in showbiz, really.Red Hurley (talk) 21:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mind elaborating? Cocytus [»talk«] 00:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article is being used as a blog for pushing Balkan political POV and is stuffed with irrelevant and superfluous material. It is an abuse of Wikipedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Comment I fear that this above is more a comment on a particular ideology then on the subject himself. I think it would be good to steer clear from attacks against anarchism. You might wish to disagree with anarchism, or you might wish to consider it a fringe politics. I maintain it is neither. But this is not our topic here. As Skomorokh pointed out, Grubacic is one of the principal voices in contemporary anarchist scholarship/activism, together with David Graeber (and, i would add, Cindy Milstein). Arguing against his entry implies an argument against the relevance of contemporary anarchism. And that would be, to my mind, an abuse of wikipedia. We have a comment by Chomsky. We have a comment by Bond. We have comments by Lynd and Graeber. As for participatory economics, Grubacic is one of the translators of the principal parecon work. Participatory Economics, authored by Michael Albert, he toured the Balkans with Albert many times, and is published widely on this topic in local anarchist zines. He also published a parecon book with Albert in one of the local languages.Bobmarley13 (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think you put it fairly well Bobmarley. I based my opinion on WP:ANYBIO, which states "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." For me, at least, he meets this designation, as the Chomsky stuff, etc. indicates to me that he is part of the enduring historical record in his field, anarchism. Cocytus [»talk«] 15:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks. I also want to be fair to Msrasnw, who is saying that there is more work to be done. I apologize if I sounded dismissive in the past. I agree, I am all for refinement, and I think that this should be an ongoing project. In terms of meeting the notability standards in his field, contemporary anarchism, I think that this has been demonstrated beyond any-- reasonable, fair, non-ideological-- discussion.Bobmarley13 (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI think it might be good if someone else who wanted to keep the article went through it and checked the refs and deleted all the inappropriate refs and things that just seem over-exagerating eg 'Together with Robert Posavec, he is responsible for spreading the idea of participatory economics in the Balkans.' - this is referenced to an interview by Michael Albert of Andrej Grubačić in his own organisation's web blog http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/9970 This interview is just Grubacic talking about how he thinks things should be and that he has spoken to some people about it. There is no independent evidence that people have listened and become convinced by his arguments and the ideas have spread. (Msrasnw (talk) 11:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Camp[edit]

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

Non-notable former minor league player. Muboshgu (talk) 15:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Mediocre Baseball Player —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.27.35 (talk) 17:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— 74.108.27.35 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 00:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Never competed at a professional level, and never competed in a high-level amateur championship. Nothing to indicate that the subject meets any standard of notability. Steamroller Assault (talk) 01:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He did play professionally, however he wasn't notable. 34-36, 4.50 ERA in the minors...nothing notable here. Alex (talk) 04:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage. Wknight94 ^talk 17:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Played in AAA for several seasons and there does seem to be significant coverage of him in relation to the Santana deal. Spanneraol (talk) 21:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. AAA participation doesn't seem to mesh with WP:ATHLETE, but 'significant coverage' might help for other notability standards. Can you provide sources for this coverage? I'm also inclined to think that 'significant' probably would include information outside the simple mention of his name in a trade agreement. Steamroller Assault (talk) 23:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AAA is definitely "fully professional"... players earn enough at that level to make a living, thus it passed athlete. I've always maintained that having at least a couple of AAA seasons is enough for notability. A google search produced several sources that discussed Camp in the context of the Santana trade, giving more than just his name. Spanneraol (talk) 00:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, and I can see the sources. But, is this a case of WP:ONEEVENT? Even this source mentions his obscurity. If the article is kept on the basis of these sources, it seems proper to have this trade and its newsworthiness (Camp never makes it to the majors vs Santana's ultimate success) mentioned somewhere in the lead statement. But I'm beginning to think that a redirect to Johan Santana (where Camp is mentioned) may be the way to go. Steamroller Assault (talk) 01:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even AAA ball doesn't pass WP:ATHLETE in my view. But regardless, I don't see him passing WP:BASEBALL/N. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn after substantial improvement. LibStar (talk) 13:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Danish Communistic Youthunion[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. found zero coverage in gnews in English (I tried various combinations of communist and youth), and only 5 hits for its Danish name [23]. LibStar (talk) 13:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Danish UNIX User Group[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG, hardly any third party coverage. [24]. there is not even a Danish WP article on this. LibStar (talk) 13:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I made the appropriate cross-linkage to .dk for the history of the DK top level domain, which DKUUG was instrumental in. Can't tell the story of the Danish internet without this group. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 16:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added a self-published history of the group, in Danish, as a link; can't read Danish well enough to decode more than the acronyms and the general sense of things. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 17:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A relevant Danish page is DK_Hostmaster_A/S. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 17:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A single google search does not notability determine. Try searching for dkuug.--J Clear (talk) 02:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I used google news not google. google is not recommended because of WP:GOOGLEHITS. you haven't actually provided evidence of third party coverage of this. LibStar (talk) 12:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You will note I did not mention hit counts. As WP:GOOGLEHITS states, the quality of the search results is important. The Google search would tend to support the two criteria in WP:ORG for Non-Commercial organizations. DKUUG acts as the national representative to international standards such as POSIX. Third party verification can be found in the Google results. --J Clear (talk) 15:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically here is third party confirmation of their POSIX involvement. --J Clear (talk) 16:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is anyone finding anything in the way of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party sources? I am not. I see two keep !votes but am still not seeing the sources. Help me, please! JBsupreme (talk) 21:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I find this professional association to be established. The fact that there are limited sources in English on it should not impair notability, as this is - obviously - a Danish guild. What matters is that the article also does have some coverage from English language sources, as are those referenced in the article itself. Arguably, the fact that there are more sources on Alcide De Gasperi in Italian is not a good reason to delete it. Same goes for this one article.--Grasshopper6 (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Mentioned in local computing press, and even in the mainstream Jyllands-Posten. User groups seldom have that kind of coverage. Pcap ping 14:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eastwood High School (Newton Mearns, Scotland)[edit]

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

Subject is not notable; GS turned up no third-party sources. Article is non-neutral and unreferenced, and has been predominantly edited by one user who has since abandoned it (no updates in over two months). sixtynine ^{• spill it •} 11:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The greater part of the article was copied verbatim from here. Given how little now remains, it may be best to delete this and start again. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All schools are notable. I removed the line which listed the points earned by the various houses as it seemed unreliable. — Eastmain (talk) 17:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Added by AllyD (talk • contribs • count) - Eastmain (talk) 17:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not only a high school but sources exist from which the page can be expanded. TerriersFan (talk) 18:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep consensus seems to be in general that secondary/high schools are notable, and article has been recently improved. Rodhull andemu 22:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Added some material in myself - seems to be a reasonably good Scottish school, with some press mentions to boot. --Vivisel (talk) 03:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Should we WP:TROUT any future high school noms? JBsupreme (talk) 21:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've seen loads of high school articles, and I don't think I've ever heard of one being deleted; apart from that, it appears as though there are (additionally) some sources that would make it notable enough to qualify for inclusion. Cocytus [»talk«] 20:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 03:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Siddharth JAIN[edit]

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

Promo article with non-notable references which mention the person concerned, but are not directly about him. Biker Biker (talk) 11:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 02:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. promotional article. all newspaper coverage cited is about the company's activities and not about the subject--Sodabottle (talk) 02:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Expand. Subject is quoted / interviewed in all the articles and hence must be of some importance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.234.33 (talk) 11:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He's a marketing chap with a company, so obviously he's going to be quoted in context (which is what these "interviews" are - single line quotes), nothing else. Nothing about him anywhere. There are quite a few other people with the same name who appear to be notable. So, not going to pass WP:BIO. -SpacemanSpiff 20:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability. As indicated above, the alleged "interviews" are actually press release-type articles that do not count as WP:RS. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:07, 30 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. withdrawn (non-admin closure) — æk ^Talk 05:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Na'vi language[edit]

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

~~Seriously? WP:NN, fictional language only used in 1 film, and only spoken by 1 person. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 10:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

I am withdrawing the nom per WP:SNOW. While I still believe this article constitutes one of the biggest examples of fancruft, general consensus is overwhelmingly in favor of it, and I intent to respect the views of the community. I so, request another user closes it. Thank you. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 03:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, seriously. Probably the currently most notable conlang after Esperanto and Klingon. There are discussions about it on Language Log, mention of it in Science magazine, and it has its own wiki. There are plenty of things less notable on WP, including things which get posted on the main page. kwami (talk) 11:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with that. Esperanto has been recognized by the U.N., and it has a real purpose in the real world. Klingon, on the other hand, has been featured in almost, if not all, Star Trek series and spinoffs. This man even took Klingon very seriously. But Na'vi? If there was a WP:NOTNOW for articles, it would apply here. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 11:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I said after Eo and Klingon. That means it's less notable than Eo or Klingon, but more notable than other conlangs. When's the last time you heard mention in the press about Volapuk, or Interlingua, or Ido, or Lojban? But those langs all (rightly) have articles. The purpose of WP is to provide information to people who come looking for it. Considering the number of times I'm seen this article cited online, and the scores of webpages that have lifted text from it, this is getting far more traffic than nearly any other conlang article. Perhaps interest will fade, but meanwhile it's highly topical.

BTW, as for it being spoken by one person, there are already learners sites and chat groups for people trying to learn the language. I'm not among them, but I've seen several people posting in Na'vi now. kwami (talk) 11:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Volapuk was the first language used during an international convention.
Interlingua is actually taught at, at least, 1 university. And there is at least 1 magazine written in that language.
There have been 15 international conventions held for Ido speakers.

You could make a case for Lojban though. But the others have milestones that grant them a level of notability that Na'vi does not have. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 11:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An far as historical import goes, yes, many of them are more notable. But as far as current level of interest, readership, etc., Na'vi has nearly all of them beat. kwami (talk) 11:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously. FYI, RUL3R, WP:NN is not a policy, and unless the subject is blatantly non-notable, notability in itself not a good reason for deletion. What really counts is whether the article is properly sourced, everything is verifiable etc., and from that point of view it passes all tests. As for notability: "only used in 1 film"... if we start deleting articles about all subjects that are only used in 1 film, enwiki will suddenly become a lot smaller; "only spoken by 1 person"... doesn't matter at all, because this is a fictional language, and unless the language explicitly has the goal of being used for communication, this is not a criterium at all (just like you can't quantify the notability of the Mona Lisa by the number of postcards sold with its image on them). Calling it "the most notable conlang after Esperanto and Klingon" is an exaggeration IMO, and it may very well be a hype, but it is a fact that Na'vi is making a tremendous carreer for a conlang, and has gained amounts of publicity that 95% of the conlangs listed here could only dream of. BTW, that Esperanto claims to be a "world language" doesn't make it any more notable than it is. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 11:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So just because James Cameron decided to make up a language for his first film in 12 years, said language gets its own article? I am trying to not label this as cruft, but that is what it looks like. This would fall under Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_for_things_made_up_one_day had it not been featured in a 3-hour, 400-million-dollar, overhyped film. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 11:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Uh, how is a language project outsourced to a linguist at USC that took 4 years to reach its current state "something that I or my friends made up one day"? kwami (talk) 11:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Came with the idea one day and spent another 1460 fine-tuning it. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 11:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By that argument, we should delete the article on lightbulb. kwami (talk) 21:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Lightbulbs are used by half of the world. Na'vi is not. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 05:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But that wasn't your argument. Your argument was that it should be deleted because it is "something that I or my friends made up one day". I take it that "friends" is defined to mean human beings, or perhaps fellow-contrymen, since I have no acquaintance with the inventor of Na'vi. By that logic, the lightbulb is something one of my "friends" made up one day (I am much better acquainted with Thomas Edison than with Paul Frommer), so that article should also be deleted. In fact, much of human culture consists of things that people (friends?) "made up one day", and so should be deleted as well. I think you need a different argument. kwami (talk) 07:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - - If James Cameron hasn't made a film in 12 years, that doesn't make him any less notable, does it? Furthermore, if the film is "overhyped", as you call it, that is your personal opinion, and shouldn't be playing a role in this discussion. If anything, I'd say that rather makes a point for the notability of the subject, because notability has a lot in common with hypes. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 11:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hype is not inherited from the film to the language. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 12:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Language has been covered in plenty of sources and compared to Klingon and Sindarin. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per kwami and others. Languages painstakingly constructed using the proper rules of human language are certainly notable, especially when they have they are backed by a blockbuster movie and have garnered the interest of world-famous linguists and everyday language enthusiasts. There are already people attempting to speak and write in this language. (Thus, I would also argue that there is more than just one speaker of the language. Just because only one guy happened to create it and knows all the rules doesn't mean there aren't other speakers of the language.) —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 15:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fairly obvious keep- from the references, its pretty easy to see that its got plenty enough out-of-universe notability that an article can be written. I see no reason to delete. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question/remark - I know this is not exactly input in the discussion, but one thing makes me very curious: I tried all the "find sources" links at the top of this page. How is it possible that a search for "Na'vi language" -wikipedia generates 393,000 results, and a search for "Na'vi language" only 73,900? Now that we're at it, I would like to mention that using "Na'vi language" is a horribly anglocentric approach. After all, the language is undoubtedly also being discussed in other languages. Besides, there may be quite a lot of texts, in which the language is discussed without ever using this particular string. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 20:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google searches can only give you an idea of what's out there. If there are more than about 800 hits, the number of hits returned is almost entirely meaningless. kwami (talk) 22:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A made up fictional language used in one film does not justify an encyclopedia article. it could be mentioned in the article about the film. Edison (talk) 03:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP No one is trying to delete Klingon language, so why should this be deleted? This is a very long (and well made) article so it would not work to merge this article into the article about the movie.

Furthermore, if consensus is reached to get rid of this article it should not be deleted, but only made into a redirect. I think it is notable now but I realize that consensus could disagree with me, so I think it should be made into a redirect (obviously I would prefer to keep it totally) so that if it becomes notable enough for consensus to change and agree it can be an article that all of this work will not be lost. --Spidey104^contribs 03:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For reasons already mentioned above and below. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Debnathsandeep (talk • contribs) 05:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Na'vi has had a lot of mainstream media attention even before the film was released. [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] And not just in English either: [30] [31] For any other subject, this amount of media attention would be sufficient. Mithridates (talk) 04:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As one of the more recently constructed languages, Na'vi stands in a long tradition of fictional languages such as Elvish and Klingon. As it is the latest in this canon, it is of particular interest to the phenomenon of constructed languages since it is the first example whose inception is against a background of 21st century linguistics as opposed to early 20th or mid-20th century research. As such, an entry relating to its structure and study is encyclopaedic in that it reflects back onto the current state of the field as a whole. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is definitely getting a serious amount of significant discussion in secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 14:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Any constructed language is notable, particularly when it is comissioned by a notable movie director and constructed by a notable linquistics PhD. The article is well sourced and correctly formated. Additionally, while it's unfortunate that rul3r considers its source (Avatar) "overhyped" it's irrelevant to the discussion; meanwhile as interest in the film, the Na'vi culture and language builds it only makes the article's subject more notable. ~~K. Kimball —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.75.51.101 (talk) 21:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Well I am sorry, but all that sound like inherited notability to me. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 21:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you missed my initial statement that "any constructed language is notable" the mere mention of its notable participants does not qualify it as inherited notability. Escuchame por favor. Comment added by 65.75.51.101 (talk)

I actually think I need to side w RUL3R here. I might accept any functioning conlang as notable, but there are tons of personal/undemonstrated conlang projects out there that we don't bother with, and we have deleted articles on some of these in the past. kwami (talk) 22:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is WP:NOTE - which is definitely amply more than satisfied. Cirt (talk) 22:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly seems a functional constructed language. I'm sorry but I think the "functional" was implied in "any constructed language". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.42.157.27 (talk) 22:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant keep -- I've run across a good chunk of news coverage of this specific aspect of the film. However, this article needs to be substantially trimmed; grammatical run-down and whatnot is so specific and detailed I worry this might become a copyright problem, to say nothing of WP:WAF, WP:PLOT frustration. Article's focus should be on development and reaction, not the specific nuances of the language itself. --EEMIV (talk) 22:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, these are good ideas for improving the quality of the article. Cirt (talk) 22:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe grammatical structures and vocabulary are copyrightable in of themselves. There would only be a copvio issue if someone were copying the description (for example, Frommer's Language Log posting); just givinga lot of detail about the language isn't a copyright issue. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, languages are not copyrightable (despite a few attempts). And since the article is about the language, it is appropriate to actually describe the language, just as we do with any other. kwami (talk) 00:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The moral theme of "Avatar", the motion picture, is generating discussion about the ethics of current and historical military campaigns and mistreatment of indigenous people. The profound and widespread public impact of the art of “Avatar”, of which the Na’vi language is a critical component, supports the Na’vi language as a notable as an encyclopedic reference based on the precedence of “Star Trek” (i.e. Klingon), “Star Wars” (i.e. Wookie, Jawaese), and “Lord of the Rings” (i.e. Elvish). Despite a lack of widespread public usage of Na’vi”, the ”art within art” of language in support of the “Avatar” motion picture has merit by it’s well-conceived development, stands alone and is not diminished as solely an artwork language, and should not be overlooked as a contributing member of languages in fiction. The creativity and beauty of linguistics creativity is better served by the full notable reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolfecat (talk • contribs) 23:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plain and simple: if Klingon and Sindarin can be kept here, then another language that was created by Paul Frommer who has a P.H.D. sure as hell can!! ~Nate —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talik13 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP this article. Wikipedia is where we turn to find answers to questions that never manke it into "World Book" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Odessa58 (talk • contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 All I Ever Wanted (album). (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Let Me Stop You[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Don't Let Me Stop You

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

Non-notable album track, as defined by WP:NSONG. May become notable as a charting single in the future, but for now the article is premature. Author contested redir to album article. I42 (talk) 10:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 11:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to All I Ever Wanted (album) for now. As for the "fourth single" claim, I'm only finding "reports" of this in message boards, fansites and the like. Regardless, I'm not finding any in-depth coverage for this song in reliable sources. Basically, there will be the occasional mention within a review of the album (examples [32][33][34]), but the mentions are all trivial...nothing significant yet; does not appear to pass WP:NSONGS at this time. Of course, I'll be more than happy to consider this a keeper if better sources are presented. Gongshow ^Talk 11:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:Crystal and no official announcement of any further singles from this album. Thus far, rumors of 3 differant songs as the next single have been put on wikipedia, none of which are true at this time. Alan - talk 19:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to All I Ever Wanted (album); no release date, nothing notable about the song. J04n(talk page) 14:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to All I Ever Wanted (album). No reliable sources confirm that this is the next single (no documentation of Kelly confirming), has not charted, no extensive coverage. Fails WP:NSONGS; should redirect to the album. talking birds 18:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to All I Ever Wanted (album) because it has no reliable sources and fails WP:NSONGS. Is this only the fourth song to be the next single, at this point I would have thought "Kelly mentioned XXX song to be the next single at a concert." to have been used for all the remaining songs on the CD. Aspects (talk) 01:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hot 92 (pirate radio station)[edit]

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

another non-notable pirate radio station Rapido (talk) 10:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 11:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: And one that satisfies WP:GNG just from the sources in the article. RGTraynor 14:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The two sources appear to be local newspaper reports of convictions relating to the station. Such reports are usual for all pirate radio stations after raids or arrests have taken place. If such reports were to be considered valid sources, then we would have to an article on almost all pirate stations in the UK that either exist now, or have existed (probably hundreds, or even thousands). Currently, the sources fail WP:GNG. Rapido (talk) 15:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply: Quite aside from my skepticism that there are/were hundreds or thousands of pirate stations in the UK (in any event, an irrelevant strawman), my response is "So what?" The GNG doesn't have an opt-out for articles involving arrests or pirate radio stations. If there are multiple reliable sources discussing the subject, then that's a pass. There are and it is. Now if you want to claim that the Birmingham Mail and the Birmingham Post aren't reliable sources, go for it. RGTraynor 16:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - there are currently about 150 pirate radio stations in the UK. Some Wikipedia research before your apparent scepticism and "So what?" would be appreciated. If we counted all those that ever existed, it would probably total hundreds or thousands (that is my own estimate). I can turn my radio on right now and listen to at least a dozen. But what do we actually learn about the station in these reports apart from that people were prosecuted, equipment was seized, the name "Hot 92" and that it is "infamous"? The 2nd source actually says it's "one of a number of pirate radio stations operating in the city", and most of the article seems to be a general talk about how pirate stations are bad, not specifically Hot 92. In fact the newspaper reports are about the prosecutions, not the station itself. All I can see is an article that fails WP:GNG and WP:N/CA. The home business I run has been briefly mentioned in various publications, so I can now start an article about it as long as I give links to the newspaper articles? Rapido (talk) 16:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment There are two points you raised there. Just because there are articles for somethings and not others does not have any bearing on an article you may wish to create. If there were 200 pirate stations in Birmingham and 199 did not have an article that does not mean you can't create one for one of them does it? It also does not mean that the one for the other must be deleted. If you run a business which has been in a few publications I wouldn't mind hearing about it, only thing is Wikipedia states that articles like that can not be written by yourself. You would need someone nutral to write an unbiased article with the sources referenced. Why don't you try that? I'd love to read it and I certainly would NOT be moaning about getting it deleted either! --Cexycy (talk) 20:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment - my main argument is about having articles for stations which are clearly not notable, no matter whether there are hundreds which are. Perhaps if there were newspaper or magazine articles such as "Insight into Hot 92 - Behind the Scenes of a Pirate Radio Station", then it could be argued to be notable enough to have its own article. But there aren't, so it's not, and I don't think reports of prosecutions (of individual people, albeit involved with the station) count. Rapido (talk) 20:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment Yes you don't THINK they count. Well Wikipedia does not run solely on YOUR opinions does it? And if reports of arrests, etc in the papers do not make it notable, what really does? Things can be notable for the wrong reasons you know. --Cexycy (talk) 00:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment - That's why we have AFD discussion. So that something may be discussed. So that it's not solely my opinion, and not solely your opinion. Already above I have given my opinion of what makes it notable. Rapido (talk) 09:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Yet another assertion of radio station non-notability not backed up by the plain facts in the text of the article. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 15:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - which of these "plain facts" are you referring to? Is it it was not made clear if this was a name change or The station is best received by [...] strong radio receivers? Rapido (talk) 16:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The sources are local. Joe Chill (talk) 02:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "The sources are local." And? It's a local station what do you expect? --Cexycy (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The arguments against this article are complete nonsense. This is about a local pirate station so local papers would probably be the best source of such information. --Cexycy (talk) 20:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonnotable unlicensed temporary illegal broadcast hobby activity. Fails WP:N. Edison (talk) 03:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's been going since 2000 and does not seem to be showing any signs of winding down. I don't think that could be classed as temporary. --Cexycy (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: By the way, if you checked these sources used for the article, you will see that it is partly responsible for the riots in the Lozells area of Birmingham (I also found an article online which mentions Sting FM as also being responsible, which I'll have to include, - another station of which you are trying to delete their article). Do you really think a respectable paper/magazine/ TV show, etc would want to feature an article on the likes of these people/radio stations? I'm not condoning their behaviour however wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased and article wise you can not use that as a reaosn not to have an article on them, though it would make a good thing to include. This is most likely why local sources do not say a great deal about it, unless something bad happens. --Cexycy (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Therefore, if that's the real reason they are notable, then the information should surely be included in the 2005 Birmingham race riots page instead. Rapido (talk) 23:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Done this as well. However they are a pirate station too, with independant citations so therefore notable in themselves. --Cexycy (talk) 08:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Just meets the GNG as far as I can see. A bit borderline but I think the sources cited are just this side of adequate for notablity. --A1octopus (talk) 12:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I do see sufficient sources to verify the existence of this station. Is there any notability guide for pirate stations? I know in the U.S., any FCC licensed station seems to be deemed notable. In britian, though, i understand there are many pirate stations of varying importance. My vote here mirrors my vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sting FM.--Milowent (talk) 19:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Yes there are many pirate stations, however this has more to do with the fact our government has neither the enforcement capability, nor the penalties to deal with such activity, rather than any question of "importance" (unless you count re-broadcasting a rumour as important). Rapido (talk) 10:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly notable. -- Scarpy (talk) 06:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The content gives just enough background and external references to show that it is notable. Aleksdeg (talk) 18:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 03:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian-Gabriel Vanatoru[edit]

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

This is a hoax, but not blatant enough for a G3- well, not without a little explanation.

Note this article says this Sebastian-Gabriel Vanatoru won the boys doubles title at Wimbledon in 2006. Not true. Wimbledon themselves record two Americans winning said title: [35]

In another place, it claims he won in 2007. Well, in 2007, Wimbledon records Daniel Lopez (ITA) & Matteo Trevisan (ITA) as winning the title: [36]

In fact, Wimbledon records NO ONE by this name ever winning the Boys Doubles title: [37]

This article also records three championships in Grand Slams in Juniors Mixed Doubles. (2006 Australian, 2008 Wimbledon, and 2009 US), yet I can find no evidence that these championships even play mixed doubles for juniors. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete fails WP:ATHLETE and no gnews coverage of this person [38]. LibStar (talk) 14:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per above. Perolinka (talk) 14:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:N; the user has also made wrong info edits on Vitalia Diatchenko Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 11:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 02:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE as its claims have been disproved, and is likely a WP:HOAX. Cocytus [»talk«] 20:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 03:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tepson[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG and WP:WEB, no indication of notability, no independent sources. PROD contested by creator. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 09:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 18:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't appear to pass WP:CORP. Also, the article is on the spammy side, and links to it were added to other articles, like Chinese name, which strikes me as not only a likely WP:COI, but also promotional, etc. Cocytus [»talk«] 20:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 03:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bat rock[edit]

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

PROD was contested by original poster, albeit in a pretty childish manner. Non-notable neologism. Steamroller Assault (talk) 09:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom -- Raziman T V (talk) 09:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and the article creator is on the way to a block. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 09:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreferenced, non-notable, probably original research or just something made up. WWGB (talk) 09:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 14:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not a recognized musical subgenre. No sources have been provided. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Its a MUSIC genre!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.27.35 (talk) 17:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— 74.108.27.35 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 00:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:NEO. Joe Chill (talk) 17:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, can find no sources recognizing this musical genre. J04n(talk page) 17:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is either a neologism or just plain made up. I really wish it wasn't, but it is, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 17:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . This article has no sources, and the content is a huge joke. --Spencerz (talk) 19:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources, possible violation of WP:NEO. December21st2012Freak ^{Happy New Year!} at ≈ 19:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While interesting, it strikes me as a WP:NEO, as other editors have pointed out. Cocytus [»talk«] 20:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 03:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IT (file format)[edit]

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

DELETE. We just deleted the parent article (Impulse Tracker) so we may as well delete this article as well. If the software used to create the file is not notable, I cannot see how the actual file format would be. JBsupreme (talk) 09:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A non-notable file format of a non-notable software. Joe Chill (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since other, more notable, trackers support the format, perhaps we could redirect to Module file, but I have no objection to deletion either. Marasmusine (talk) 10:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 06:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete App-specific file format of non-notable app and the format doesn't appear to be used outside said app. --Cybercobra (talk) 13:49, 30 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 03:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hana to Akuma[edit]

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

Unnotable manga series. Fails WP:N and WP:BK. No significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Previously deleted through userification at User:Samantha Lim88/Hana to Akuma per a discussion with an admin, however a new editor recently recreated in an even worse form, and still showing no notability (nor has notability been shown for the userified version, only verification that it was published, which of course does not establish notability). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 09:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 09:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Nom, actully the article looks like it was quickly put together and since no RS exist delete per nom. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since previous Afd, the situation didn't change much. There is no evidence of notability and it's still not licensed in UK/US. However it got licensed in France by Panini Comics but it's for July 2010. It will be long wait before its receives some coverages by French RS until then it should stay in userpage. --KrebMarkt 23:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given it's been recently licensed in the West, which makes it possible that in the near future reviews that demonstrate notability are more likely to be found, keep the userfied version but delete the current live version as failing WP:BK. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Also suggest delete as it doesn't pass N due to no RS. Basket of Puppies 23:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm closing this early because the discussion has ceased to be productive. The primary writer, upoon recreating the article, did post a notice on my talk page asking me to review it, which I think is a clear example of his/her good faith. (I also closed the original AfD). Unfortunately, I didn't log in until today because I took a wikibreak for the holidays. There virtually unanimous opinion to delete, and the article has been userfied, so there is nothing further to be done here. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Full Armor of God Broadcast[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unreferenced article for apparently non-notable radio program, prod removed by subject-involved article creator, issues from previous AfD neither resolved nor apparently understood as regards notability. Dravecky (talk) 07:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Dravecky (talk) 08:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing seems to have changed since the last time this was deleted. There is no real coverage from reliable independent sources to establish notability. Just because something is obviously real doesn't make it notable. Hopefully this won't turn into a side show like last time it got AfD'd. TomPointTwo (talk) 08:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~No need to get unpleasant about it.~~Armorbearer777 (talk) 14:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't my intention; I apologize if you took offense. My intention was to encourage that the canvassing that so marred the last nomination be avoided this time. TomPointTwo (talk) 18:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, no offense taken. I had nothing to do with the last issue. I had hoped to keep it simple this time, but that certainly didn't happen. It certainly seems like there is quite alot of opposition to this article, especially when other syndicated Christian radio shows have been allowed to remain with less refferences.Armorbearer777 (talk) 23:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article has declined significantly since the last deletion discussion. Right now, it's probably bad enough to be a speedy deletion candidate. Before, the article talked about how the broadcast aired on around 70 radio stations, which is significant enough to be considered as a national program. Now it airs on three radio stations, which is not significant. Very many radio stations air on iTunes and the internet, so that not a claim of notability. I've been asked by the contributor with a conflict of interest how the article can be saved. Right now, it can't be without a complete rewrite. I'll answer the question here. You need to get back to the basics - multiple independent reliable sources show notability. You need to find major publications like books, national magazines, newspapers which have articles focused on the topic. Having sources that are specific to the topic, like Christian metal radio magazines, work well. I know that they are hard to come by, since mainstream sources won't touch any Christian music topics. I'd guess that at least a few exist. Just because many Wikipedians won't recognize them by name doesn't make them invalid. I suggest that before you post an article in mainspace again, that you contact a veteran Wikipedian like myself to see if the article has a chance to not be deleted via Speedy Deletion criteria G4. This isn't even close. Royal broil 12:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The show does air on more than the 7 stations listed, but in the 1st deletion nomination it was suggested that the number of radio stations and references to those program schedules were irrelevant. This article focused more on the 3 main terrestrial radio stations, referencing those listed on Wikipedia that all mention The Full Armor of God Broadcast. This show is internationally known in the area of Christian Metal. This fact can be established in and of itself by the notably interviews it has done with notable musicians (who would not do interviews with unknown programs) and the magazine coverage listed. Armorbearer777 (talk) 14:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide your proof of the number of radio stations who air the program. It is very significant to me. I ask because I've been trying all along to get you to provide proof of meeting anything in WP:MUSIC (the notability standards for musicians). A case might be able to be made to apply that standard to the radio program. Royal broil 19:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided 10 references to radio station program schedules that list the show as being aired, but they were removed. I was than told to give citations to verify radio syndication. I was ordered not to re-post references to radio stations airing the show. I was told that they are insignificant to and only establish the "existance of the show" and not notability. I was also told that they were advertisments. I referenced mp3 content that verified notable interviews, but those too were removed. I refferenced 3 magazine ads in notable Christian Metal & Motorcycle Magazines and those were removed. I am celarly in over my head here. This is a wirlwind of subjective opinion and vague policy references. I appreciate your tryingto help, put if I am in conflict of interest by being an intern of the show, than I will drop out of this debate. Please view my persoanly page for the full list of references before they were removed. Maybe something there might help. Armorbearer777 (talk) 21:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added 3 magazine coverage references in compliance to request and what should be considered for all reasonable purposes sufficiant enough notable references including audio media references which applies to WikiProject Radio criteria and according to Wikipedia Policy. Wiki Policy clearly states that notability does not equal fame. So the fact that this show is not the Haward Stern Show or Bob & Tom, would seem like a mute point. This program is popular and notable enough in it's area and is worthy of modest mention on Wikipedia. The approach in writing this article was to keep the information simple and notably referenced. I believe this was done sufficiently. I look forward to a fair and impartial decision from the designated Wikipedia admin. Thank you all very much and Happy New Year! Armorbearer777 (talk) 13:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need to understand how Wikipedians look at the topic by playing the devil's advocate: anyone can buy an ad in a magazine, so this doesn't prove anything. The same comment would apply if you bought an article piece in a promotional magazine. We're looking for a professional magazine, not related to the radio program, who on their own fruition wrote an article about the radio program - just because they wanted to. Well-known ones in the U.S. Contemporary Christian music area are Jesus Freak Hideout, CCM magazine, and on rare occasions Billboard (magazine). Good luck. Royal broil 14:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Armorbearer777 (talk) 15:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some of the references added reference advertisements. Simply no notability for an encyclopedia and the obvious COI is an issue here. Personally I would CSD. Mjpresson (talk) 16:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I removed references that absolutely did not support statements. I checked them thoroughly they just advertise and offer mp3 downloads. Mjpresson (talk) 16:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A reference must SUPPORT the statement not merely prove that these stations and websites exist. The subject was not mentioned on the pages referenced. I seem to be the only editor concerned about COI in reference to username and subject.Mjpresson (talk) 17:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I share your conflict of interest concerns pertaining to Armorbearer777. He/she must be the webmaster since this edit includes some scans of advertisements which had been on their official website in response to this discussion. Royal broil 19:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am admittedly and intern of Full Armor of God Ministries. I didn't realize that this would be a conflict of interest? Since there does not seem to be much supprot for this program on wikipedia, I shall withdraw my efforts. I regret not representing this significant [[Christian Metal] counter culture radio program better than I have. I appologize for wasting everyones time. Armorbearer777 (talk) 21:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No basic change from last time, no evidence of notability by our criteria. The article's creator is clearly a supporter ~~but there is no evidence for more than that so far as I know~~. Dougweller (talk) 17:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentWell, I was clearly wrong, there is a definite COI. Which does explain some things but of course doesn't affect my thoughts about the article. Dougweller (talk) 21:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though I am an intern of Full Armor of God Minsitries and do care about The Full Armor of God Broadcast, I have also joined WikiProject Radio for the advancement of radio broadcasting on Wikipedia. I believe that to seek to verify The Full Armor of God Broadcast in this case also serves the purposes of advancement of WikiProject Radio. I do not believe my integrity to be in question. Armorbearer777 (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe this broadcast could be capable of being kept on wikipedia, but there is the problem of reliable sources and how it does have a lack of such sources. In its current state, it probably isn't suitable to be kept, but there is somewhat of a chance for it to be notable. I don't know how much of a chance, but I don't want to vote "delete" just yet. Maybe I'll check out the circumstances later and put in an official vote. Backtable^{Speak to Me}about what I have done 19:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to above comment: "Checking out the circumstances later" is definitely recommended at the very least. Mjpresson (talk) 20:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. At the risk of being out of order, I am one of many others who became clean & sober thanks to this radio ministry, that is why i feel so passionate about seeing it acknowledged on wikipedia. Please don't hold that against the program. Armorbearer777 (talk) 21:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a nationally-syndicated radio program, my natural inclination is to lean towards keeping the article but without the independent media coverage required by Wikipedia this (or any other radio show) article can't pass the notability test. Surely some magazines or periodicals have written up the program? As an intern, of anybody here you'd have the greatest access to the show's own archives of such material, if it exists. - Dravecky (talk) 21:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of any such magazine artcles, perhaps Teen Challenge might have some, I will look into it ASAP. But for now, as one last ditch effort to establish some small level of notability to The Full Armor of God Broadcast I have linked article to a few short mp3 sound clips of notable guests who have endorsed the show verbally including: Ryan Clark of Demon Hunter, Nick Hipa of As I Lay Dying, Brian HEAD Welch (formerly) of Korn, Kevin Young of Disciple and Kirk Cameron of Way of the Master Ministies. Though these sound clips are hosted by The Full Armor of God Broadcast's website, unless the program is going to be accused of falsification of these clips entirely (which certainly is NOT the case), these should establish at least some slight basis of notability, if only on a small scale. Please consider these audio clips as "self published web content" to establish notability enough to keep this modest article on wikipedia. Otherwise, I will keep working on it in the sandbox and see if any magazine articles exisit. If they do, they are more likely to be similar to local ministry bulletins and not major publications as requested. Lastly, please do not discount the listening audience of XYZ Radio which serves the iPhone, Wii, DS, PS3 and PSP. This is a QUICKLY GROWING medium of broadcasting and reaches many listeners! Thank you all for you time! Please review NEW audio references as "self published web content" according to wikipedia policy (hopefully)... Please view article before someone goes and pulles all of them off.. lolArmorbearer777 (talk) 06:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those audio clips are called "promos" and are a form of commercial exchange ("you endorse my album and I'll endorse your radio show"), they're not independent 3rd party comment from a reliable source. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a very subjective statement that I cannot find in wikipedia policy. Can you show me where that is written please? It seems that this preceeding has already been decided.Armorbearer777 (talk) 18:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, WP:RS doesn't specify that a radio program's own "promos" (actually they're called "liners" in the trade) can't be used to base an article on, but it does define the standards that a reliable source must meet. You may want to get opinions from the wider Wikipedia community at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TY! Armorbearer777 (talk) 04:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A program carried on just seven stations does not meet notability standards. No independent, reliable sources are cited. The author admits to a conflict of interest, and his edit history tends to indicate his is a single-purpose account focused solely on promoting the program on Wikipedia, bordering on spam. This is pretty clear-cut to me. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you are going to WLRY, WCLH, WTGO and XXXChruch wikipages and removing the Full Armor of God Broadcast? Armorbearer777 (talk) 05:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because they reference a program that is clearly not notable by Wikipedia standards, and their inclusion is a backhanded attempt at self-promotion. It is a commonly-seen tactic here. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 14:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those refernces have been on those pages for over a year and I did not put them there. All I did was link them to this NEW Full Armor of God Broadcast atricle. Nothing backhanded, I assure you. Please give the benefit of the doubt, I mean no harm. Armorbearer777 (talk) 04:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please reference this Wikipedia policy you are quoting that lists the number of radio stations that a radio show must be aired on to be considered in syndication? This seems subjective. This inquisition is begining to resemble more of a piranha feeding frenzy or a public handing than a debate on ploicy, I think it is clearly time that I bow out. Obviously Wikipedia matters are best left to more dedicated Wikipdians. I conceed the issue. Thank God that Wikipedia juristition ends at Wikipedia. Armorbearer777 (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As a member of Wikiproject Radio I'd insist on WP:RS: specifically coverage by 3rd party sources independent of the subject which are other than program listings. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess that just about does it. No dice.. Full Armor of God Broadcast on Wikipedia. Full Stop... Armorbearer777 (talk) 00:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeilding to deletion proccess I will keep the article on my personal user page and keep trying to improve it. I should have worked on it more before trying to post it. My BAD! Live and learn.. Any advice is welcome. Armorbearer777 (talk) 00:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea. You can create a sandbox within your user space to work on the article and get it into a better condition. I use a a couple of sandboxes myself to do work on projects that aren't yet ready to be "unveiled". If you have any questions about it after discussion here closes feel free to hit me up on my talk page.TomPointTwo (talk) 01:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But remember: The best-written article in the world will not help a subject that is not notable. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 14:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are users going to all the wikipages of the radio stations that do air the show and removing any and all mention of The Full Armor of God Broadcast?? If the show is SO UN-NOTIBLE, why do these radio stations all play the show? Doesn't wikipedia policy also state that "Article topics are required to be notable, or "worthy of notice." Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below." So just because The Full Armor of God Broadcast is not a household name does NOT make it un-notible. It is very widely known in the Christian Metal counter culture and should be notible enough to have a modest mention on wikipedia. Many here seem to be on a misson to have this program completey blotted out from any mention at all. Why is that? Why is ti SO BLOODY important that The Full Armor of God Broadcast not be mentioned on wikipedia? I swear, have other radio shows like MAD Christian Radio Show recieved such opposition? Armorbearer777 (talk) 18:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mention MAD Christian Radio Show with the intention of having it's certibility attacked now. That is a good show, don't delete that page too now,, that is not what I wanted to happen at all. Good LordArmorbearer777 (talk) 19:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article creator Armorbearer777 has turned both his user page and his talk page into mirrors of this article in direct contravention of the Wikipedia:User page guidelines. I did add a {{userpage}} template to the former but these will need to be dealt with as well. - Dravecky (talk) 07:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have never, intenionally "mirrored" anything. I was just trying to work the article out there in the hopes of getting it right. I only removed the additional tag. Does there have to be more than one? Armorbearer777 (talk) 18:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to comment I think the user removed the userpage templates? I replaced one on both userpage and talk page which mirror the deletions and appear as articles. There is a degree of disruption here, I believe. Mjpresson (talk) 13:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note The user keeps removing the userpage template from the article on his userpage so it appears as an article. I have replaced it a 3rd time. Mjpresson (talk) 18:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOT TRUE!! You keep putting additional user templates on my persoanl page. I only removed the additional ones. I do not need more than one. It doesn't seem like you will be happy until you completely drive me off of wikipedia!Armorbearer777 (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Actually, your resistance and disruption are gaining you a negative history. It's not anyone's fault but your own. You continue to insist on using this site according to your wishes with disregard to years-established policies that work. Mjpresson (talk) 18:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a user subpage sandbox and transferred the article there, problem solved. Let's stay on topic, this is an AfD. Armorbearer777, you can reach your new sandbox from your userpage. If you have any questions hit me up on my talk page. TomPointTwo (talk) 18:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You for that! I wasn't sure if I had that right. I though the user page was a sandbox. Sorry for the mix up.Armorbearer777 (talk) 19:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Userpage tags are not required, see WP:UP. Dougweller (talk) 18:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely true. I added it originally as the mildest, least disruptive possible remedy towards solving WP:UP#COPIES (aka WP:FAKEARTICLE) until more specific corrective action could be taken, preferably by the user. I'm trying to keep the drama level at a minimum. - Dravecky (talk) 19:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Summary Comment

1) I totally conceed to deletion proccess (barring a miracle of God that it should avoid deletion).

2) I realize that I have made several mistakes with this article, most of all posting it before it could be approved by WikiProject Radio and or WikiProject Christian Music members.

3) I completely appoloize to all wikipedians that my actions may have offended. It was certainly not my intension to create any controvercy that would fly in the face of this illustious encyclopdia. Wikipedia has made history in so many ways but what has always been one of the best things about it is being the first encyclopdia of it's kind by being the great equalizer and allowing the accomplishemnts of "The Common Person" to be acknowledged along with the accomplishments of the "Giants" of our world. Bravo to Wikipedia when it wrote in it's policy "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic—although those may enhance the acceptability".

4) I will continue to work on this article only in my personal sandbox as I become more involved with WikiProject Radio & WikiProject Christian Music as a new member. I will try again to submit The Full Armor of God Broadcast article only after being advised to do so by one of the many well seasoned Wikipedians who have offered to help this article.

Thank You Armorbearer777 (talk) 00:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Final question about The Full Armor of God Broadcast

- In regard to the notable artist liners on mp3 used to try and establish notability of the show, how does the following wikipedia policy apply? If at all..

Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves

Shortcut

WP:SELFPUB

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

the material is not unduly self-serving;
it does not involve claims about third parties;
it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Couldn't these artist mp3 liners, along with the other references be eneough to verify low importance notablitiy in it's musical realm of Christian Metal? Please note, it is not the intension of this writer or the article to present The Full Armor of God Broadcast as something it isn't. It is not Focus on the Family or 20 Count Down Magazine. But it is exactly what it is? A significant Christian Metal syndicated broadcast of it's Christian Metal counter culture. Nothing more, nothing less. If you are into Christian Metal you have heard of this show. The 4 sentences on this article are referenced with 23 decent references in internet and low power fm radio. It doesn't make the show as popular as Rush Limbaugh, but this type of show is not the kind of show that could get coporate syndication. However it does manage to get around inspite of that and the very fact that it has gotten as much notability as it has in Christian Heavy Music Scene, is exactly what makes it worthy of modest mention on wikipedia. Perhaps everyone might consider adding it to either Christian Radio or maybe Christian Metal? Please consider changing your vote. This my absolute closing statement. Please reconsider and allow this modest article to remain. until next time TY all for your time Armorbearer777 (talk) 10:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Primary sources can be used for information, but should not be used to establish notability. For example, the "About Us" section of an organization's website can be referenced to establish founding dates, address, etc., but should not be used to make a notability claim. --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 10:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Now this editor has added six references that cause your computer to automatically download a file when you click on the reference. This needs to be stopped and this ~~article~~ promotion needs to be put to rest today. Does this also need WP:ANI?Mjpresson (talk) 17:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WEB Armorbearer777 (talk) 20:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Non-notable self-published band.Simonm223 (talk) 20:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an article on a band, it is a radio show. Armorbearer777 (talk) 20:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Note

WP:N Clearifies that "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic" and that "A topic is presumed to be notable enough to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below. A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in one of the more subject-specific guidelines: Academics, Books, Criminal acts, Events, Films, Music, Numbers, Organizations & companies, People, and Web content."

WP:WEB Clearifies "Web content includes, but is not limited to, blogs, Internet forums, newsgroups, online magazines and other media, podcasts, webcomics, and web portals. Any content which is distributed solely on the Internet is considered, for the purposes of this guideline, as web content"

WP:RS goes on to state "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: the material is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources."

Given the information listed form Wikipedia policy, could The Full Armor of God Broadcast achieve low importance notability in the area of Christian Metal and /or Christian Radio with its "Self-published or questionable sources or Web content" in the mp3 audio clips of notable guest liners, it's refernces to it's FM, LP and Internet Radio affiliate listings and references form other bands on notable music websites?

The Full Armor of God Broadcast is not a household corporate radio name such as "Bob & Tom", but within it's limited genre of Christian Metal and/or Christian radio wouldn't the current refernces be sufficient enough sources to establish a Start Class Low/Mid Importance article?Armorbearer777 (talk) 20:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have Requested to Merge Article with Christian Metal or Christian Radio

Christian Metal maybe the more suitable choice. Christian Radio has declined on the merge. But I will pray and keep my fingers crossed for a something good to happen. This couldn't get any worse! lol Armorbearer777 (talk) 20:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine to add it as a paragraph on the Christian Metal page. It seems to be a good fit there if it's going to be deleted as an article. I would like to see the number of references reduced though. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Let me know what references to remove. Thank you! Armorbearer777 (talk) 02:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any problems with a mention in Christian Metal, but not Christian radio, as that generally refers to traditional radio broadcasts and not webcasting, and the program simply isn't carried on enough stations (yet). - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, given the exceedingly poor sources, about all you could accurately include is something along the lines of "Several stations list Full Armor of God Broadcast in their program schedules". - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that's a problem. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have the same opinion as I had during the last debate: that this has yet to pass our notability guidelines. Hopefully this debate won't be marred by canvassing like the previious. Them From Space 21:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while moving the article to user space does resolve some of the problems (allowing the creator to work on sourcing and to properly establish notability), I have to raise a more fundamental issue... should that editor be editing this article in the first place?... Armorbearer777 has a clear conflict of interest. I am not sure that an intern for a broadcast company should be writing articles about that company's broadcasts? Blueboar (talk) 22:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Working on an article that you are involved in IRL can be a conflict of interest but it is not forbidden. As long as the editor understands the policies and guidelines (as this one now seems to) then what was once a conflicted or biased editor can instead become an asset. Much of the constructive work done on military, school and political articles is done by editors that are actively involved in the article's subject in real life. TomPointTwo (talk) 23:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm neutral on this topic. Having any company employee write an article, provided that it doesn't violate Wikipedia's policies on SPAM and writing articles that read like ads, is a great opportunity to get first-hand information on the subject. Is there a guideline that expressly prohibits this sort of thing? If there is, I think we need to apply it uniformly across the site. I know that my former employee had several people from marketing and customer support update articles on the company's behalf. I'm sure it's common practice. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy against editing article whose subject you are involved in. The conflict of interest guideline covers specific behaviors that are inappropriate, mainly using wikipedia as a vessel of self-promotion. In other words the guideline only flat out rejects behaviors that are already disallowed by other, actual, policies. TomPointTwo (talk) 00:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"...a great opportunity to get first-hand information on the subject. Is there a guideline that expressly prohibits this sort of thing?"... Yes, there is. In fact we have a core policy that expressly prohibits "this sort of thing"... see WP:No original research. Blueboar (talk) 00:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe his question was framed in the context of things that would otherwise be sound contributions. TomPointTwo (talk) 00:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to address the COI earlier in this debate yet my comments weren't addressed. That and the fact that this editor contributes primarily to this article and the AfD of it are as significant as its lack of notability. Mjpresson (talk) 01:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Full Armor of God Broadcast is not an elaborate mass marketing conspiracy or something. Nor is this article some underhanded promotional scheme. It is a non-profit broadcast that is totally free to syndicate or download. It does not charge for public service announcements to be aired, nor does it solicit donations on the broadcast. It is operated by Full Armor of God Ministries, which is a non-501c3 privately funded Christian ministry. The ONLY things that The Full Armor of God Broadcast is known to "promote" on the programs is its religious commitment to the "Armor of God" form the Holy Bible, drug/Alchohol abuse rehabilitation from teen Challenge, internet porn addiction recovery from XXX Church and prayer for spiritual issues via the ministry's prayer line. Armorbearer777 (talk) 02:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think most people here have assumed good faith regarding your intentions, even though COI is a likely possibility given your unusual persistence and your ministry's stated mission to get attention for its message by any means: ("Full Armor Of God Ministries are commited to spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Our methods are viewed by some to be extreme, however we are commited to our vision and target audience and we will not waiver in our reservation. This ministry is prepared to go to the"EXTREME" to reach those that we are called to reach, with the message of God's love.") I don't doubt the ministry does good works and deserves attention for it. But if that's all you're on Wikipedia to advance, then you'll find some rough going here. Why not, as others have suggested, help out on other articles unrelated to Christian metal and get your feet wet helping to build the encyclopedia. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteand salt the article. Armorbearer777 is blatantly violating WP:COI and WP:ADVERT as he is clearly non-neutral on the topic and unable to write in a fully neutrally about it. The broadcast is not any more notable than it was the last time the article was created. TomPointTwo, you make an interesting point, however in this case, this is not just an matter of someone being interested in a local interest or a heavily active and well-experienced editor making careful neutral edits to an article about an organization they are associated with (for example, my adding well sourced history to some of the A&M state agency articles), but someone whose job may be engaging in paid editing (even if the internship is unpaid) by his employer. If Armorbearer777 truly understands the policies and guidelines that have been pointed out to him, he will voluntarily tag his copies for deletion, and accept that if this broadcast ever becomes notable, someone else will create the article is not involved in it and that he should not edit it anymore. However, as he is cross-posting parts of his arguments all over the place, I'd say he really isn't understanding it as much as some think. And yes, policy does prohibit this sort of thing. Wikipedia is WP:NOT for advertising and creating notability, it violates WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it is determinted that I am in any "conflict of interest" by writing this article while being an (un-paid) volunteer intern with Full Armor of God ministries, than I will completely yield the issue. otherwise, I am beginning to view Mjpresson's very agressive strong badgering both here, on other articles and even on my user page as completely unwarrented. Furthermore I would assert that if there is any "canvassing" going on in this debate, it is certainly NOT on my end! Armorbearer777 (talk) 02:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't take it personally or get discouraged. While this is all new to you it's not for many experienced editors. Over time many regulars here begin to feel like they're broken records, harping on the same thing over and over again and it can make them a little grouchy or short with new people. If you like it here then look around and read some policies and look through edit histories and see how things are done on wikipedia. Maybe request to be adopted by another editor. Then find another topic you're interested (and less personally involved) in and do some work there. Then when you're a little more rounded consider revisiting this topic with a new, more seasoned set of eyes. TomPointTwo (talk) 03:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. I may be new to wikipedia, but not new to life. I know when I am being harrassed and Mjpresson is definately on a mission to follow me everywhere and harrass me. I wasn't even working on the Full Armor of God Broadcast article and he has been on my butt constantly. I hope I use warning properly. He left me no choice. Armorbearer777 (talk) 04:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(calm response) That user is speaking of me removing citations to blogs and advertisements, that's all. This is getting old and he's putting fake "you're blocked" templates on my talkpage now. Mjpresson (talk) 04:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This AfD has spiraled out of control and discussion has out ran the scope of this venue. The only editor opposing deletion has concerned his initial position. I do not foresee there being any significant shift to reestablish this article in the criteria for inclusion and all the pertinent material has been saved to a user space for future work. Barring any objections I'm going to request this AfD be closed somewhat early to avoid any further disruption and to contain the reach of a disputes that have transcended this discussion. TomPointTwo (talk) 04:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Listing of stations and syndication is not likely to be enough to establish notability. Citing advertising won't, either, as it has been pointed out, anyone can buy an ad. Listing the bands that the program covered may be of interest to some, but it doesn't hold value toward establishing notability. As many others have expressed, what you really would need is coverage in independent reliable sources. For instance, if I wanted to write about a media organization such as a magazine, I'd find references to that magazine in other sources (as in this article), rather than list the cover of every issue (like someone does in this one). Another example: While researching this tv network I found an ad listing programs aired. But it's not the programming that makes the network notable per Wikipedia, per se (some exceptions may be argued), it's the off-network coverage.

So, with all this in mind, I searched several Gale Group databases (newspapers, magazines) looking for coverage. Alas, with no results. Which doesn't bode well. What's that old quote about a "hill of beans"? However, you might be able to find some play at non-Wikipedia "Christian music wikis". Dan, the CowMan (talk) 04:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am content with the oppertunity for the article being rewritten and merged with Christian Metal. I don't object to the closing of the discussion. Armorbearer777 (talk) 05:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without Userfy due to potential COI issue on this article. Comment to author: whatever you write about this subject, it would be subject to COI issues and has little chance to survive. If it's truly notable, someone else would write an article on it, or at least make significant contributions to it. There must be a reason after this lengthy discussion, very little support was gathered (btw, I also failed to establish its notability myself - lacking ghits apart from myspace, facebook and various profile templates). Your contribution to Wikipedia is appreciated, but try work on a different subject. :) Blodance (talk) 09:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insurmountable COI concerns have prevented NPOV from prevailing during the notability discussion. Let it die, and when (if) the program has grown, let someone else who is not involved create the article. Remember, Wikipedia is not going anywhere. --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 12:47, 30 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Debbie Rowe[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article fails nearly every rule of notability. Wikipedia rules state that being married to a famous person does NOT instantly confer notability on a person. Debbie Rowe has done nothing notable at all, besides being briefly married to Michael Jackson and bearing two of his children, who she did not raise. This page is literally a repeat of the Debbie Rowe section on the Michael Jackson page which is a far better summary of the relationship. There is absolutely no justifaction for a separate page on Rowe Paul75 (talk) 07:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It meets the basic rule WP:GNG ("significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject") with multiple citations banked up at reputable sites like The New York Times [39], USA Today [40], CNN [41] etc. Media coverage extends over 13 years, from 1996 [42] to the present time [43]. No brainer, headed for snow country. WWGB (talk) 08:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily clears WP:BIO. She has extensive coverage in reliable sources and while she may have come to fame by marrying Jackson since then she has received extensive coverage for events that she directly participated in. TomPointTwo (talk) 08:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why did you nominate this again? How have circumstances changed since the first AFD nom (10 July 2009)? You can't just keep throwing spaghetti at the wall and hope it sticks. riffic (talk) 09:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Some articles on individuals known mainly for a relationship with a famous person are worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. Rowe is worthy of inclusion, and Cynthia Lennon would be a similar example. Pyrrhus16 12:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Waste of time. Obviously satisfies the GNG, kept overwhelmingly just a few months ago, and nothing has changed. WP:NOTINHERITED, the "rule" underlying the nomination, says in effect that spouses of the famous are not presumptively notable, and must independently satisfy the GNG, and the nominator does not claim that Rowe does not satisfy the GNG -- just that the article should be deleted regardless. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While granting that the subject is only famous because she married Michael Jackson and is the mother of two of his children, the publicity associated with her doing these things is so extensive that it warrants having an article about her in Wikipedia. See WP:GNG. As indicated by others above, her notability has not changed since the prior nomination back in July. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:05, 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 no consensus, default to keep. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Susanna Maiolo[edit]

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

Typical case of WP:BLP1E, this article fails WP:BIO. Summary of the incident is already at Pope Benedict XVI#Apostolic ministry. --Zvn (talk) 07:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BLP1E. Violation of WP:BLP. Algébrico (talk) 14:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not a BLP1E case, since there was coverage of a similar, unsuccessful assault by the same person last year. This would be a NOTNEWS deletion if the article goes, but given worldwide TV broadcasts, extensive news coverage, possible significant consequences in terms of possible changes in papal security, etc, the subject satisfies the GNG, and the name is an extremely plausible search term. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - effectively a BLP1E. That page advises us to write an article on the event instead of the person, but in this case I don't think the event is deserving of a Wikipedia article either; this seems to me a case of WP:NOTNEWS, with little or no lasting notability. Robofish (talk) 16:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because I think Robofish is basically right. It's not technically a BLP1E, but similar arguments could be raised for almost any BLP1E; and nobody took notice of her last year, or even (afaik) identified her as Susanna Maiolo in the news. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 19:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She did the same thing last year. And I'd like to be able to come to her page here if/when more info becomes available in order to learn, for instance, if she was trying to attack the pope, or just obsessed, instead of having to hunt for it wherever. After all that's the kind of thing that wikipedia is good for.Adrigon (talk) 23:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The information you'd be looking for is at Pope Benedict XVI#Apostolic ministry; while not technically a BLP1E because these were two similar incidents one year apart, I do believe the article violates the spirit of BLP1E - an article on an individual who is otherwise low profile and has no notability separate from these two incidents. --Zvn (talk) 07:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think its important to take into account the thousands of news articles, rather than just the meager references already cited. I think it is ultimately impractical to put this in the article about Benedict XVI himself; it merits only a sentence there now, and may not even justify that over time; however, there are plenty of citable facts. Her prior history of assault on the pontiff, and other things of that nature mentioned by Zvi, I think justify a biography. For those reasons I don't think BLP1E applies. Savidan 15:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It will be a great service to someone in twenty or thirty years’ time who is editing someone’s journals or letters and wants to track down a reference to this momentarily notable person. By then the event is very likely to have been lost from the article on the (former) pontiff—because at that point it will very likely be seen as not an important part of his biography. Ian Spackman (talk) 12:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Attacking someone famous does not make one notable. Yes, the attack is notable, but the attacker is not. IShadowed ✰ 21:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, an obvious WP:BLP1E failing. Ironholds (talk) 21:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She twice attempted to attack the pope, to the point where she was arrested by the Vatican Gendarmes (again, twice). That's pretty notable. How many people get to attack a head of state twice? Like it or not, attacking a famous person can make one notable. If that were not true, why do we have articles on Lynette Fromme, Mehmet Ali Ağca, John Hinckley, Jr., and Margaret Mary Ray, amongst a vast list of others. This article will only grow and become more useful as the investigation of these attacks continues. Gentgeen (talk) 05:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient world wide coverage to be considered an historic pair of events. DGG ( talk ) 18:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP1E, a news article not worthy of any serious encyclopedia. RMHED (talk) 18:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the event is more important. 'Susanna Maiolo' should be a re-direct to the related section within the Pope Benedict XVI article. GoodDay (talk) 23:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Redirect to the pope's page. While it's true that she went after him twice, the first incident wasn't really covered, to my knowledge, which would make WP:BLP1E a valid criticism in my opinion. I'd have the title redirect to the pope's page, in a section of the attack, perhaps. However, who knows, more information/coverage might be forthcoming. As the BLP1E page says, if the coverage ends up being persistent (I am unconvinced it will) then she would merit an article. Perhaps it's premature at this point, however. Cocytus [»talk«] 20:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for Gentgeen's etc. arguments. Renaming and adjustment to the separate article about the event is also acceptable. Full embodiment into the Pope Benedict XVI article is an imprudent idea. Removing of whichever verifiable information from the article is also undesirable. --ŠJů (talk) 23:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 03:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2011 in music[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Disambiguation page with nothing but redlinks, all about music in 2011. There's really no reason why the page can't wait until there's something to disambiguate. —Largo Plazo (talk) 06:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Alex (talk) 07:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Until we actually have those articles, this page is unnecessary. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 14:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I know this page doesn't look like much, but look upon the 2009 in music page or previous years. They are disasters - overcrowded, in need of rewrites, and are filled with primarily US-bias. I set out to create this page to clean up later years, and I wish the standard set by the 2010 in television pages and this hopeful page becomes the norm. My goal is to clean this up. How well I do now depends on those who vandilise this page or the administrator who hasn't seen the 2009 in music page. (99.37.53.244 (talk) 16:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- Everything that you said will be fine when the time comes, but nothing that you said indicates why the page should exist before there is information for it to contain. Your goal is admirable, but if I may say so, you are trying to exert a measure of control that you don't possess. To that end, though, you might want to look into whether creating a WP:WikiProject would serve your purpose. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I've re-formatted 2010 in music to fit this same standard, and it looks much better. I do not believe I should have created this page at this point - it is too soon. (Tigerghost (talk) 20:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

In that case, as the article's author, you can have the article speedily deleted by placing the template {{db-author}} at the top of the page. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 17:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 2010 doesn't even exist yet. By definition this article can be nothing but speculation for a long time. Wikpedia is not a crystal ball. — Gwalla | Talk 19:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteI disagree with the comment above, this article does not speculate about future events, and hence is not acting like a crystal ball. Nevertheless, it is simply too early to create this article - we can't just go on creating similar articles full of red links for every tear to come ! We'll have this article when we need it, which is some time away.Rkr1991 ^{(Wanna chat?)} 13:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, really. Drmies (talk) 16:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not nearly enough known about next year's musical scenes yet to even consider the need for such an article. --A1octopus (talk) 22:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep per WP:SK for a few reasons. First, the nominator has failed to advance a valid reason for deletion (WP:IDONTLIKEIT is an argument to avoid and "Wikipedia is not an antiquarian society" is not grounded in policy). Second, the nomination appears to be a disruptive attempt at avenging a perceived wrong by another user. Given that, and the fact that no one other than the nominator has supported deletion, I conclude that this meets the first two criteria for speedily keeping the article. (non-admin closure) A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Ellis (spinster)[edit]

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

Needs to go just as the horrid article on "Mary Ellis grave." Wikipedia is not an antiquarian society. Gerbelzodude99 (talk) 05:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. WP:JDLI is a weak argument, the page is well sourced, and it gives proper back story for a popular song. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 06:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well sourced and has relevance. Alex (talk) 07:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No valid reason given for deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep disruptive, punitive nomination per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir Charles Johnston‎ and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eversharp‎. See here where he says "I have a feeling the author of this (and other New York Times-based articles) sits in a room full of century-old pulp newspapers and sketches out stub articles based on the contents thereof. I don't know if this is politically correct, but perhaps the author of these stubs suffers from autism or Asperger syndrome?--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SNOW. Coverage in a mainstream newspaper and published book means the subject is verifiable in reliable sources, which are our two bases of inclusion on Wikipedia. I hope everyone had a nice Christmas! Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone else have the suspicion that User:Drawn Some and User:Gerbelzodude99 and User:Torkmann are the same person. Of all the articles in Wikipedia and of all the articles I started, why would three people be drawn to the same articles over and over? All three accounts exist only to nominate articles for deletion, and all three concentrate on articles that I write and all three have nominated Joachim Cronman. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joachim Cronman (4th nomination). --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible, but that's surely a discussion for a different forum. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should file a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. User:Drawn Some last edited on September 26th. User:Gerbelzodude99 first edited on November 27th. It is possible the same person abandoned the one account and started the new one. Given Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive563#Drawn_Some_and_Richard_Arthur_Norton_III, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive553#Wikistalking_and_edit_warring_by_User:Drawn_Some, and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive198#User:Drawn_Some_seems_to_be_wikistalking_User:Richard_Arthur_Norton_.281958-_.29. In the most recent one an admin even proposed banning Drawn Some from Richard. Drawn Some subsequently stopped editing, so it is conceivable that the person behind the account switched accounts to avoid scrutiny when renewing the attacks on Richard's articles? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:46, 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.

Eversharp[edit]

The result was Speedy Keep The nominator has failed to follow the deletion process and there is clearly no consensus to delete per WP:SNOW. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia is not a medium for sly advertising, no matter how old the product is. This article is nothing more than SPAM as these pencils are insignificant -- nothing more than one of a myriad of consumer flotsam of the past century that has left no mark on the world, no pun intended. Gerbelzodude99 (talk) 05:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. First mechanical pencils, and patents still being cited in current patent designs for such items. Rates an extended mention in Petroski's "The Pencil" ISBN 0679734155. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 05:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Based on the sources in the article and Edward's vote above, notability is obvious. It's hard to see how an article on a product from the 1910s can be seen as WP:SPAM, especially when that article has a neutral, non-promotional tone. In fact, I'm wondering if this should be speedily kept because this is a "nomination which is so erroneous that it indicates that the nominator has not even read the article in question." A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. For other disruptive nominations of my articles by Gerbelzodude99 see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir Charles Johnston and ‎Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loew's Cemetery and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eversharp. I think he is lashing out because I caught him commenting at an AFD without actually looking at the article. If he had read the article, at ‎Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loew's Cemetery he would noticed that the New York Times was not the sole reference in the article, instead he repeated the error of the previous voters stating that it was. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, discussed in the book "The Pencil: A History of Design and Circumstance", and has about 10,900 Google News hits! (true, most of those are ads, but that alone suggests a major company) Abductive (reasoning) 07:18, 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 close/out of process (NAC) - This article is already up for deletion under an open discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kroozer_$kid_Nation Shirik (talk) 06:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kroozer $kid Nation[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable club; a few mentions in the UC Santa Barbara campus paper do not establish notability. Drmies (talk) 05:04, 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.

Sir Charles Johnston[edit]

The result was Speedy Keep The nominator has failed to follow the deletion process and there is clearly no consensus to delete per WP:SNOW. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unlike an american-style mayor, the title of "lord mayor" of London carries no real power and does not make the bearer notable. (London did not have a "real" mayor until 2002 or so.) Furthermore, the source says nothing of this charlatan and the article bears no indication of his significance, which I dare say, is none. Gerbelzodude99 (talk) 04:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. We have a nice picture from the Library of Congress, a nice box at the bottom showing precessor and successor, and a link to a perfectly good story at the New York Times. Furthermore, there's literally hundreds of these folks in Category:Lord Mayors of London, all presumed notable. WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT is a poor excuse to delete. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 06:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The other lord mayors of London are not presumed notable, but were notable for accomplishments or titles apart from being lord mayor. The gentleman who preceeded Johnston was an MP and the one who succeeded him was a peer and patented some sort of engine. Charles Johnston, however, has no such claim to notability apart from having this one appointmet. Gerbelzodude99 (talk) 06:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Notable enough for the news of the day in a 708 word article in the New York Times, then still notable today. Of course the article is just a stub now. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not everything covered in the New York Times is significant. What may seem notable today may not be notable in 2109 -- so the argument "notable in 1914, notable today" does not hold any water. Gerbelzodude99 (talk) 06:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a personal attack from your comment. Don't do that. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For other disruptive nominations of my articles by Gerbelzodude99 see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir Charles Johnston and ‎Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loew's Cemetery and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eversharp. I think he is lashing out because I caught him commenting at an AFD without actually looking at the article. If he had read the article, at ‎Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loew's Cemetery he would noticed that the New York Times was not the sole reference in the article, instead he repeated the error of the previous voters stating that it was. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:57, 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tank research and development[edit]

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

Unreferenced and seemingly random listing of future technologies, appearing to consist mostly of original research. Most of the actual referenced content is about active camouflage, two of the reference links are dead, and the tiny amount of referenced content could be merged into articles like Future Combat Systems manned ground vehicles or Active camouflage without really losing anything of note. Herr Gruber (talk) 04:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable: see The Tank Builders: A History of Early Soviet Armor Research and Development, for example. The rest is a matter of ordinary editing per our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Trouble is, that's not what the article is about. Tank research and development is an article exclusively about future tank technology that was split from the research and development subheading of Tank, not about general R&D in the past. We already have History of the tank for what you're talking about. Herr Gruber (talk) 11:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Readers will come to the article based upon its title which does not include the word future and so the article's scope is not bounded as you suggest. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - - This is because it inherited the misleading title from the subsection on Tank it was taken from (Tank#Research_and_development), which is supposed to be a subsection exclusively about future developments. The article itself is also written to be exclusively about future developments, and contains little information not present in either the main Tank article or History of the tank which isn't OR. I can't see how expanding it to be about all tank R&D wouldn't make it a clone of History of the tank. Herr Gruber (talk) 11:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The history of the tank is a large topic. In considering the R&D aspects of this, we should take a historical perspective rather than a speculative one (see WP:CRYSTAL). Another source which exemplifies this approach is Historical perspective on U.S. army tank development programs of the 1960s‎. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, precisely. But the article was created purely to move WP:CRYSTAL material from the main Tank article, not for the purposes you're talking about. That's what History of the tank is already about, and you don't seem to have addressed how a hypothetical tank R&D article would actually be different from the large and well-researched existing article on the history of tank design. Regardless, the article in it's current state [a heap of OR] is not worth keeping on the basis someone might rewrite it entirely later. Herr Gruber (talk) 02:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Light keep~~, Delete, I may change my mind. username 1 (talk) 23:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I split off this page from the main tank page years ago in order to better handle people who kept making unreferenced blue sky additions (most of which were pure speculations) about tanks of the future. Since then the time I put into Wikipedia has dropped considerably. I grew tired of endless arguments with contributors who could not be bothered to go to a library to check simple facts or bring back a reference. Sure, the topic is notable but right now the entire article is a mess, and I don't live near a big university library anymore, or next to any source of good ref material on current tank R and D.--AlainV (talk) 01:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia doesn't needs tonsils to attract bad editing all to one place. Mangoe (talk) 17:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I almost laughed when I read this article: "Tank research and development is research and development of tanks and related technology." Why thank you, captain obvious! JBsupreme (talk) 21:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete though i'm happy to learn that tank R&D was performed in the past, and is expected to be advanced in the future, this article should go. The articles on the history of the tank and the tank will do.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:09, 30 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 (well not really speedy considering it is a three-week discussion). per nomination retraction JForget 01:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki application[edit]

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

This article seems to combine two things: unnotable title and unnotable meaning. The phrase "wiki application" doesn't seem to get used as anything other than a synonym for "wiki software" or "wiki engine"; and the concept, which as I understand is basically an application that runs on top of a wiki (either ad-hoc or not - the article currently is unclear on that), doesn't seem to be notable either - of course there are applications built on top of wikis, but I can't find anything online that talks specifically about such applications. Yaron K. (talk) 19:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Merge with wiki. Wiki application may seem indistinct from wiki itself to laypersons, so I understand. But actually it very much is a notable kind of Web application. There are numerous notable pieces of software and companies (they are listed in the article) built around wiki applications. The most basic definition (if you're not clear) is an application that is a lot more than wiki, but has wiki pages and functionality at the core of what it does. Wiki applications like TWiki and MindTouch are wiki-based, but may also incorporate blogs, social profiles, bookmarking, and other types of non-wiki functionality as a software suite. That said, this is a very short article and there's really no reason for it to exist on its own in my opinion, especially since the difference is confusing to many (per the nomination). It makes more sense to me to have it be a section in the wiki article. Steven Walling 00:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Your definition doesn't include anything about functionality being created "ad-hoc", which is what at least part of the article currently claims. But I think this conflict highlights the main issue, which is that the term doesn't seem to be defined in any notable sources; so any definition is as good as any other. Yaron K. (talk) 01:56, 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) 02:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 04:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Actually, now that I think about it again, I would like to retract this nomination - it does seem to make sense to just turn the page into a redirect to wiki (software), just as wiki software and wiki engine already are. Yaron K. (talk) 07:04, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Writing paper[edit]

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

Two-year-old unsourced stub with no useful content, created by a paper-company guy. No content worth keeping, nor evidence of a real topic. Dicklyon (talk) 04:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it looks like there's no useful content to merge. This unsourced stub is redundant to paper, notebook, etc. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a specialized type of paper in the same way that newsprint is, and manufacturing it is the way lots of people earn their living. The complete idiot's guide to etiquette‎ (this link) explains: "Most people should own three kinds of personal stationery: formal writing paper (which can be engraved or plain), personal business stationery, and personal notepaper.... Do not substitute informal writing paper when formal writing paper is called for." This is an encyclopedic and specialized topic, and many more references can be found: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL -- Eastmain (talk) 06:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're available to turn it into an article, I'll withdraw my deletion nomination; but as it is, it has no redeeming value. Dicklyon (talk) 07:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. It's a worthwhile encyclopedic topic despite the article's current shortcomings.--Michig (talk) 08:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Finding a good source for this topic takes just a few seconds. See Letter writing as a social practice, for example. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Bad article on legit topic, needs cleanup/improvement. Encylopedias should be encyclopedic. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:OUTCOMES and WP:BEFORE; I agree with Colonel Warden and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Bearian (talk) 05:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand and source this perhaps most notable item in history, after the "invention of fire". From the earliest forms of papyrus or sheepskin or vellum or parchment to rag and linen etc., cultures have depended on "paper" in order to share ideas and save histories. That the article is currently a little stub is no problem when one considers the WP:POTENTIAL of an article that is such an essential invention so instrumental in the communication of ideas and commerce throughout history [44], [45], [46]. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe there's definite potential for an article here. Maybe even a good one. It needs improvement (though some has been done already), but I see it's been flagged for rescue (and this usually works), Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 20:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand - this seems like a legitimate topic, and some references already appear to have been included/pointed out. I feel that it should be kept, and should be expanded upon. Cocytus [»talk«] 20:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. How is writing paper not notable? The fact that the article is unsourced does not necessarily imply that no reliable sources exist on writing paper itself. How foolish to ask for its deletion! --Grasshopper6 (talk) 23:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –MuZemike 06:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reform Party of California[edit]

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

Non-notable local branch of minor party; no evidence of notability or even continued operation, nor of prior significance. Orange Mike | Talk 04:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the above reasons. Eeekster (talk) 04:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 04:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Statewide is not local, and worth listing on the basis of having been notable in the 1995-1998 period. Once notable, always notable. See the Google News archive hits for this organization here -- Eastmain (talk) 18:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 01:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Eastmain.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And per this result.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to Reform Party of the United States of America. This has been done with state chapters of other parties when there simply isn't enough for a stand alone article. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you explain what a merge would entail here? There is currently no treatment of state parties as organizational units on Reform Party of the United States of America, so I have trouble seeing how you envision a merge would be executed. If it means adding a section for California, Michigan, etc., then we might as well keep this as a stand-alone article. Avram (talk) 02:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I only suggested merge on one of them. The others a straight redirect. 2 of the three have really done very little in their history. I'd be more inclined to simply do a single section about state chapter activities and put them in there. Frankly, most of the chapters have done little of signifigance. The article on the Texas one was just redirected. I'm going with redirect simply to save as a possible search term. Otherwise, I'd choose delete.Niteshift36 (talk) 18:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds workable. Most of the information in this article is incidentally related to the California party and could be merged safely.Avram (talk) 00:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Reform Party of the United States of America per the above. Avram (talk) 00:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:

Why? I first found the Reform Party by following the nationally broadcast website link and communicated with the National Secretary from Connecticut. She eventually directed me to my local chapter here in San Diego where I was informed that the major part of the Reform movement began as UWSA (United We Stand America) here in San Diego. I went to the 1997 Convention and was hooked, later becoming the CA State Convention Secretary several times.

This entry is a historic reference to the Reform movement partly because the California Reform Party has always held the largest share of active members. Although the numbers have dwindled, the Party continues to this day. We had a State Conference just prior to Christmas 2009. -- Rob Spahitz, RPCA, San Diego. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rspahitz (talk • contribs) 05:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Can you provide some reliable sources and add updated information on the role of this party and its history? The issue here is that editors have had trouble finding much verifiable, third-party evidence of the California party's importance. If there are other print or online sources to strengthen this article, please do add them. Avram (talk) 05:26, 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 delete. JForget 02:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frozen Ghost (musician)[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 03:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 05:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not finding any coverage for this Frozen Ghost; does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO. Gongshow ^Talk 06:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By typing in the Google search terms: -"just one bite" "frozen ghost"-, I've come up with 818 hits, all clearly related to sites about this musician's music. He appears to me to be a current, active and productive musician, producing one or two albums a year. His article, however seems to have several outdated and dead-end links in it. Does this help or make any difference? Scott P. (talk) 20:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:GOOGLEHITS. Joe Chill (talk) 23:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By "coverage", I should have clarified to state "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". That is what I'm having trouble finding here. Gongshow ^Talk 23:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. You are correct Joe Chill and Gongshow. I couldn't find any solid reviews amongst these hits. I vote to delete. Scott P. (talk) 01:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSICBIO, and is written in a very promotional tone as well. Cocytus [»talk«] 14:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 20 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough comments to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WxDownload Fast[edit]

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

This non-notable software has no third party sources and search for sources does not reveal any significant. Three sources listed are about libraries and features that this software implemented, but they never mention this software. Miami33139 (talk) 08:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A google news search reveals mentions(?) in various languages. Polarpanda (talk) 13:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- These are user submitted comments, version announcements, one sentence mentions, and appearance in lists. These are not acceptable RS for notability in any language. Miami33139 (talk) 17:02, 13 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) 01:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:50, 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 no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eyesofsound[edit]

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

This article does not meet the general notability guideline (this article received several "problem templates" a year ago, and since then no improvements were made). Canniba loki 01:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 07:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They appear to have signed several notable bands, maybe it could be rejigged as a "list of bands signed by Eyesofsound". Polarpanda (talk) 13:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this record label. Joe Chill (talk) 17:37, 13 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) 00:44, 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, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This company doesn't meet WP:CORP at first glance, but because it's a record label, I think significant coverage of the subject may be comprised of coverage of notable bands being signed to that record label. As such, I will add sources and vote to keep. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:49, 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 deletion Metamagician3000 (talk) 12:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hussain Muradi[edit]

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

Poorly sourced BLP--the one link provided is dead. There's one article in the Independent, and another with pretty much the same content from Radio Free Europe, there's nothing besides blogs and such. This is one case where a weakly sourced BLP of an only moderately notable person does no one any good: delete, please. Drmies (talk) 03:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could have specified more: it's a good example of a WP:BLP1E. Drmies (talk) 04:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 04:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 04:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have a lot of sympathy with causes like this, but this is a clear WP:SOAPBOX. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The two provided sources are reliable and really independent. Perhaps needs more references.Rirunmot (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- The YouTube ref has been removed by the owner. So that's no longer valid. And the other is an interview, that's a primary source. Woogee (talk) 23:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not only is this a bit of WP:SOAPBOX, this barely qualifies as an article. Wikipedia will be substantially improved with the removal of this page. JBsupreme (talk) 21:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The outcome is speedy deletion: notability ... but also important BLP issues after contact was made indirectly by the subject of the article. Metamagician3000 (talk) 23:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Spivak[edit]

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

The criteria at WP:ATHLETE suggests an athlete must either compete in a fully professional league, or compete at the highest amateur level of a sport. Daniel Spivak has never played in a professional league. He played for the Israel national ice hockey team, but only in Division II, which is not the highest level: both the "World Championships" (top tier) and Division I (second tier) are higher. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 03:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We generally keep anyone that has played in the World Championships regardless of tier, as they are playing at the highest possible level for the country they come from. -DJSasso (talk) 15:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is my contention that the "highest level" of hockey includes all senior national hockey teams by definition. In the event that my contention is not accepted by consensus, however, I request a Transwiki to the Ice Hockey Wikia, as should be done with all ice hockey articles deemed non-notable for Wikipedia. Powers ^T 15:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —Powers ^T 15:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Powers ^T 15:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Played for a national team which is "highest level".--Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 15:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per DJSasso. Patken4 (talk) 16:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Do we have any reliable sources confirming that Spivak did, indeed, play for the Israeli national team? Ravenswing 22:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like he scored the first goal in the game against North Korea. That's the only game I checked. Patken4 (talk) 23:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy/Snow (its the season) Keep. Per Giants.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if he played at the highest level of the sport, even internationally, he passes WP:ATHLETE, and therefore merits inclusion. Cocytus [»talk«] 14:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep (NAC) - Nominator has not proposed a deletion; merges do not need to go through WP:AFD. Shirik (talk) 06:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Barack Obama assassination scare in Tennessee and related articles[edit]

AfDs for this article:

These articles are very well developed and have been a result of a lot of work. But these are non-notable scares that were criminal but not more than hate, news, and non-notable events.

The Tennessee and Denver articles are very long but the police admit that these were just early failures, early cases that don't even resemble a real assassination or attempts (like JFK or that guy in the Republic of Georgia) but just some evil clowns with stupid ideas (which is still punishable by jail so don't copy them. Standard TV warning: Kids, don't do this at home)

The original AFD was speedily closed as pointy, but since there is a standard of what applies, we should apply these standards uniformly. Since another article has significant delete support, the same standard should apply. That's like speeding, you don't execute one driver but give a medal to another speeder.

I think the best compromise would be to merge all 3 assassination plots so we can see and compare the 3. JB50000 (talk) 03:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all 3 articles Together they are probably notable, individually, they are just news of the day non-notable stuff. Merging them would not be pointy at all but the most sensible. JB50000 (talk) 03:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep author is newbie and misunderstands the purpose of AfDs after this. AfDs are for deletion, not merger-discussions. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Seb's reasoning, this AFD is unnessesary. ArcAngel (talk) 03:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This should be speedily closed per this nomination. ArcAngel (talk) 04:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No that would be bad judgement. Let the people speed, not try to muzzle them. Then you can claim legitimacy. Otherwise, it is railroading. Discussion is always best! JB50000 (talk) 04:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Tennessee article-- it involved what appears to have been a plan for mass murder, delete the Denver article. But either way, let people discuss this. I really don't like at all the way the previous debate was handled (User:Dougweller did his own "speedy close" based on "One of these articles is already having an AfD, thus it is inappropriate to raise another. This seems to be an attempt to make a WP:POINT"), nor do I like the tone of the comments about the nominator. It isn't fair to, as JB50000 accurately describes it, "muzzle" other people. Mandsford (talk) 04:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to understand. The nominator of the AfD votes for "merge" - thus, it's not an AfD. It's a "nomination withdrawn". (I could just as well nominate all 3 million articles for deletion and then vote keep for all of them) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a side, this nomination was incomplete: articles aren't tagged, orginal author and contributors not notified, relist-box not added. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Fixed. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep – nominator is trying to make a point (see: ANI thread, AFD 1, AFD 2). — æk ^Talk 05:36, 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. clear consensus for deletion JForget 01:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Opus palladianum (software)[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software that is under development. Joe Chill (talk) 01:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 01:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. This is academic software (in development?) and the article based on a 2008 research paper. Would need coverage in some secondary sources for inclusion here. Pcap ping 02:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which surprisingly seems to exist already: eweek. Needs more investigation. Pcap ping 03:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Story made it to slashdot. Pcap ping 03:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's also an article in tech.com, but this site is owned by the UIUC board of trustees, so not incredibly independent in this case. Pcap ping 03:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also mentioned but very briefly [47], [48], but hardly any citations so far (the paper was published only a year ago). Pcap ping 03:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, weak delete unless something other than "researchers make secure browser (that nobody uses)" 2008 WP:NOT#NEWS comes up. Microsoft Gazelle probably deserves more of an article than this. Pcap ping 03:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep.~~ Delete. I found several articles, for example from the ieeexplore.ieee.org library, from the tech.slashdot.org website, from the spectrum.ieee.org website, and from the www.usenix.org website, all claiming that this browser software may eventually rival Firefox and Explorer. Seems notable to me, even if it is still in a developmental stage. Seems to me that it might be best to err on the side of caution and to keep this, just in case the reviewers might be right. If a year or two passes without any new developments on it, then maybe delete it. Scott P. (talk) 21:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Usenix and IEEE papers are the primary sources; tech.com is run by the university these researchers belong to (as I explained above). Except for that eweek story picked up by slashdot, there's not much else. Pcap ping 22:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - After noting the fact that their own website at Downloadslists only 13 downloads since Nov. 12, I change my recommendation to delete. Thanks.Scott P. (talk) 22:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per pcap, thank you for vetting out these sources here. JBsupreme (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources do not establish notability. Miami33139 (talk) 07:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Kaufman[edit]

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

Notability not established, no sources. The only third party source I could find [49] is a blog. _{Óðinn ☭☆ talk} 01:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. (the external links are mostly blogs, I think) Aditya Ex Machina 08:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources-

[50] - an originalsoundversion.com interview with him

[51] - a Gamasutra interview with someone else about something he worked on, he's referenced in it.

[52] - google cache of a music4games (site is currently down) piece discussing how he's working on Contra 4, and refering to a magazine article in Nintendo Power that also mentions him.

He's also pretty big around OverClocked ReMix, so there's a bunch of refs that could be pulled from there.

In the end, though, the article does establish notability in that he was the composer for the big-name video games Red Faction: Guerrilla and Contra 4, among many others. I'll admit the article is in bad shape, but if it looks like this AfD is heading away from deletion, then I'll work on it. Don't feel like wasting my time on it though, if it's all going to get burned. --Pres N 01:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article does too assert notability. Composed for big-name games and such. Voretus (talk) 03:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Pres N 05:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add MX tags - While the format for the article is wrong, there are enough references between there and here to establish notability. --Teancum (talk) 12:30, 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) 00:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A Google News search for his name and "music" gives a couple of reliable sources that establish notability. Drmies (talk) 04:42, 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. However, if an editor wishes to write an article with another name title and focus, feel free to contact an admin for userfication. Cirt (talk) 14:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alyssa Bustamante[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people), specifically Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable only for one event-- Jeremy (talk) 23:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete - I've personally created a page about this individual. I blanked and deleted it the same day. I originally felt that this event (the killing) was signifigant, in a sense. It is a horrible tragedy, but a single case of juvenile murder is not a notable event. it would be notable if the perpetrator or victim were already notable, or if the concequences of the act were of note. We cannot gague the consequenses yet, but if it resulted in a notable legal conclusion, it would then render this incident notable. Vinithehat (talk) 07:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment — I agree that there is a possibility that the incident itself might become notable enough for its inclusion. But, much as we have an article about the Murder of James Bulger and not the victim or perpetrators, I think that any resulting article should be about the event. —Jeremy (talk) 14:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

rename - I feel this article should be moved/updated to the cover the event. If at present it's not significant enough to cover the perpetrator solely, although that may alter upon the legal outcome, if expanded and updated to cover the more notable event, the article should suitable for inclusion. User:Djminor2003 (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2009 (GMT)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Local crime story, not encyclopedic. See WP:EFFECT, WP:PERSISTENCE. If story blows up nationally, can be recreated under Elizabeth Olten murder. THF (talk) 01:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sad to say, this is not particularly notable. There are dozens of murders every day in the United States. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 01:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not a typical murder case. It is likely to increase the controversies related to prescribing psychiatric medication to children and adolescents and to the extent to which mentally ill offenders should be published for their actions. The case and the trial are likely to generate rather more media coverage than more routine murders. - Eastmain (talk) 01:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Likely" as in WP:CRYSTAL? •••Life of Riley (T–C) 03:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

rename - This is not just a local crime story, it's international. I live in the UK and saw this on British TV, so it is definitely not just local or national. Yes murders are committed every day (approx 45) in the USA, but what percentage of those are juveniles, on potentially mind altering medication, receiving psychiatric care, committing premeditated murder on another juvenile? This is not your typical murder case and will, almost undoubtedly, increase in notoriety as the case progresses. User:Djminor2003 (talk) 14:08, 27 December 2009 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.81.126.13 (talk)

Rename to Murder of Elizabeth Olten. The story has blown nationally see this story and this [story. Grey Wanderer (talk) 19:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Another contributor above notes that there are many murders in the USA every year. Tens of thousands IIRC. We don't have articles on most of them. Most murders don't get world-wide coverage. As User:Eastmain noted, the suspect was a minor, accused of killing a minor. This event stood out. Consequently it has been covered in all the verifiable reliable sources required to establish notability. Geo Swan (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Consider that Asian resident alien, who killed a bunch of his fellow students a year or so ago. He wasn't just nuts -- like Bustamante his mental health problems had been recognized, but not properly treated. His lack of treatment was a big part of his story. And her lack of proper treatment was a big part of hers. Geo Swan (talk) 01:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This currently is a WP:BIO1E case. I currently do not favor a Killing of Elizabeth Olten article at the momment as the event is too fresh, and any coverage would be likely to violate WP:NOTNEWS. However, I do recognize that there has been more than the usual level of media attention, and if continues and results in sufficent sourcing, an article about the incident could be appropriate. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mozbot[edit]

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

This article has been tagged as lacking good sources for more than a month and that need has not been addressed by anyone. Searching for sources shows the two book references already in the article. These book references are trivial, according to what I can see from limited google books preview. Miami33139 (talk) 00:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 14:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's only mentioned briefly in books on developing Firefox apps, and the mention is fairly trivial. It's invoked to generate uuids, and that's not even mentioned in this stub. That info could be added to Uuid#Implementations, but it's not even a merge. Pcap ping 01:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per pcap, subject has apparently only received passing or otherwise trivial mentions by third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 21:50, 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. Cirt (talk) 06:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sabaothic Cherubim[edit]

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

I will gladly stand corrected by any of the music officianados who frequent these pages, but this band is not notable, as far as I can tell. They didn't have a hit, didn't release records on notable record labels, and they certainly didn't make the papers--Google News has nothing, and Google Web has nothing but fansites and YouTube. I cannot find a single significant discussion or even mention in what could be called a reliable source. Drmies (talk) 00:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. None of the references listed, nor any that I can find, establish notability. The article is also the center of a walled garden consisting of articles about the band's albums. --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 04:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 00:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find anything that can be considered "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The "best" I can come up with is the already-referenced "Indecipherable Logo of the Day" contest at the MTV Headbangers Ball Blog, but we need better than that. Gongshow ^Talk 00:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 02:40, 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. In my interpretation of the discussion, I felt the arguments for deletion outweighed the reasons for retention, more specifically the perceived lack of sources or other information. –MuZemike 05:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Nevill, 6th Marquess of Abergavenny[edit]

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

Member of the British hereditary peerage, with no other claim to notability either in the article or the biography of him elsewhere. No references, no claim to notability, does not meet any of the requirements for keeping Peripitus (Talk) 00:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I consider a UK marquess to be presumably notable. (this is different from Baronets, where the opposite can be presumed) . I note he did not succeed to his peerage until 2000 (& has not been elected a representative peer), so he did not sit in the House of Lords, which of course does mean notability as a member of a national legislature. DGG ( talk ) 01:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed my first thought was that as a member of the peerage, he would easily have enough written about him. In this case I can see no more information about him available that for much of the worlds population. We know he exists but little else - Peripitus (Talk) 01:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It would probably be worthwhile to refer to his entry in Who's Who and see what can be found there. He may be also notable as a landowner: See http://www.eridgepark.co.uk/history.asp In general, there is a very good chance that a member of the hereditary peerage of the United Kingdom is notable for reasons other than being a member of the hereditary peerage. - Eastmain (talk) 01:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Searched quite a bit, though not looked in Who's Who. The only things I can see is that he is the son of X and the nephew of Y....nothing at all about him - `Peripitus (Talk) 01:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.
Comment. That's no relation of mine, by the way. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep With the decline in importance of the aristocracy, it is difficult to know how important they are. The Marquesses formerly had extensive Welsh estates. Does any one know if they still do? Peterkingiron (talk) 12:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to see a single reference that shows any form of notability at all. I have searched and apart from the peerage site statement that "he exists" I see nothing. Please ? - Peripitus (Talk) 13:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't come close to meeting the GNG, being a member of the aristocracy does not make one automatically 'notable'. RMHED (talk) 19:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I came here from Category:Unreferenced BLPs and looking for sources but I was equally unable to any. HJMitchell You rang? 12:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hellven[edit]

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

Notability is not established; no references. _{Óðinn ☭☆ talk} 01:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 02:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BAND no 3rd party coverage found. RP459 (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom and above. Cannot find any non trivial sources. --A1octopus (talk) 23:51, 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. Cirt (talk) 06:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Raja Muhammed Ahmed[edit]

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

biographical article (note created by a single-purpose-account so the creator is unlikely to comment here). The article claims that he won the Pakistan Writer's guild award for 1974. While I can see that he is a writer there is nothing online, except wikipedia mirrors, that confirms this nor is there any note of what the award was. No news articles or books about him that I can find, Book names appear basically nowhere on line. I cannot find anything to confirm more than the man exists and is/was a writer. The pakistan writer's guild website [53] makes no mention of him. Appears to fail WP:BIO etc... Peripitus (Talk) 04:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed -- I've tried a few variant spellings, with and without the middle name, etc., and can't find anything. The Pakistan Writer's Guild site doesn't mean much since it doesn't list any of the winners, but still this seems totally unverifiable. --Glenfarclas (talk) 08:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Glenfarcas. THF (talk) 01:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 03:09, 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. Cirt (talk) 06:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremiah Rivers[edit]

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

Non-notable college basketball player, does not meet WP:ATHLETE and does not seem to be generally notable. This article has been deleted three times in the past for various reasons, so I'm putting it here. My thanks to User:Marasmusine for editing out the wild hyperbole; what's left just emphasizes the non-notability of this player. Glenfarclas (talk) 07:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not even close to meeting WP:ATHLETE. If there's anything reliably sourced to be had, include it in a subsection of Doc Rivers. THF (talk) 01:39, 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 no consensus. no discussion during the two week-period. No prejudice for a new AFD in the future. JForget 01:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cevanne Horrocks-Hopayian[edit]

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

A news search turned up relatively little: a CD review and performance review. I'm just not seeing enough to meet WP:BIO standards. While this isn't a sound deletion argument, I strongly suspect this is an autobio and that may speak to why it was created. The awards may indicate notability, I don't know, but it meant that a PROD didn't seem appropriate to me. Pigman☿/talk 19:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 19:44, 12 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) 03:45, 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, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:20, 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. Cirt (talk) 06:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SMTown Live '09[edit]

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

It's a page on a cancelled concert "tour" that consisted of one scheduled concert. Tickets were released but it was eventually cancelled. Most of the page consists of a rumoured setlist. If this is notable, then it should be perhaps under the SM Entertainment page, but it really doesn't meet WP:GNG for a standalone page, as far as I can tell. SKS (talk) 08:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL, nothing about the tour has actually been confirmed. ^N_P^e_e^e_r^b_v^s_e^s_z (Push) 19:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There ought to be a new category of reasons for deletion: WP:FAILEDCRYSTAL — things that never happened. We see these sorts of things come up in AFD occasionally. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 01:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A non-notable tour that might not even happen. Joe Chill (talk) 00:20, 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 merge to Visalia, California. The delete comments are convincing. and the sources that have been added are purely local, so a delete appears to be the outcome here. However, there does seem to be some opinion that the information may be of interest to people, so Polarpanda's suggestion that this be merged with Visalia, California seems appropriate. SilkTork *^YES! 02:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sequoia Mall[edit]

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

Not notable, with only an old demolished movie theater/re as any kind of claim. Quite possibly an WP:OVERCOME type of article. Rationale for discussion should be fairly obvious. Actually, I have deja vu posting this, for some reason. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 08:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete small shopping mall of 220,000 sq ft, below the usual threshold. The coverage is not substantial enough for notability. This article was the product of a class project about the town, and they should have received better guidance about what would be likely to stay in Wikipedia--then the work would have helped the encyclopedia, and been a lasting credit to them, rather than being wasted. DGG ( talk ) 01:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the usual threshold? JBsupreme (talk) 07:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm sure someone from the mall project will be able to save it and improve it more since that is their speciality. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:28, 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) 00:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not a bad start, and given the turmoil in the shopping market world, I'm sure there's some proper expansion to go here. I added one reference. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 00:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added a reference. I think that it was notable when it was built circa 1975, and had the same impact on its community that a much larger mall would have today. To the extent that size is a factor in establishing notability, it needs to be understood in the context of notability when it was built and the population of the area that it serves. I think many of today's dead or dying malls were notable when they were built, even though they ultimately failed as businesses. - Eastmain (talk) 00:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm just not seeing it, and it still looks like a WP:OVERCOME issue. All 'keep' comments I know have been in complete good faith, but none actual improve the article or even support its cause. Keep based on assuming it will be rescued? Keep because the retail industry is currently in bad shape? Keep because it might have been notable when it opened despite having zero information to suggest this? Notable because of a cheesy Halloween setup one year? ♪ daTheisen (talk) 02:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'll see your WP:OVERCOME and raise you a WP:POTENTIAL. We're looking at an industry that's going through consolidation, bankruptcies, and other extreme economic stress, with some major operators like General Growth Properties going recently through the "largest bankruptcy in US history". It's going to take some number of years for the story to work its way out. Wiping out the record of a property this size doesn't add to Wikipedia. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 02:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: This isn't a new retail property though, so if it was never notable, WP:POTENTIAL is a 'keep' per a theoretical regrowth? I didn't nominate it because it was up for sale... that's entirely unrelated and I've deliberately kept any mention of financial troubles away from the AfD since it's a red herring on notability. I'm saying it's simply not notable. Period. Timeframe and money aside. Not that it's recently become non-notable, or that while up for sale kills its notability... since notability is not time-specific in Wikipedia guidelines, those would be invalid rationales. Even if it were closed and demolished by now it could never be nominated over that. To keep up the using words to mark "official" talking points, I'll go with WP:CRYSTAL for we can't assume it'll become notable at some point in the future, and per WP:ISNOT such that we don't collect lists of empty retail space for future expansion. If we have a set retail space that's collectively used for "notability", that would work. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 19:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 800,000 square feet of gross leasable area is the cutoff for a superregional mall, which usually gets kept, This one is a pipsqueak about one quarter of that, and does not seem to have the significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources needed to satisfy WP:N. Not every little neighborhood shopping center needs or deserves an encyclopedia article. See WP:MALL the failed notability standard for malls, which has on its talk page a tabulation of 89 similar AFDs for malls. Edison (talk) 03:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. First off, there is nothing special or notable about this mall. It is just another small mall. Second this probably should have been speedy deleted as spam to advertise the mall for sale. Then the id that created it seems to have a possible COI and has also been blocked. While the last two points are not a reason to delete, with everything else, they make a keep outcome unwarranted. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree, this mall has nothing that renders it distinctive. While I would love to see the article grow, the subject of the article must itself be notable, and I cannot see where this one is. Fails WP:GNG for want of appropriate sources. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with its location. Polarpanda (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I'm all for considering an article's potential in an AfD, but I think the correct essay to link to here is WP:OVERCOME. This mall is simply not distinctive, large, or notable enough to merit coverage in an encyclopedia. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to National Management College. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

National Institute of Public Administration (Pakistan)[edit]

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

Fails WP:N. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. University-level institutions are generally notable. – Eastmain (talk) 03:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. – Eastmain (talk) 03:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. – Eastmain (talk) 03:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to National Management College, as this seems to have been subsumed in there. "Generally notable" is not a valid argument, sources are still a requirement for notability, and I can't find any for this institution as a separate entity. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Institutions of higher education are inherently notable. --Baron Larf 07:06, 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, Fences&Windows 02:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to National Management College. The National Management College is undoubtedly notable as an important government training organisation. The National Institute of Public Administration is also probably independently notable but I see no reason to splinter the limited information we have. TerriersFan (talk) 15:24, 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, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to National Management College, as the actual Institute has been merged there. Abductive (reasoning) 04:09, 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snow White and the Seven Clever Boys[edit]

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

Contested PROD OrangeDog (τ • ε) 20:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable "cartoon": as far as I can tell it was actually video game, but I can find only the most passing mentions on a couple of forums and a couple of YouTube videos (you can watch it [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Edk4bcjskVc here, for instance). I've never seen a video game with 26 Google hits. Neither notable nor verifiable. --Glenfarclas (talk) 04:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find anything either. PROD was removed without addressing above concerns. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 20:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I'm not sure if I need to say anything more since it's my PROD that is reprinted above. Thanks of to OrangeDog for listing this-- Glenfarclas (talk) 21:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 21:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

StarLegacy (talk) 02:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC) Hi, I was the creator of the Snow White and the Seven Clever Boys page. I'd like to know what the page is missing, as it is being nominated for deletion. I was able to fix the fact that the cartoon was labeled a game and all that.[reply]
- It's not what the page is missing (though it's not going to be up for WP:GA anytime soon), it's what the page's subject is missing—notability.
Comment: Page has been moved to Snow White and the 7 Clever Boys, and more information has been added. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:30, 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, (X! · talk) · @052 · 00:15, 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. The concerns about verifiability are well founded. JohnCD (talk) 11:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haji Muhammad Salah Mugheri[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Haji Muhammad Salah Mugheri

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

Location not notable to warrant a seperate article - maybe this could be merged Kartano (talk) 12:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. - Eastmain (talk) 19:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All villages are notable. Is there an online atlas of Pakistan that could be used to verify this article? Is the transliteration of the village's name correct? - Eastmain (talk) 19:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Should that "keep" be understood as "keep if someone can find sources verifying the existence of the place"? That seems to me the only reasonable interpretation, in view of the two questions which Eastmain has asked. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whether all villages are notable or not has been argued repeatedly, with no conclusive consensus. However, even if we do accept that view, what is "a village"? Are two houses together on an empty hillside a village? If not then where do we draw the line? Does this place cross the line (assuming it exists, which is not yet verified)? We need evidence to answer this, even if all villages are notable. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. All villages may be notable, but they must still be verifiable for us to have an article. With English being an official language of Pakistan there should be an official spelling of the village name in the Latin alphabet. I've tried searching for a few variations of the name but can't find anything online, so I'd like this to be considered a delete opinion unless anyone offers any reliable source (online or offline) that verifies this village's existence, in which case it's a keep. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to Sindh. "Haji+Muhammad+Salah+Mugheri"&btnG=Search A google brings up nothing except the wiki article. Airplaneman ^talk 21:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Merging would be the worst option. If the existence of this village can't be verified then it shouldn't appear anywhere in Wikipedia, but if it can it should have its own article per the long-standing consensus that verifiable villages can be covered in separate articles. Merging to Sindh would clearly give undue weight in that article to just one of the many thousands of villages in Sindh. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Phil Bridger has got it right:if the existence of the place can't be verifiable then there can be no justification for having it anywhere, whether in its own article or merged elsewhere. In fact having information about a place which may not exist in a prominent article (e.g. Sindh) would be worse than having it in an obscure article that few people are likely to ever notice, but neither is acceptable. I have made searches for this place, and, like Phil Bridger and Airplaneman, have failed to find anything at all, under any spelling. If the place exists and is genuinely a village then we might expect to find something somewhere. Unfortunately the author of the article has edited only on one day and not returned, so it is unlikely that we can get further information from him/her, though we can hope. Under Wikipedia policy the onus is on anyone wishing to keep the article to provide verifiable sources, and so far nobody has managed to do so, even though several of us have tried to do so. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found a reference to something with approximately this name at Waterlogging and salinity management in the Sindh Province, Pakistan. Volume I, Supplement I.B. Farmer's perspectives on Warah Branch Canal operations p. 51, listing Muhammad Salah Mugheri as the name of the farmer and Piral Khan Mugheri as the village, with Bukeja as some kind of subdivision. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 00:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, cannot be verified, possibly vanity article. Abductive (reasoning) 08:38, 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. Cirt (talk) 06:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Cheong[edit]

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

Unreferenced biographical article about non-notable subject. Main content looks like an autobiography. Most of the things in the "Accomplishments" section of the article are non-notable. Could not find any google hits leading to significant sources for "Christopher Cheong" or "Magical Ztudio" Raziman T V (talk) 09:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - per A7 & WP:BLP. Mkdw ^talk

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

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

The result was delete. The notability concerns expressed by the nominator remain. Although sources were located, they were not sufficiently pursuasive to sway the discussion away from delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rashid Minhas Road[edit]

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

Not clear how this might meet notability guidelines. Lacks references to 3rd party sources. Contested prod. RadioFan (talk) 13:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Rashid Minhas Road is mentioned in a number of references, but none seem to talk about the road in terms of notability, rather just noting the location of some event. It's possible the road really is notable, but the original editor has made no attempt to establish this, so delete without prejudice.--SPhilbrick T 17:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I have tidied this up, and added a category, but I have not attempted to identify the features said to be on it. The road is a long one for a city street, and appears to form an arc around the city through its suburbs. It is certainly not a trivial road, whether it is notable, I cannot say. Weak Keep as a stub? Peterkingiron (talk) 21:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some sources. It's rather hard to find because of all the non-relevant stuff that just mention the road.

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-21490358_ITM
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-136738117.html
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-127145047.html
http://thenews.jang.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=194126
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007\12\25\story_25-12-2007_pg12_2

--Apoc2400 (talk) 16:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Three of the first four of the 291 Google News Archive search hits have significant coverage of this road: [54][55][56]. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:48, 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) 00:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a major thoroughfare in Karachi and there are numerous sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOT. Not a guidebook, Not a directory etc. In any case what is so notable about this road or the person its named after. The only reason Rashid Minhas got Pakistan's highest medal was to tit-for-tat Matiur Rahman's BD one? Annette46 (talk) 22:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This discussion is about Rashid Minhas Road, not Rashid Minhas, so personal opinions about the reasons why he received an honour and comparisons with other people are completely irrelevant. Could you please explain why you don't consider the sources listed above to demonstrate that the road passes the general notability guideline? Phil Bridger (talk) 00:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The road is as "not notable" as the person it is named after for the facts I cited. As I stated, the road article fails WP:NOT. Every non-minor road in the world will receive news coverage from time to time - accidents, deaths, advertisements, diversion warnings etc etc. The article itself is barely 2 lines long. The fact the the road is 22km long for instance does not make the road notable, neither does the fact the there is a Pizza Hut or Subway situated on it. Annette46 (talk) 17:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The sources that I linked are not about "accidents, deaths, advertisements, diversion warnings etc etc.", but reliable sources that provide significant coverage about the road itself. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. All 3 of the news articles you cited are about the same ongoing construction and upgradation of this road and have no enduring notability (see WP:NOT). Every non-minor road in congested Asian cities require upgradation and/or modernisation to compensate for the insane numbers of vehicles jostling for space in new consumer economies. BTW, one of your sources puts the length of the road at 5 km instead of the 22 km claimed in the article. PS, this is now a pointless discussion. Annette46 (talk) 19:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As far as I can tell, it's just another city street. The fact of getting hits on it is not significant. Mangoe (talk) 17:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As with the previous commentator, I would be interested to know why you don't consider the media articles about this road linked above to constitute significant coverage in independent reliable sources, as required for notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I cant speak for the editor you are directing the question at but for me, the links above dont constitute "significant coverage" where the subject of the article is the primary subject of the reference. Though the last one mentions Rashid Minhas Road, it essentially about another road and the next to the last one above is about the person the road is named for, not the road itself. This reference demonstrates notability of the person but not the road. The remaining links are fairly commonplace ones about planned construction. If there were a number of reliable sources which cover the impact this road has on the area, on transport, or even socially or economically, my !vote would be different but that doesn't seem to be the case.--RadioFan (talk) 19:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What would you say the primary subject is of the article headlined "City Nazim inaugurates work on Rashid Minhas Road", if not Rashid Minhas Road? And similarly for the other two articles that I linked. Please also note that I only looked at the first four of the Google News Archive results, because they already provided three good sources. Please don't make me read another 287 sources about such a boring subject just because you can't see that the subject has already been clearly shown to be notable. And the there are the 71 Google Books hits, which, just by glancing at the snippets provided, you can see include several with significant coverage of this road. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can find some coverage for just about any street in DC too, because just about every street appears in the Wash. Post from time to time, even ignoring the real estate ads. The fact that roads need repair and have construction projects doesn't make every road notable. Mangoe (talk) 21:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unreferenced article that claims notability with is a very busy road. MilborneOne (talk) 23:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per, well, almost everyone. Zero evidence that this is a significant street. JBsupreme (talk) 21:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I did find that this article (www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-21490358_ITM begins to establish notability for the road itself. The part of the article I can see says that "modern (road construction) technology was being used for the first time in Karachi" for this road. It also speaks of its modern features (service roads, sidewalks, crosswalks, etc.) which may make this road different from others around it. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 16:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Realest Shit I Never Wrote[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 16:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 19:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: To quote WP:NALBUMS, mixtapes are generally not notable, and so is this one. Mattg82 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I can find no coverage of this album, fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:GNG. J04n(talk page) 15:24, 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 merge to Seawater Greenhouse. –MuZemike 03:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sahara Forest Project[edit]

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

Delete Non-notable - Andrewjlockley (talk) 16:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Seawater Greenhouse. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's also up for deletion Andrewjlockley (talk) 22:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. I think just one of this group of articles should be retained. - Fayenatic (talk) 22:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed merge target Seawater Greenhouse has been kept (nomination withdrawn). - Fayenatic (talk) 09:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - Notability not established. Shadowjams (talk) 06:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I've taken a second look and I think the Guardian source in particular is helpful. Shadowjams (talk) 21:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Seawater Greenhouse, which seems like the proper place for the information in this article. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect to Seawater Greenhouse, article does not warrant it's own article, it is only a proposed project right now. RP459 (talk) 19:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the AFD banner on the article was removed from 25 Dec to 1 Jan. This may partly explain the shortage of comments here. - Fayenatic (talk) 10:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Jacques-Yves Cousteau[edit]

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

The article here gives a timeline in prose form. Author's comment. The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 16:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article contributes nothing which isn't already in the primary article. The primary article isn't sufficiently long or complicated to justify this split-out timeline. Additionally, the timeline is obviously incomplete, missing such important events as the subject's death in 1997. Pburka (talk) 20:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment In this edit, I did remove a "work in progress" tag only because it looked unprofessional. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 20:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, duplicative of the main article on the subject. A timeline article must fill a need of some sort, and this does not. Abductive (reasoning) 08:28, 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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guri Melby[edit]

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

Failed political candidate (she was not elected). Other than that she is just a local politician. Geschichte (talk) 18:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being a local politician is insufficient WP:N. Pburka (talk) 19:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawing my vote, given User:Arsenikk's sources. Pburka (talk) 21:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a news search with Kvasir finds at least this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this. There is more, but I couldn't bother to continue to search. This massive amount of media coverage (all less than six months old) shows that she clearly meets the criteria for significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources, and also shows how top candidates who fail to be elected usually have ample media coverage for notability. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per sources. Alison22 (talk) 00:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sock !vote struck. Tim Song (talk) 22:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thank you for the diligent research as done by Arsenikk (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 14:15, 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) 00:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as evidenced above plenty of good sources are available. 161 GNews hits in all, very few of which are false positives. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Expand - appears to be a plentiful amount of material to work with. This article should be expanded, considering how many sources there appear to be. Cocytus [»talk«] 13:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to SitePoint#Marketplace. As this is a viable search term, and we already have an article on this company, discussed at SitePoint#Marketplace, a merge is the appropriate course of action. Such obvious merges need only come to AfD if they are contested. I would suggest the nominator is a little more bold in doing merges in future. And a note for Off2riorob that WP:Snow is only used in AfD for Speedy Keep. SilkTork *^YES! 01:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flippa[edit]

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

Unreliable sources do not pass WP:GNG. Alexa rankings do not pass WP:GNG. A sitepoint blog does not pass WP:GNG; ergo, this company does not pass WP:GNG. Ironholds (talk) 20:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support as per nominator, it is snowing outside, brrrr. Off2riorob (talk) 20:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this website. Joe Chill (talk) 20:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'd created this article Flippa in good faith after watching outdated information at Sitepoint and therefore updated it. I wonder if Sitepoint passes the criteria of WP:GNG and should also be tagged for deletion. The Sitepoint blog was the only official statement (more like an official press release) so I included it with other verifiable references, and most of them are WP:RS. You may carry on if you still think this article should be deleted. Thank you very much for your time. Sincerely --Scieberking (talk) 20:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~: Recently added a more reliable reference from TechCrunch, one of the biggest online technology blogs. --Scieberking (talk) 20:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: Alexa reference is only to verify site's alexa rankings. I've noticed most Wikipedia articles related to online sites cite their alexa ranking, for instance Engadget and Sitepoint itself. The reference from Sitepoint Official Blog is more like an official statement and/or an online company's way to disperse their official press releases. As far as the WP:GNG thing goes:

- "Significant coverage" The article has been backed up my a reference from top technology portals such as TechCrunch and an official statement. SitePoint article also cites the move of marketplace to Flippa.com (I've updated that myself).

- "Reliable" and "Presumed" TechCrunch and all other sources are reliable and written by notable, reputed editorial staff.

- "Sources" I've provided multiple sources.

- "Independent of the subject" I'm by NO means associated with Sitepoint or Flippa and an independent Wikipedia editor. Secondly, Flippa.com is the largest marketplace for buying and selling websites. Their official marketing slogan is "The #1 Marketplace for Buying and Selling Websites and Domains".
--Scieberking (talk) 21:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're misunderstanding the notability guidelines rather significantly. Significant coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject is a single clause - each source has to be all of those. I am not implying that you are not independent of the subject, rather that sitepoint, who hosted the site, are not. Their official marketing slogan is irrelevant, and is not evidence of notability; they can write whatever the hell they want as a slogan. TechCrunch is a RS, but it's a single source - you need multiple sources. An official statement? Not independent. none of the other sources are reliable; killerstartups? blogging tips? I think not. Alexa rankings are irrelevant for notability, and have long held to be so. Ironholds (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: Yeah, for the same reason, I've not even mentioned the slogan thing in the article, written it in a WP:NPOV with (at least one/ or maybe more) WP:RS and it does not make unverifiable, self-promotional claims. I think TechCrunch is a solid WP:RS and strong enough to save a small, informative Stub from deletion. Your thoughts? Thanks. --Scieberking (talk) 21:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, because as I've said, it requires multiple reliable sources. You have one. Writing it in a NPOV style is all well and good, but not if the subject matter itself doesn't pass our standards of inclusion. Ironholds (talk) 08:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: Hello Ironholds. I've added another WP:RS from CenterNetworks, a reliable online magazine which focuses on the web 2.0, Internet with news, reviews, interviews and conference coverage. The magazine, having been featured on Chicago Tribune, Reuters, Business Week etc., consists of qualified editors and journalists. For more information. Also CenterNetworks Magazine has already been referenced 40 times on Wikipedia.
~~Keep~~: Flippa stub now contains two WP:RS citations and I think it should survive and be kept. Sincerely --Scieberking (talk) 07:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please learn how AfD works. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument, despite your use of it above, and you cannot vote three times just by going "keep" in bold repeatedly. Ironholds (talk) 13:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've done what I could do for saving a small, informative stub with improving it, adding WP:RS and everything. All in good faith. Let's see what happens next. Thank you very much for your input. --Scieberking (talk) 16:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to User:Scieberking: Only one "keep" to a customer here at AFD, so with respects, and not disturbing your comments, I have put a strike-through in all but one of your keeps. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Schmidt. I will take care of that next time. --Scieberking (talk) 19:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 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) 00:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Sitepoint article, redirect. MURGH ^disc. 04:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 06:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dave deBronkart[edit]

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

Non-notable bio. Airplaneman ^talk 21:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just need to expand the article, I think. deBronkart is notable as a key spokesman for the participatory medicine movement. I should include more references to reliable sources of coverage. Jonl (talk) 04:28, 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) 00:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added quite a bit more to the content of the page, and I think it now makes the "notability" case. Let me know if there's disagreement on that point. Obviously I recommend against deletion. Dave is a symbol of a growing, acive, robust participatory medicine movement, has prominence and visibility as documented in the article. Jonl (talk) 15:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He actually is fairly important in a growing healthcare movement, which itself is part of the larger changes related to the US healthcare debate. Regardless, the article is fairly well sourced now. - cohesion 05:18, 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) 15:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Heller[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits of substance and with zero GNEWS. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 21:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per lack of sources to establish notability. Alison22 (talk) 00:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Alison22 has been indef blocked as sockpuppet. Pcap ping 02:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking vote of blocked sock puppet. J04n(talk page) 03:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, he also failsWP:ENT for lack of "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." His best show might be as a director, yet these look like small, non-notable productions. --Glenfarclas (talk) 01:05, 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) 00:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - just barely fails WP:ENT, in my opinion. I could see him meeting it in the future, but what I see on imdb just doesn't cut it for me, personally. He's getting there, but I don't think he's notable enough under WP:ENT yet. Cocytus [»talk«] 13:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Music Spy[edit]

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

Fails notability guidelines in WP:WEB. Only non-trivial media coverage has been reprinting the website's press release. Article written by media contact person mentioned in press release, so there is a major COI issue here as well. Singularity42 (talk) 23:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this website. Joe Chill (talk) 23:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 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) 00:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - serious WP:COI concerns, references are quite poor as well. I'm not really finding much in the way of non-trivial, reliable 3-party sources, either. Cocytus [»talk«] 13:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –MuZemike 03:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mozdev.org[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this website. Joe Chill (talk) 23:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 01:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Has a lot of mentions in Creating Applications with Mozilla O'Reilly book. [57], which explains how to use the site (not just the web-site part of mozdev.org) for developing Mozilla-related apps. Needs more investigation. Pcap ping 01:29, 23 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) 00:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Strong Keep - There's widespread coverage of this highly-used website - did you not even look for sources before you nominated it for deletion? 12 345 Little Professor (talk) 12:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of those are in passing mentions due to the download URLs for various Moizlla/Firefox extentions. The CNet article is a little bit more detailed [58], but mainly about the projects hosted there. Not much to write an article from. The book I indicated above has more than all these articles combined. Pcap ping 12:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/question. Mozilla.org redirects to Mozilla Foundation. Maybe this should do the same? There are technical details on using the infrastructure on mozdev in the Creating Applications with Mozilla O'Reilly book, but all that is technical stuff (setting up certificates, etc.) so this will likely remain a permastub per WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. Pcap ping 12:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Mozilla Foundation. Not sure which is best given the lack of sources from which to expand this (in non-textbook fashion), but the info in this stub should obviously be WP:PRESERVEd. Pcap ping 12:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Mozilla.org is the website of the Mozilla Foundation, so it's natural that the former should redirect to the latter. Mozdev however is a completely different company and organization, dedicated to the development of applications and extensions that run on XUL/the core code framework developed by the Mozilla project, rather than the development of that Mozilla core code itself. A few seconds of googling, or indeed reading the FAQ, would clarify this matter for you. Mozdev.org has plenty of web, news and book coverage in its own right, as distinct from the Mozilla project itself. Little Professor (talk) 15:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They are a separate non-profit from Mozilla for now, although it looks like they plan to change that. YMMV. Pcap ping 17:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment. We also have the Mozilla Developer Center stub, which really is just about the developer.mozilla.org site. Pcap ping 12:45, 30 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) 06:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A.L.X.[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable. Recreated immediately after the previous AFD, although that nomination was based on this being a hoax, and wound up as an A7 speedy. I don't find any reason to believe this is a hoax, but there's no reason to think this is a notable person either. The entry as it stands now is simply a long exercise in name-dropping, but notability is not like a contagion that rubs off of one person onto another. This artist has two recordings, but one is unreleased, and the other doesn't seem to have a commerical release beyond an amazon download and sales at on-commission sites like CDBaby. No third party coverage that I can find. Hairhorn (talk) 23:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it appears as though this was undeleted, rather than recreated, if that makes a difference to anyone. It wasn't at all clear in the edit history. Hairhorn (talk) 00:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no solid sources. Article was undeleted after a promise to add sources, but the reliable-looking sources on the article have nothing to do with this guy. Nyttend (talk) 02:41, 23 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) 00:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not finding any in-depth coverage for this person in reliable sources independent of the subject; does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO. Gongshow ^Talk 19:41, 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.