Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 September 9

< 8 September	10 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 14:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

God of blue moon[edit]

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

Contested prod. Nonnotable comic. While WP:GHITS is not a particularly strong argument, a comic with 0 relevant Ghits excluding WP is a bit...too much. Zero Gnews hit. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BK and WP:V. Likely failing WP:MADEUP. Possibly also failing WP:HOAX. Tim Song (talk) 16:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete made up/self-"written" comic by article creator, User:Luxene M. Not a real work in any Wikipedian sense. Creator has ignored all warnings about self-promo stuff.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A google search turns up zero reliable sources on this topic.[1] Three sites related to the board game Blue Moon City and a copy of our article. No fifth site. GRBerry 17:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable at best, possible hoax. Edward321 (talk) 23:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 03:32, 16 September 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 13:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adaptive blueprinting[edit]

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

First off, the entire article seems to have been copied from another site. You can find it (or very large parts of it)on various other sites like: http://www.ned.com/group/ab/ws/index/

Is this an issue with copyright or plagiarism?

Secondly, this article, to me at least, sounds like an advertisement for a product.

Lastly, notability? Buddy23Lee (talk) 22:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless evidence of notsbility is found. The nonencyclopedic tone "Our goal" etc could be fixed by editing if the subject is notable. If it is a copyvio, it needs to be stubbed, but sometimes the other site is a mirror of what was in Wikipedia first. Edison (talk) 23:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Good point. At the abovementioned site however, the article was posted a day before someone copied most, if not all of it, to Wikipedia. I guess without citations to an original we'll never really know. My guess is that whoever crafted this marketing gem wanted a Wikipedia page to bump up the crediblity. Buddy23Lee (talk) 17:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence this term is used by anyone other than its creators. Cmprince (talk) 15:08, 10 September 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 13:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ka-Chun Siu[edit]

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

Non-notable assistant professor, created and deprodded by User:Josephsiu. Abductive (reasoning) 22:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of passing WP:ACADEMIC or WP:BIO. Jujutacular ^talk_contribs 22:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of passing WP:PROF. As with most articles on assistant professors here, this one appears to have been created far too early in his career and deprodding it was a pointless waste of our time. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for above clear reasons. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Concur – clear-cut case. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PROF. There is also the issue of WP:AUTO. Cmprince (talk) 15:00, 10 September 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 13:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States Senators in the 112th Congress by seniority[edit]

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

It does not make sense for this list to exist. It is a list of members of a body that won't be in existence for more than a year. In the past, similar lists have not been created until after the first membership change during the Congress. That is, the main list suffices from noon on January 3 until someone dies or resigns. Only then is "List of United States Senators in the Xth Congress by seniority" created. Rrius (talk) 22:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about crystalballery. Abductive (reasoning) 22:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Members of the 111th United States Congress is boring, but this is ridiculous. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP until this body exists, then CLEAN by changing anything needed.--99.182.21.35 (talk) 00:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? So far it is claiming that several members who are up for re-election will be part of that Congress. To claim that they will be or will not be is inappropriately predicting the future. Also, it is claiming that each of those people will be alive at noon on January 3, 2009. The very way it reads is as though we are already in the midst of the 112th Congress. It is premature. I'm sure User:Dunstvangeet and I are not the only ones with lists like this in private sandboxes, but for the time being, that is where they belong. -Rrius (talk) 01:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with extreme prejudice per nom. How can we have a listing of members of a legislative body when a third of its members won't be determined until an election which won't take place until more than a year from now? This is like some election-rigging nightmare in which the "results" of the election are determined long before the voters go to the polls. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The 112th Congress doesn't exist, therefore there are no members, therefore this list is conjecture. Cmprince (talk) 14:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above, while I find the United States Congress as interesting as the next, this composition of that particular legislative session has yet to be determined. Remake after the November 2, 2010 elections. AP1787 (talk) 21:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it should follow current practice, and wait until after the first change to Seniority in the United States Senate after the new Congress begins on January 3, 2011. Otherwise we end up with duplicated information. -Rrius (talk) 14:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, oftentimes a senator resigns early so that the newly elected senator can be appointed to his seat, giving their state an edge in seniority. These magnanimous acts are entirely unpredictable. Abductive (reasoning) 16:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.DCmacnut <> 19:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mostly per nom. I'll add that we don't even have a general list of Senators for the 112th Congress, in which seniority could easily factor into such a list. Otherwise, we're just gazing into a crystal ball. MuZemike 03:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An unnecessary and inaccurate placeholder, since one-third of the U.S. Senators will be standing for re-election in 2010. I'm not in favor of making an article that not only needs to be "cleaned", but cannot be cleaned until more than a year from now. Mandsford (talk) 17:54, 12 September 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 Claude Shannon. If there is really nothing left to merge, the article should just be redirected. NW (Talk) 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An Algebra for Theoretical Genetics[edit]

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

This is Claude Elwood Shannon's PhD thesis. But it does not appear to have made any significant impact on the study of genetics. Many books [2] (and our biography of Shannon) mention his PhD thesis briefly in connection with Shannon's bio, but without any details as to the relevance of the work outside Shannon's life. I was unable to find any genetics book that even mentions it. Notability is not transitive. Pcap ping 21:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Others have expressed similar concerns on the article's talk page. These have not been replied to or addressed in years. Pcap ping 22:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm finding hard to think of how anyone's PhD thesis would qualify as a separate article since it would come under WP:PRIMARY. If the information is relevant then it can be added to the article about the subject with an attribution to the thesis.--RDBury (talk) 02:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sole Google News result; "In contrast, his doctoral thesis, An Algebra for Theoretical Genetics (1940), was not as influential". Otherwise I don't think this dissertation would meet the very high bar required for a single document to be notable. (Obviously the professor himself is notable.) I'm not even sure Eistein's paper on Brownian motion, Über die von der molekularkinetischen Theorie der Wärme geforderte Bewegung von in ruhenden Flüssigkeiten suspendierten Teilchen deserves a stand-alone article. Abductive (reasoning) 17:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge with the article on Shannon. But I do not see how an article about a thesis come sunder WP:PRIMARY any more than an article about any other book or publication. I can'tthink of many theses where it would be appropriate, butt here are some, such as Nash's. DGG ( talk ) 17:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding, and maybe I'm wrong, is that research papers in technical journals are primary because they are basically the initial report of the discovery, theory or whatever. At the time of publication they haven't been evaluated by the larger scientific community and there is no way of judging their impact. Wikipedia can't have an article based on every research paper out there because there are simply too many of them and it would take a PhD to even understand most of them. So secondary sources are used as a criterion as well. Also, any piece of research builds on the work of others and is added to by later research. It's part of the job of secondary and tertiary sources to organize the knowledge into a coherent pieces rather than scattered around in different places. Having separate articles for individual research papers defeats that purpose. Einstein and Nash are good examples but the material in Einstein's paper should go in the Brownian motion article and Nash's should go in Nash equilibrium article. Another example that comes to mind is the Feit–Thompson theorem which had a huge impact and was proven in a single, very long article. But in that case the Wikipedia article is still about the theorem and not the article that Feit & Thompson wrote.--RDBury (talk) 20:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing in this article that's not already written in Shannon's bio. If you look at the talk page, you'll see that it was created by pasting a chunk of text from there—and it was a mostly off-topic chunk. Pcap ping 21:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment The bar is pretty high for scientific papers, but the most famous work of a scientist of international fame can be notable. Nash's thesis specifically as a work is considered a seminal masterpiece, and there's no shortage of references to it being that. and einstein's certainly is a major landmark, and again , with plenty of references to say that this particular paper is famous and deserving of fame and a highlight of the history of science (I was about to write "of physics", but it's more than even that). It's not that the work is widely cited and important, but that it be specifically recognized historically as being of particular significance as a monument, as those two are. I would not carry this very far, and it does not apply here, for this is not a particularly historic work. There is a tremendous difference between having an article on "Every paper out there" and having an article on the Brownian motion paper--given that there are 2 or 3 million scientific papers a year, about one in a million, 6 orders of magnitude. DGG ( talk ) 09:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point and maybe I'm guilty of using a bit of hyperbole. It seems to me a matter of drawing the line between the notability of the a paper and the notability of it's content. Perhaps a point I was missing earlier was that the later may be notable in terms of science but the former may be notable in terms of the history of science; this being a valid area to be covered in Wikipedia.--RDBury (talk) 11:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of individual scientific publications should (obviously) be discussed on case by case basis. Which is what I've done with this nomination. Let's not transform this AfD into a general forum for debating the notability of other papers (by other authors, etc.) Pcap ping 16:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a link here from Wikipedia talk:Notability (books) which seemed the post appropriate place to continue a general discussion. There isn't a Notability (articles) guideline and the only person to respond so far said WP:GNG would be more applicable.--RDBury (talk) 23:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Claude Shannon; it would (if cleaned up) make a nice section. This should not be taken as opposing a consensus to delete; I would not like this disputed orphan to linger.

On the general point, it is not impossible for theses to be notable enough to have articles; but they should either have been important enough to be published or have been the subject of an extensive secondary literature - like Hegel's thesis, which proved that there were only six planets just in time for the discoverty of Ceres. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like I wrote above, this chunk of text was originally copied from that article. Most of it is off-topic precisely because of that. There's nothing to merge. Pcap ping 01:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There seems to be no consensus to delete at the moment. Personally, I thought the delete votes had arguments more in line with policy, but I would rather that the RfC reach a consensus first, so that we could have something to refer back to in the future. NW (Talk) 22:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John A. Brown, Jr.[edit]

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

This murderer fails WP:BLP1E. The only coverage for the incident that I found after the crime was about him being sentenced to death. The crime, trial, and the result is all part of one event. What is funny is that an editor rambled on the talk page about how all murderers were notable because all Olympic, Emmy, etc award winners are notable. I don't see how anyone could compare winning something major to WP:BLP1E. By the editor's reasoning, everyone can become notable by killing someone. Joe Chill (talk) 21:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unfortunately, there are a lot more murderers than Oscar winners, Pulitzer Prize winners, etc. Just being a murderer is not a claim to notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I wrote the article. As I have said before, I believe everyone who has been executed since the reinstatement of capital punishment in the United States is notable for inclusion. If an honest and open debate is going to take place about capital punishment then there should be a record of who the criminal justice has decided is worthy of the ultimate punishment. This is a total of 1,173 men and women. As the nom noted, he was unable to find anything of the crime except that Brown was sentenced to death. As a trained lawyer, I am able to access court decisions to get the information to write the article. The general public will not be able to find this information. If the article is deleted then this information will become much more difficult to access. Nolamgm (talk) 01:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So you think that 1,173 non-notable murderers should have an article because they were sentenced to death? Joe Chill (talk) 01:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No. I think the 1,173 people put to death are notable because they have been put to death. Not just sentenced. Actually executed. Look at my userpage or Anna Pou if you you have any question about who I am or what I truly beleive. I am not pro-murder or trying to make people famous for being killers. I have spent my entire professional life trying to put as many as I can in either prison or on death row. When a civilized society decides that somebody has forfeited the right to live, it is notable. As the other editor pointed out, if we are going to list everyone who has won a Daytime Emmy Award, we can have an article about the 1,173 people we have put to death and the horrible crimes they committed. Nolamgm (talk) 02:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You said that "everyone who has been executed since the reinstatement of capital punishment in the United States is notable for inclusion." What about the people who were executed during the first 180+ years of U.S. history? What is the basis for distinguishing them from the people executed since 1976? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - With my background and interest, I probably wouldn't object for the inclusion of any crime that resulted in an execution. The only reason I make any distinguishment between pre-1976 and post-1976 is that when I started writing these articles there was already a list on WP of people executed in Louisiana. For academic and scholarly purposes, you can get much more accurate description of capital crimes post-1976 because they were subjected to much review on an appellate level. If we are going to have pages such as Student Academy Awards then there is room for pages like Brown's. Nolamgm (talk) 14:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Keep though possible retitle, as I will explain. I though I would not support this article, but the arguments of Nolamgm have caused me to re-evaluate. I see it, however, from the diametrically opposite viewpoint: When an ostensible civilized society actually itself engages in the deliberate killing of individual citizens, a practice extinct in all countries of an similar cultural background, and it is covered as widely as all post 1976 executions in the US are, and with the great international interest from the countries that no longer do this, and with as reliable a sourcing as always appears in the appeal cases, then the event is notable, though perhaps the article should be called Execution of John A. Brown, Jr. under our principle of covering the event, not the person. The trial, appeal, protests, and execution are what should be emphasized, not the original crime--though of course that is important background also. The conjunction of the two viewpoints we represent can make these articles acceptably NPOV. I agree with Nolamgm in rejecting Joe Chill's argument that only meritorious accomplishments are notable. They are certainly more pleasant to discuss, but emphasizing them in the encyclopedia is not NPOV. I am not really concerned that anyone would engage in murder in order to get a Wikipedia article. DGG ( talk ) 17:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I appreciate the support in not deleting the article. However, I disagree that it is the trial, appeal, protests, and execution are what are notable. Quite honestly, I know of nothing notable about any of these in regards to Brown. I have rejected in other discussions about executed murderers the position that an individual is notable because Sister Helen wrote a book about them. In my view, Brown is notable because is one of the very select few our country has executed since 1976. Nationally only 2.5% of defendant's charged with capital murder are sentenced to death. There is a review of all death sentences by appellate courts as to "proportionality." I believe this a major part of the debate - even among those who support capital punishment. Therefore, I believe the crime is what is notable. As for NPOV, I recall copying most the of article from the Louisiana Supreme Court opinion affirming Brown's death sentence. Nolamgm (talk) 19:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I never said that anyone would murder to have an article. I don't think that billions of non-notable murderers throughout history should have an article. If this event was considered notable, every single murderer could have an article. Examples of notable murderers are Adolf Hitler, Zodiac Killer, and Alphabet Killer. I was not expressing a POV. Awards have never been considered as WP:BLP1E which is why I said that the editor's belief is flawed because winning a major award does show notability per every guideline. How does being killed show that it passes WP:BLP1E? How is this guy historically significant to have an article? Why do inclusionists always say to rename every single article about a non-notable murderer to something like Killing of Blah Blah or June 2006 murder of blah blah? I don't see how you could have totally misunderstood my comment. Joe Chill (talk) 20:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Alright, lets apply the policy. "When an individual is significant for their role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered." I contend that every execution since 1976 is significant enough for an article in WP. As the person executed, Brown has the ultimate degree of significance in the event. He is the ultimate cause of the events that let up to his execution. Nolamgm (talk) 22:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        That would be 1,173 non-notable murderers with articles. He was executed which in no way gets him out of WP:BLP1E. Do you think that everyone that is the cause of being notable for one event should have an article? He is an ordinary murderer even though he was executed. If there is info on him, it should be mentioned in a different article and he should not have his own article because he is not notable. Joe Chill (talk) 22:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        If I was in court I would ask you to rephrase your question. I truly don't understand it. I don't know if you are opposed to the information being on WP or just don't like murderers. As I tell juries all the time, the only cause of a murder is the murderer. The victim did not cause it. He bad upbringing did not cause it. Brown deciding to kill caused it. There is no other cause. Here are my questions: What makes a murderer notable then? If he gets lots of press coverage? Does he have to kill someone famous? That Brown was of the rare 2.5% of those convicted of murder to get sentenced to death and then of the even rarer 1% to actually get executed not enough? Again my position is that every time someone is executed in the United States it is notable. Brown is inextricably linked to his execution by a significant degree. Brown and his execution are one and the same. I understand you feel murderers should not be notable. As I life long residence of New Orleans, which usually is the murder capital of the country, I can tell you it becomes very sad when murders stop become notable. I am also frightened by the prospect that the decision to execute a fellow human can be viewed as a "non-notable" event. Nolamgm (talk) 23:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Did he have any significant coverage after his execution? If he didn't, then it falls underWP:BLP1E. Sad doesn't always equal notable. When did I say that all murderers aren't notable? I just linked to three notable murderers above as murderers being notable. How could you have missed that? It's frightening that people want articles kept because of their personal opinions and dismiss the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Joe Chill (talk) 23:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        "or just don't like murderers". That's funny. Do you like murderers? Joe Chill (talk) 23:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I am not going to respond to your personal attack. Read who I am if you actually want that question answered. I am not hiding behind a fake name. I said that all murders executed since 1976 are notable. Dispute that or don't. What does coverage after his execution have to do with if he is notable? I am really done with this debate. If this article is deleted please nominate the other ones I wrote on the same subject. Capital punishment in Louisiana is a good place to start. 23:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
        
        Do you understand that I'm referring to notable in the Wikipedia sense? It seems like you don't. Everything that you're saying is filled with POV. Joe Chill (talk) 23:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        My only POV is this discussion is that all murders executed since 1976 are notable. Nolamgm (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        What exactly is a personal attack? I was called a troll and told to leave Wikipedia and that was fine with everyone in ANI even though I didn't say anything bad throughout the discussion. Coverage after the execution shows that he is historically significant for his one event. The concensus is that people that are notable for one event need to have coverage after the event. You are the only one going by your POV in this AFD while I am going by long standing concensus. You just admitted that you were using your point of view throughout the debate. Joe Chill (talk) 23:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Location (talk) 05:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All of us who have commented thus far seem to agree that there is nothing notable about the murder or the murderer's trial and conviction, but the question seems to be whether the subject should be granted inherent notability based on his execution. "Other stuff" aside, the issue of capital punishment in the United States has great worldwide interest but there is currently no consensus supporting the assertion that "all murderers executed since 1976 are notable". I do not object to the subject being mentioned List of individuals executed in Louisiana#Individuals executed since 1976 since that is where any notability he has should be mentioned. On the other hand, I will admit there is one very strong argument to keep. According to the Weekly World News, Satan appeared in his execution chamber.[3]Location (talk) 06:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I know I said I was done with this debate but this has been bothering me. I am confused by the position that seems be forming during this discussion that it is acceptable to list Brown as having been executed but not acceptable to provide details about his crime and conviction. If he is notable enough to be mentioned, why is he not notable enough to be have an article? I admit I am not well versed in WP bureaucracy. However, I will attempt to apply WP:GNG as best I can. 1. Significant coverage Brown's denial of final appeals was covered by the Times-Picayune and Associated Press over the course three years by at least five articles. I just ran a search in the Westlaw database for news in Louisiana. I am sorry I can not link to it, but it is not a free database. These articles appeared either in the TP or over the AP wire on July 27, 1995, July 28, 1995, August 19, 1995, April 20, 1997, April 21, 1997, April 24, 1997, and April 25, 1997. These articles are more that just blurbs about his execution. 2. ReliableAs I have said before, I wrote the article by using Brown's Louisiana Supreme Court opinion affirming his conviction. Anyone can pull it up. It is cited in the article. 3. SourcesAgain, coverage can be located in Times-Picayune, AP, and by the LASC. 4. Independent of the subjectThe sources listed above are by major press organization and a court. Both are clearly independent of the subject. I beleive the opposition is resting on the fact that Brown is known for one event. I cannot dispute that. He is known because of the murder he committed and punishment that came as a result of it. However if the event itself, his execution, is worthy of inclusion and mention, then his article should fit the standard as well. WP:BLP1E states "If the event is significant, and if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable secondary sources." Certainly, Brown played a "substantial" role is the murder and his execution. The murder and his execution are well documented. However I donot beleive that WP:BLP1E should even apply to this article. WP:BLP1E is part of the WP:BLP policy. Why it is applied to person very much dead? From reading it, I beleive it was created to stop bios of living persons known for only one "15 minutes of fame" event. As a living person who probably fits this definition, I support it 100%. However, this policy should not be applied to the deceased. Nolamgm (talk) 13:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - So you're saying that every dead person that is notable for one event should have an article? Of course he has a substantial part of the event because he was the murderer. He was just an ordinary murderer that was executed. Concensus is that non-notable topics don't deserve an article, but can still be mentioned in a related article. Joe Chill (talk) 15:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:BLP1E doesn't apply because he is dead. By its very title, the policy of Biography of a Living Person can not apply to someone dead. The policy you cite in your nomination does not apply. He fails WP:BLP1E because he is dead. I don't know the answer to your question because I don't think WP has policy for dead people notable for one event. Brown became notable by his death - judicial execution for his crime - not his life. You are incorrect is saying that he " was just an ordinary murderer that that was executed." "Ordinary" murderers are not executed. It is only the extraordinary ones that are executed. It is only 2.5% of convicted murderers that are sentenced to death and only a fraction of those sentenced to death actually get executed. As we tell juries in my state, capital punishment is reserved for the "worst of the worst." Nolamgm (talk) 16:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:BIO1E would be the relevant policy for dead people. Initially you stated: "I disagree that it is the trial, appeal, protests, and execution are what are notable." and "I believe the crime is what is notable." Now you are stating: "Brown became notable by his death - judicial execution for his crime - not his life." It really doesn't matter because there is no consensus in Wikipedia that ALL murders are notable or that ALL executions are notable. Murders and executions occur infrequently but they occur frequently enough that not all are notable by Wikipedia standards. Location (talk) 16:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Each hijackers in the September 11 attacks has his own individual article. They are only notable for one event. Should they be deleted too and only mention in the main article? Or on the other side of the spectrum what about two of the United States' greatest heros - Randy Shughart and Gary Gordon. Both of these Delta operators are notable for one event - heroically and selflessly giving up there own lives in an attempt to rescue a downed Blackhawk pilot during the Battle of Mogadishu. Should they only get a mention in Battle of Mogadishu? Nolamgm (talk) 16:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:OTHERSTUFF. Location (talk) 16:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I retort withWP:JUSTAPOLICY and WP:JNN. I cited the examples to show how WP:BLP1E does not apply to the dead. Nolamgm (talk) 17:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Why the heck would you campare this guy with 9/11? They are historically significant because they caused one of the biggest events in history while all this guy did was murder one person and be executed. How does this guy match with something as historically significant as 9/11? Is there an anniversary every year that is used to remember this one person that got killed? Joe Chill (talk) 17:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Same policy applies to both Brown and the 9-11 hijackers. They are both notable for one event. Nolamgm (talk) 18:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        It doesn't if the event is historically significant. How did you miss that? You obviously don't understand Wikipedia notability that well. Joe Chill (talk) 18:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        You can say that doesn't apply to dead people all you want, but that belief is flawed. Saying that goes against years of concensus and only goes by your personal opinion. Joe Chill (talk)
        
        Nolamgm, I think it is clear that Joe Chill meant to use WP:BIO1E (applicable to the dead) in his nomination and not WP:BLP1E (applicable to the living). The two are extremely similar so I think it would be wikilawyering to belabor the point. Not all "other stuff" meets the criteria. Location (talk) 17:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Do you realize that you're responding with the essay Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions? How did you make that mistake? Joe Chill (talk) 17:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Was the snide comment for me or Location? I was pointing out the false logic is pointing out a potential violation of policy in potential violation of other policy. Nevertheless, WP:OTHERSTUFF says you should not say we have an article on x so we should be able to have on on Brown. I used examples of how the policy of WP:BIO1E should be correctly applied. Thank you Location for pointing out the correct policy. (I guess this is why we have WP:JUSTAPOLICY; explain what is wrong with an article and don't just cite to policy.) As I have done above, I will now attempt to apply WP:BIO1E to this article. "When an individual is significant for their role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both." Ok, I say Brown's execution is notable. I cited references for this position. If you disagree, try to do so without responding WP:JNN. "In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered." Again, he was the one who was executed. Now comes the problem part: "The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person." I guess this is where the suggestion from above comes from that that article become "The execution of John Brown, Jr." The only thing I can really say on this point is that it is a "general" rule. Not absolute. I shutter at the thought of renaming the article to the "Execution of John Brown, Jr." I would rather see it deleted. I don't know what else to call it. "Execution of John Brown, Jr." makes it sound like it is only about the execution. Nothing notable about the execution itself. (Except for Satan appearing.) "State of Louisiana v. John Brown, Jr." makes it sound like it is about the LASC case. Again, I don't recall any great law coming from it. If we are going to keep the article I think it has stay as named. As I said, this is why it is a "general" rule. However the last sentence of WP:BIO1E - "In some cases, however, a person famous for only one event may be more widely known than the event itself, for example, the Tank Man. In such cases, the article about the event may be most appropriately named for the person involved."- may offer some guidance. In this case, I would argue that John Brown, Jr. is more widely known then the event that makes him notable - his execution. Nolamgm (talk) 18:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - How did we have this long debate if all said did was point to a policy? That makes no sense so that belief is extermely flawed. Everything that you're saying doesn't change the fact that he is only notable for one insignificant (in the Wikipedia sense) event that shouldn't be compared to award winners and 9/11. Joe Chill (talk) 18:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC) Joe Chill (talk) 18:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Excellent explanation of your position. Next time just type WP:JNN. Nolamgm (talk) 18:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Hilarious! I explained my position in paragraph after paragraph just like you. Why the heck would you point me to that and tell me to say It's non-notable and that's it? Joe Chill (talk) 18:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:NLIST answers why his name can be included in a list without an entire article being created for him. Location (talk) 16:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Executed criminals are notable by virtue of the coverage that each has: First, for the crime, and second, for the various appeals needed before the actual execution happens. Those are not one event. Jclemens (talk) 01:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is. You could say that every murderer doesn't fit one event (which there are people that do). There is a result for every single crime and there is always something that leads to the result so that does not get it out of one event. There are people that say that billions of non-notable criminals throughout history should have an article. Joe Chill (talk) 01:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Due to some of the issues that have been raised here, I've started an Rfc at Wikipedia_talk:Notability (criminal_acts)#Are individuals who are judicially executed inherently notable.3F. Location (talk) 02:05, 13 September 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 13:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FTS Infotech[edit]

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

Nonnotable software company, sources seem to be mainly PR-type interviews. No notability shown through reliable sources, see WP:V and WP:CORP. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no evidence of notability, just advertisement. Royal broil 03:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no third party sources available to address notability.—Ash (talk) 22:54, 13 September 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 West Virginia University. Obviously, the difference between a merge and a redirect is marginal here; the details can be worked out elsewhere. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eberly College of Arts and Sciences[edit]

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

Largely reads as an advertisement with very little or no notable content. Brian Powell (talk) 21:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the parent institution, West Virginia University. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to West Virginia University. The list of the 15 colleges, in the target, is badly in need of expansion to provide a summary of the scope of each faculty to replace the external links. Though the Eberly page is light on sources, plenty are available to support a short merge. TerriersFan (talk) 01:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 01:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge and this could have been done without coming here. Not just a redirect, because TerriersFan is right that the list should be expanded. DGG ( talk ) 17:51, 11 September 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 Zoids. You can merge whatever it's necessary to the Zoids article JForget 13:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zoids - the OJR[edit]

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

This is a trivial toy line that is simply just a list of the toys mixed in with a little original research. Notability is not asserted, so this doesn't need to exist. TTN (talk) 20:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Zoids article, per same reasonsing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoids Graphics. Martin Raybourne (talk) 20:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence that this is the actual name of this possible line of toys. Abductive (reasoning) 22:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Zoids per nom. One of the plethora of Zoids articles up for AfD. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 09:39, 10 September 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 13:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Order of the Circle[edit]

Adelphic Club (AfD discussion) has led me to this, another repeatedly challenged secret society, whose article cites no sources and where I am unable to find any sources documenting any such thing. This secret society is too secret for Wikipedia.

On a side note, be careful if deciding to use Google Web to search for sources. There are a lot of mirrors that keep deleted Wikipedia content these days, and this particular secret society was mentioned at one point on Society of the Seven, a third wholly unverifiable secret society that we discussed at AFD three times (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Society of the Seven, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Society of the Seven (2nd nomination), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Society of the Seven) each time with the issue that the subject is unverifiable. Uncle G (talk) 20:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per inability to verify (it's an undocumented secret, so it's out-of-scope for WP by its very nature). Another unverifiably-secret secret society precedent is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Society of the Pacifica House. DMacks (talk) 20:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Even if this is completely real, it's also completely unsourced and unverifiable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. No references given, a quick search for sources comes up with nothing. -- The Anome (talk) 14:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references, no indication of notability. Edward321 (talk) 23:50, 15 September 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) Erik9 (talk) 02:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ABF Freight System[edit]

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

Advertising article by non notable business, has been tagged {advert} since 2007. Laestrygonian3 (talk) 19:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. Pretty widespread, fairly well known. Google news seems to pick up some good sources for the purpose. Also note WP:LISTED. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable publicly-traded shipping firm, backed by reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 02:16, 13 September 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) Erik9 (talk) 02:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Bekins Company[edit]

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

Unref article on non notable company Laestrygonian3 (talk) 19:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Once a major company in moving household goods in the US. Pioneer: "Bekins was the first company to use covered moving vans on the West Coast and to specialize in moving household goods." per a company history at "International directory of company histories‎" - Page 48 (snippet view The quote comes up in the Google Book Search which has lots of references: [4], [5], [6]. Business Week in 1988 called Bekins the "acknowledged marketing leader" and said they introduced several innovations. Back in 1982 it was a $300 million dollar a year company with 6700 employees, per (info ion Google Book Search result, snippet view only). It was one of the 6 top U.S. moving firms(snippet only, info from Google book search summary). So sources can be found to improve the article and address the nominators concerns, and it appears to satisfy WP:N. Edison (talk) 23:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Are you kidding me? One of the more well known companies for moving, very much a cultural icon of bygone times. So WP:IAR for that part. Also echo for previous comments brought to you by User:Edison. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. I think that having formerly been the biggest moving and storage business in the world is a sign of notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe this is a notable company.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep A historic company with an article backed by ample available reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 02:18, 13 September 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) Erik9 (talk) 02:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate Van Lines[edit]

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

Non Notable business Laestrygonian3 (talk) 19:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: there are tons of websites that mention this company, but they're almost all sites about finding a moving company or simple local business directories, and the remainder are either press releases or trivial mentions. Nyttend (talk) 21:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keepThere is but one promising result in the Google Book search, unfortunately snippet only, so see the summary in the Google Book Search results: Business week (1981). Other results appear trivial or use the three words of the name as a description of such companies rather than this specific one. Google News archive has several stories which may have significant coverage, but only snippet view is seen without a trip to a library, or it is pay to view. Chicago Tribune, March 3 1981; Obituary of the founder, Chi Trib April 28 1996; Philadelphia Inquirer June 11, 1989; Traffic World, May 7, 2001. Edison (talk) 23:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I can only echo Edison. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some sources. Maybe not very exciting, but notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:56, 10 September 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PODS (company)[edit]

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

Non notable corporation/business using wikipedia for free advertising Laestrygonian3 (talk) 19:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment They have 4 pages worth of complaints at Consumer Affairs [7], that ought to count for something.Kmusser (talk) 20:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why? That section of the website is not a reliable source - anyone can contribute - and there is no "praise" section there, so the positive aspect can't be shown. Also, others are far worst - U-Haul has 6 pages of complaints! -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 12:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How is PODS not a notable corporation/business, and U-Haul, or others are? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.215.154.165 (talk) 20:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. PODS seems to fulfill WP:COMPANY; I can find at least two secondary sources about it. The article may be poorly written, but we can take care of that. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is some good significant coverage in this USA Today article (the same article was picked up by the Washington Times and others) and even individual franchises have gotten coverge such as here. There has been coverage of complaints about Pods such as this article from the Washington Post picked up by another paper. There is also some more signifcant coverage in an article here (and I am sure there are more examples a google news archive search quite easily found these examples). While the article needs cleaning up I think this adds up to enough to establish notability through coverage in reliable sources. Davewild (talk) 21:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : Notability through derogatory means is notability and makes a good article as would use of topic in B-school or other texts. I assume above comments are accurate, haven't verified existence of documented copmlaints.Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 22:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If this company is notable for bad business practices, that has to go into the article. There's nothing at the moment. Hairhorn (talk) 22:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also:PODZILLA. If they have made any of the baggage eating handlers that often make news at new airports, nice article coming together LOL :) Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 22:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Davewild: sources appear to satisfy WP:N. Edison (talk) 00:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to be fine, well covered. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:N with reliable sources. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 12:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment. I tried to edit the promotional language from the article and got a vandalism warning for my efforts, people from PODS are obviously using wikipedia as some sort of brochure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.139.195 (talk • contribs) 17:47, September 10, 2009— 82.132.139.195 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment the parts you have been removing have been referenced from independent sources. I see no evidence that recent edits have been by someone working with PODS - in fact my impression would be more that you are working for a competitor, and hence your reason for removing sourced information. Unless you are trying to imply that USA Today works for PODS? Or the Honolulu Advertiser? etc etc. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 17:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - it is user:Twalters82 who obviously works for PODs that user hasn't edit any other page on wiki except PODs company pages and now edits with an IP that does the same... Are you blind of complicit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.139.195 (talk) 18:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close as SNOW - obviously notable from sources and coverage. Canterbury Tail talk 18:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thatcher 21:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Keep as an obviously notable company. Also note that File:PODS logo.png is also nominated for deletion. — PyTom (talk) 18:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable company backed by reliable and verifiable sources. Why do we allow editors with only a few dozen edits the right to be nominating articles for deletion? Alansohn (talk) 02:15, 13 September 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 13:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Order (information processing)[edit]

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

Unreferenced WP:DICTDEF. I'm unable to find a reference for this definition. This article is tagged as a computer science stub. Order in computer science or information processing (understood as information science not as cognitive information processing) generally does not have meaning given in this article, but a total order or sometimes partial order. I don't see how this article could be expanded based on this unsourced concept; not even the field is clear because whoever wrote information processing was terribly confused too. Pcap ping 19:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. At best this should be moved to Wiktionary. The definition is hard to understand and does not indicate in what context it might be used other than information processing, which is a big field.--RDBury (talk) 04:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. And don't move it anywhere. It looks like a completely useless definition, unless someone provides more context/explanation. --Robin (talk) 15:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not transwiki. Definitions belong at Wiktionary; useless and doubtful definitions belong nowhere. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - When I saw only the title in the AFD listings, I thought it was referring to Big O notation which after reading the article, it most certainly is not. In fact, I have no idea what it is referring to. -- Whpq (talk) 12:57, 16 September 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 PODS (company). (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PODZILLA[edit]

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

This is a blatent advertising article by a corporation/business on a non notable equipment Laestrygonian3 (talk) 19:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect into PODS (company). There may not be enough here to justify its own article, but some of it should be able to be merged. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Company Once again, how is this non notable. There are 3 different sources with information on this PATENTED equipment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twalters82 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC) Reference 1 Reference 2 Reference 3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twalters82 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Massively non-notable. Lots of storage companies bring containers for you to fill yourself. Sources given above are a facebook video, a press release, and an article about the company which only mentions "podzilla." Not all patents are notable. Hairhorn (talk) 22:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to PODS (company). Insufficiently notable on its own but a sourced part of that other article. Thatcher 21:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to PODS (company) The concept has a credible claim of notability, but there doesn't seem to be enough in the article now to sustain a standalone article. Merge for now and recreateas a standalone once additional reliable sources are available. Alansohn (talk) 02:21, 13 September 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 13:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Total Drama Comedy[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTAL. No indications from any reliable sources of this upcoming (2011) television series. Prod denied. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 21:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Joe Chill Admrboltz (talk) 13:12, 14 September 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. Consensus indicates the topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion. Arguments that focus on in-universe significance are not convincing. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dauros[edit]

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

This character doesn't assert notability and the content is extremely trivial. TTN (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TTN (talk) 19:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I think just about every single Transformers article should be deleted, the entries reduced to simple bulleted list items -- rather than assume all these figures warrant articles (most of them don't), axe the stuff there now, and re-create individual articles only when substantiated with meaningful development and/or sales/popularity established. --EEMIV (talk) 19:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't this an extreme point of view? to delete "every single Transformers article?" Mathewignash (talk) 14:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The character is not made up per images, i.e. we can actually see it, so no reason why not to redirect at worst, because obviously some of our colleagues find it a valid search term and we should be considerate to them. Part of an astonishingly notable franchise. No reason at all to outright delete. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per the information contained in the article, it seems like it might be most appropriate to merge the content to the other character on which the toy is based. Transformers is a major franchise, and precedent suggests that lists of less notable characters be merged appropriately. Jclemens (talk) 20:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you did merge, it would make more sense to merge it with the article on the particular TV series the character appeared on, rather than a broad list of characters. Transformers is a set of dozens of TV series, comic books and thousands of toys. You wouldn't merge a page on Aerial from the Little Mermaid with a article on Walt Disney as much as you might merge her back to the page on the film she appear in. Mathewignash (talk) 00:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm with nom/EEMIV on this. Aggressively trivial & fancrufty topic that has no demonstrable notability whatsoever. Eusebeus (talk) 21:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, He wasn't just a toy, he was a reoccuring villian in a popular Japanese TV series. Info on it is hard to find on English web pages, as it was never imported to any English speaking countries. Also, there are variants on the spelling of the name. There are pleanty of articles that come up as linking to Dauros, and Dauros on a goodle image search does come up with dozens of pictures of this character. If you can't keep it I say merge the relivant info from the page into a slightly broader page, like the one for the Masterforce TV series, where he was the villian, rather than a extremely broad Transformers page. Since it was only a stubby little article, I did just add some more details and references to it. Hope this helps. Mathewignash (talk) 22:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking over the sources in the article, I do not see any that comes close to be considered reliable. Fansitse, wikis, and most other self-published sites can not be used as sources, much else establish notability. And fictional elements, such as characters, are not immune from the notability guidelines either, at least until additional criteria are established at the currently defunct WP:FICT. The number of GHits is irrelevant to the issue of notability. Also note that Mathewignash has posted notices at WT:ANIME, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Toys, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Transformers. —Farix (t | c) 01:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is posting a comment in a project about a character getting proposed for deletion incorrect? If so I apologize. Please let me know. Mathewignash (talk) 01:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Some editors view it as canvasing. Best to leave a notice in the affected discussion when notices about an issue are posted elsewhere. --—Farix (t | c) 01:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, it is not incorrect. The more editors who participate, the better and especially if you bring in more experts on the subject under discussion. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - As long as posting notices is aimed at generating discussion rather than votestacking, it is fine. However, the frequency of the latter is far higher than the frequency of the former. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I admit to wanting to save an article, but by making it better and getting more people involved in working on it. I don't think there is a crime there. I also thingk project that involve an article would want to know before an article is deleted, so this is strictly informative for them. I don't contact people specifically and say "save this article", but I did contact a couple projects and told them to voice their opinions (yes, I'm hoping they are for saving the article by making it more acceptable as a wikipedia page.) Mathewignash (talk) 14:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As for notability of the sources, this is a Japanese anime character, you won't find him mentioned often in the New York Times. Most sources would be in Japanese. I did source several english speaking news oriented pages, some of which are professional news coverage sites, if specialized in collecting toys or covering anime. For instance the Geocities page is a translation of official Takara press releases. You can't cite the Japanese, we only have the translation. Mathewignash (talk) 01:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then find the sources. We don't presume they exists. Press releases should be cited directly and not through some non-professional translation, but it still doesn't not prove notability. —Farix (t | c) 01:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --KrebMarkt 06:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to an appropriate list article. No real-world notability to speak of. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In the Transformers: Super-God Masterforce series Dauros is one of the three Decepticon Pretenders who make up the main villians of the series. [4] A notable character, in a notable series. Dream Focus 19:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Isn't your argument more than a bit from an in-universe perspective? --KrebMarkt 20:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - He was was a villian who appeared all through the series from beginning to end. I'm not sure if there are even any episode WITHOUT him. Saying he was a main character is like saying Lex Luthor is a main character in Smallville. It's not a stretch. Mathewignash (talk) 23:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Being a main character is not the same as being a notable character. —Farix (t | c) 23:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't believe you can be a main character in a notable series, without being notable yourself. Could an actor who played a significant role in a notable film, not be notable himself, but the film he was in was? Their actions are what makes the show. Dream Focus 16:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        No, not every main character deserves their own article. A good example is this article about the most beloved book Jane Eyre. Of all the famous characters in this book, only Jane has her own article - Rochester is just a redirect. - Josette (talk) 18:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article. This character deserves mention but not enough for an article of it's own - plus none of the references are acceptable. - Josette (talk) 03:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While there is clearly no reason to delete this article concerning a real-world notable character as confirmed by acceptable references, a merge and redirect is not completely unreasonable; however, Mathewignash is the clear expert in this discussion and is working hard and as such deserves more time to continue improving an articles concerning a notable and verifiable subject for which no serious reason (WP:ITSCRUFT is not a reason) exists for deleting the edit history. Bravo to Mathewignash for his efforts! That is exactly why we are here and what we like see. Keep up the good work! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 13:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minor character, no out-of-universe notability as required by our guidelines on writing about fiction. Them From Space 16:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Mathewignash has proven the opposite, i.e. it pass WP:WAF due to out of universe notability concerning this notable character who at worst can be redirected in that there is no need whatsover to delete, nor any actual reason. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no, a fan wiki is not a reliable source; neither is a GeoCities fan page, a picture posted on a blog, or a forum post. Mathewignash, after 3 and a half years on Wikipedia, it's high time you read WP:RS and WP:SPS, and applied those policies in practice. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with some of the comments that most of those types of articles should be merged to series lists. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well written article, references that establish notability for this fictional character.--Judo112 (talk) 13:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which ones? How? --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just requested several books from my local library system which are guides to japanese anime and Transformers, etc. I plan on going over them and citing references etc. If anyone can help me with a guide to writing a fully detailed citation of a book, please point me to it. Mathewignash (talk) 14:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Cite book - Josette (talk) 14:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Lovely! Thanks! I have several other anime guides, but the one that covers Masterforce in detail is at a library in another city. I checked and they will send it to my library. Better than paying $30 for it at Amazom.com. So soon I will try to get some better references that may keep some people happy. I'm also looking to the guidelines to writing pages that are less "in universe" and looking at other pages that are considered well-written as examples of writing style. With any luck we can make this page more pleasing to the wikipedian eyes. Mathewignash (talk) 18:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Transformers: Super-God Masterforce; completely unnotable for having own article, but cleaned up to remove the inappropriate links marquerading as sources, and shortened the plot, it would be appropriate to have a brief 1-3 sentence summary in the main article of the series where he was relevant. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 21:28, 15 September 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 slightly speedily due to the consensus below that the nomination was inappropriate. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Private Eye (film)[edit]

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

non-notable film — Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 19:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 00:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 00:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close The movie ranked the top of South Korea box offices in April, 2009 and here are "abundant (1000) Korean news sources"[8].--Caspian blue 00:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. With respect to the nom, I don't think any research has been carried out prior to this nomination. Film has notable cast and topped the South Korean box office for two consecutive weeks ([9], [10]). Significant coverage in reliable English-language sources here, here, here, here and here. PC78 (talk) 00:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is too obvious that the nominator has not do research at all. --Caspian blue 00:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hastened Keep per now established and sourced notability of film and seeming lack of WP:BEFORE on the part of the nominator. Do repeated nominations of notable films amount to disruption? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per above, and per notability again.--Judo112 (talk) 20:28, 12 September 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) Erik9 (talk) 02:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop Violence[edit]

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

non-notable film — Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 19:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 00:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep So this is the fourth one that I have faced your AfD nomination spree with no previous research. Here are reliable English sources from Google news.[11] The sources says it is hit movies. I'm sure there are many reliable Indian language sources out there.--Caspian blue 01:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Caspian blue 01:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable Malayalam film. I've added a couple of sources. Salih (talk) 17:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep of an improvable film that was brought to AfD to make a WP:POINT and force WP:CLEANUP. With respects, and accepting the nominator's best of intentions, WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD are not historical essays. Even a minimal search [12][13] shows the film has available sources... Sending it to AfD is bad form. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:52, 12 September 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, slightly speedily given the consensus below that this was an inappropriate nomination. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Naked Kitchen[edit]

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

non-notable film — Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 19:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 00:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 00:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. In the film, famous actors and actresses in South Korea starred. 263 hits from Google News[14] warrant its notability.--Caspian blue 00:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Significant coverage in reliable English-language sources here, here, here and here. PC78 (talk) 00:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This needs a LOT of cleanup. If it was nominated in the first place, it's because the darn thing is impossible to read. I've had a word with the author about this and other similar entries. PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need that much cleanup, a bit of a copyedit but that's about it. It could do with expanding, sure, but that's not the same thing. We don't bring articles to AfD merely because they are hard to read. PC78 (talk) 15:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but the point I was trying to make is that the original poster failed to establish notability and failed to make it comprehensible. I do wish to vote to keep with the understanding that it will get the attention it deserves now that it's been brought to everyone's attention via this AfD. PMDrive1061 (talk) 21:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep... and per WP:ATD and WP:CSB request input from Korean reading Wikipedians. For gosh sakes.... the new article existed for only some 12 hours before it was sent to AfD. A search for "Hong Ji-yeong" has nearly 17 thousand English g-hits. A search for "The Naked Kitchen"+"Ji-yeong Hong" found 268 thousand English g-hits... and a search for "키친" came up with 34 million Korean language hits. Sorry... and yes, I do not read Korean and so am not offering specific sources... but the number of hits is strongly indicative that sources likely exist to improve this article. It should have been tagged, not sent to AfD. And to User:PMDrive1061... I can appreciate that you believe the article will now get attention... but Afd is NOT for forcing cleanup... specially only 12 hours after an improvable article was created. It should have been tagged and brought to the attention of the Korean Wikiproject. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:46, 12 September 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) Erik9 (talk) 02:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Living Death (film)[edit]

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

non-notable film — Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 19:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has films that are non-notable. Fly, Daddy, Fly and Flying Boys are not notable films. So are you going delete those? 69dressings (talk) 14:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem, I would say that both of those films meet our notability guideline for films. This one I'm less sure about, but I'll see what I can do with it over the next few days. PC78 (talk) 15:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 00:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 00:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close It is too obvious that the nominator has not do research on the film at all but just been abusing the AfD process on not only the film in question, but also other articles of Korean films[15][16]; Private Eye (film) and The Naked Kitchen. The original title in Korean is provided, so he could search necessary information with it just within few seconds. 157 Korean news hits comes from Google News.[17]Caspian blue 01:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Living Death (film) article has been re-edited. 69dressings (talk) 19:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hastened Keep per improvements made since the AfD began. And per WP:CSB request input from Korean Wikipedians in searching through the 3 million google hits [18], the 1100 news hits [19], and the 98 book hits [20]. And before anybody squawks about my just providing g-hits... I do not myself read Korean, but a film that set box office records in South Korea is notable enough foir me, and common sense would seem to indicate that even if a small percentage of those g-hits is about this film, that small percenntage would be plenty.. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair, I've had to remove the box office section as it completely misquotes the source. All it actually says for this film is "recently released Korean films are failing to attract audiences ("A Million", "Living Death" and "Yoga"). There are complaints about the lack of variety and novelty". This is no record breaking film. PC78 (talk) 11:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per above, and per notability.--Judo112 (talk) 20:26, 12 September 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 13:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Samurai Baby[edit]

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

Unnotable manga series. Fails WP:BK and WP:N. Only 3 volumes, never licensed by anyone. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find evidence of even a Chinese licensed edition, let alone reviews in reliable sources in the West. I note there isn't a ja.wiki article for it, which is usually a sign of non-notability. Absent anyone finding something in Japanese indicating notability, delete as failing WP:BK. A shame, as it's a cute series, but apparently never caught on. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Within my capability, i found no licensor in English, French, Spanish, Italian & German language so no evidence of notability will come from there. Unless enough evidences from Japan or somewhere not mentioned are found, my opinion is delete this article. --KrebMarkt 19:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no proof of notability. Relevant and independent sourcing is needed Rirunmot (talk) 21:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I do not care too much about this nomination. Please note that WP:BK does not require foreign publication or licensing for notability. The article still lacks the other criteria of notability though, so delete. Cmprince (talk) 13:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite true. I was citing whether it's been licensed as a guide to whether it was likely to have gotten any reviews outside of Japan, specifically in a Western country, in languages easier to read. Something of a shorthand, which I probably ought to do less of. (Reviews in Japanese would be even better, but it's routine for Japanese news/media sites to delete content more than a year or two old and block autoarchiving, and so aside from blockbusters, hard to find except for currently running series.) —Quasirandom (talk) 14:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You right on WP:BK. If i focus on non-Japanese licensing it to increase the chance to find evidences of notability from RS in those respective languages and nothing else. In addition saying that it is no licensed in XYZ countries spares time for editors searching evidences of notability. It's pointless to search twice the same area of the web for the same conclusion.
  About reviews from Japan, i'm more and more skeptic on the very existence of such sources because the western concept of reviewing an anime or a manga may simply not exist outside the academic area (university scholars). Meaning no paper publication or website that wrote criticism regularly on anime & manga in a factual, accurate, documented & independent from publishers way. --KrebMarkt 16:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd ask you to unpack that second paragraph, but I suspect that's a topic best discussed elsewhere (such as WT:MANGA). But for here, I note that for example the mainstream culture magazine Da Vinci does review manga and highlights a series as a sort of editor's pick each month, usually either seinen or josei (unfortunately, not all their features are placed online, and the Platinum Picks get pruned after about 3 years). —Quasirandom (talk) 19:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry. I simply don't feel up to start a discussion of that subject on WT:MANGA, don't have the stamina to do so, plus i think the problematic to discuss is beyond what can handle a wikipedia project. To make it short: "Are the western of book reviews, criticisms & analysis, imported cultural concepts in countries like China, Japon or korea?"
      For now, let say i did not write my second paragraph. Yes, really, i'm sorry to have raised such facepalm reflexion. --KrebMarkt 20:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Published for seven years in a notable manga magazine. Other magazines aren't likely to give reviews of their competition, nor is this sort of thing covered by most sources. You have to use common sense, and think for yourself, not just wait for someone to tell you its notable because they said so, and decided to published a review somewhere. Dream Focus 04:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Well currently common sense say that not much in the article can be proved. What can make me believe that the informations are accurate, point of view neutral & containing no original research? Third party RS coverages are here to ensure that and not just that the article can be kept. As far as it can go the article can be "near-emptied" with a strict reading of verifiability policy. I prefer no article than empty husk while some editors like to collect them like seashells. --KrebMarkt 06:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Verifiability? You can check the magazine that publishes it, and see its actually published there. You just look at their official site, and there it is. And if you look at where they sell the volumes at, you can read the plot summary, and confirm the plot information in the article. Dream Focus 13:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - An article about a manga should cover the development, reception, or influence of the manga, or show the potential that one of these three things can be written from reliable third-party sources. Simply existing is not a legitimate reason to have an article. We are here to write an encyclopedia, not to catalog everything that exists. —Farix (t | c) 20:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Only three volumes in seven years? That could mean one of two things. It's published infrequently which is an indication that it is unpopular, or we don't have a verifiable end date of publication. I would actually assume the latter. But if all we can write about the manga is a plot summary, then common sense will tell us that we shouldn't have an article about it. Encyclopedic articles should contain sourced information about the manga's development, reception, and influence. —Farix (t | c) 11:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Gantz was published some months with just a few pages. It is still a notable series, and sells very well. In fact, it is unusual to get more than a small number of pages at a time of it, and the guy even takes long breaks between releasing anything at all. Frequency of publishing isn't relevant. If the publisher is willing to let them release when they feel like it, not having to follow a schedule, and doesn't drop them, then obviously it must be a notable series. You don't keep something around that long, unless a lot of people are reading it. Dream Focus 13:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - But it wasn't published for for over seven years, as KrebMarkt's comment below clarifies. However, notability must be determined on verifiable facts based on reliable third-party sources. Popularity is not the same as notability. Nor is being published make a manga notable. —Farix (t | c) 20:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - @TheFarix The series ended at volume 3. The publication ending date is just missing. --KrebMarkt 16:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - As I said, I assumed the latter. —Farix (t | c) 20:38, 14 September 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 13:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Atashi wa Bambi[edit]

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

Unnotable manga series. Fails WP:BK and WP:N. Prod removed by IP without any reason given. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No licensor in US/UK, France, Germany, Italy & Spain unless i mistaken. In absence of enough evidence of notability the proper course of action is delete. --KrebMarkt 19:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found nothing for references other than manga torrents and manga read sites mostly. I agree it does fail WP:BK and WP:N - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:00, 9 September 2009 (AT)

Weak delete As above, I do not care too much about this nomination. Please note that WP:BK does not require foreign publication or licensing for notability. The article still lacks the other criteria of notability though, so delete. Cmprince (talk) 13:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A notable artists who has published several notable series in the past, has her new series published in a notable manga magazine. It hasn't been out even a year yet, but based on her past works, I'd say this is notable, being her most recent creation and what she is actively working on now. Dream Focus 04:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:It has been published between April 2001 & February 2002 so the less than one year argument can be discarded. Informations inside the article can hardly be proved with what it contains currently. --KrebMarkt 06:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The author isn't historically significant or highly notable, so claiming notability under WP:BK #5 doesn't work here. But if all we can write about the manga is a plot summary, then common sense will tell us that we shouldn't have an article about it. An encyclopedic article, which is what we want to write, should contain sourced information about the manga's development, reception, and influence. —Farix (t | c) 11:33, 14 September 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. Ottre 10:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Qaeda involvement in Europe[edit]

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

There is not enough material to warrant a separate article, the content is duplicated in the main Al-Qaeda article anyway Vexorg (talk) 18:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I came across this article in providing a Third Opinion; to my mind this article does not cover anything not already covered (sufficiently) elsewhere. I do not see any unique information here that could be merged into another article. PGWG (talk) 18:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It is a highly notable topic, and policy has been to improve such articles, not delete them. I note that, glancing at the history, it seems like much sourced material has been removed from the article in the past month through edit-warring, mostly on the part of the nominator. Following up removal of sourced information from an article, and then proposing that the article be deleted on the grounds of having insufficient material, strikes me as not terribly kosher. Ray^Talk 18:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the previously removed material had NO SOURCES showing Al-Qaeda Involvement in Europe. Vexorg (talk) 19:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Qaeda is certainly a notable topic but it has it's own main article. Vexorg (talk) 22:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Qaeda in Europe is a highly notable topic. 28k hits on Gscholar, 1610 hits on Gbooks, Over 100k hits on Gnews. Including numerous book chapters, full articles, and at least one book devoted exclusively to examining the phenomenon. That any mention of, among others, the Hamburg cell, the formative role of the Bosnian Mujahedin, Al-Qaeda recruiting in Londinistan, or others have been excised from the article does not rewrite history. Ray^Talk 19:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Per Ray. Much of the sourced material has been removed by the nominator, who has some vendetta against the article. You can also see a number of news articles on terror cells located in Europe and the BBC had a story a few days ago about how it is likely there will be more plans to attack Europe, so this article could and should develop very well if the nominator stops trying to delete everything. TheoloJ (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further evidence of nominator trying to destory the article, he removed the material about an Al-Qaeda militant claiming Russia is not in Europe, however if he bothered to take a 30 second look at North Caucasus, he would see Dagestan is located within the European part of Russia. TheoloJ (talk) 08:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the history of the article, most of the items removed that I can see are either "this was like Al-Qaeda, but wasn't actually them", or "this was inspired by them but was done by someone/a group of people not members of Al-Qaeda", or "Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility, but has been proven to be someone else". If this is kept (which, as I stated above, I do not believe it should be), it should be renamed (per WP:SAL) as it seems to be (and has been, at it's largest) simply a list of events which have their own full page. PGWG (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete The reason for nominating this article for deletion is that the very tiny amount of Al-qaeda involvement in Europe is not enough to warrant a separate article. There is no 'vendetta' against the article on my part. As the editor accused of having a vendetta I can happily state I have no problem with including into Wikipedia any properly sourced instances of Al-Qaeda involvement in Europe in the main AL-Qaeda article. TheoloJ (talk) says that "this article could and should develop very well" - How can it develop very well without Al-Qaeda involvement in Europe? Is the editor waiting for more terrorist attacks in Europe in order that the article can expand? Vexorg (talk) 19:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin This !vote is by the nominator. Ray^Talk 19:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Al-Qaeda per PGWG. I had considered nominating this article for deletion myself when I saw it on 3O. The topic is certainly notable, and the information should definitely be included somewhere. However, even when this article was at its peak, there wasn't enough material to justify separating it from the main Al-Qaeda article. The Al-Qaeda article is large and could probably benefit from some pruning, but I don't think is a good section for that. MirrorLockup (talk) 19:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to Alqaeda no reason for separating it from the article Alqaeda. Rirunmot (talk) 22:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, to suggest merging is like suggesting that Censorship in Canada should be redirected to Censorship; do we really want a Terrabyte-large article on Al-Qaeda, FFS? I recently admonished another user who began actually blanking/redirecting articles about individual al-Qaeda leaders to the main "Al-Qaeda" article...this is bordering on lunacy - and while this situation isn't quite so extreme, I think the same arguments apply. The article is not very good right now, but that is the nature of a Wiki; that it will improve with time - and we do not delete articles for being crappy...we fix them. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 20:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing to fix. The article isn't being nominated for deletion becuase it is crappy it's being nominated becuase there isn't enough notable material to warrant a seperate article. Suggesting merging is NOT like suggesting that Censorship in Canada should be redirected to Censorship as the Censorship in Canada article is big enough and notable enough to warrant a seperate article. I also note there is now a desperate attempt by one editor to include anything remotely linked with organisations alleged by some to have links with Al-Qaeda simply to pad out the article to sway opinion. You argue that the article will improve over time? Well surely that's dependent upon Al-Qaeda attacking enough targets in the future to warrant a dedicated article. Do we create articles based upon speculation of future events. Vexorg (talk) 21:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"there is now a desperate attempt by one editor to include anything remotely linked with organisations alleged by some to have links with Al-Qaeda simply to pad out the article to sway opinion" - You show a worrying level of ignorance for someone so heavily involved in the article. The 2006 plot would have killed at least 2000 people and had direct connections to Al-Qaeda and Chechnya is a major conflict, the fact that there are Al-Qaeda militants supporting the Chechen insurgency is certainly worth mentioning. TheoloJ (talk) 21:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the relevance of Chechnya being a major conflict to any Al-Qaeda involvement in Europe is what? I rest my case regarding your 'desperate attempt'. Vexorg (talk) 21:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Chechnya war is related to this because there are Al-Qaeda militants fighting against the EUROPEAN Russian forces as part of the Chechen war. So... One could safely say that there is Al-Qaeda involvement in Europe and because this is an article about Al-Qaeda involvement in Europe, any Al-Qaeda involvement in Europe should be mentioned. TheoloJ (talk) 22:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of this bothered you before the article was up for deletion. You are indulging in Extremist Inclusionism becuase of what seems to have become an obsession. I hear that someone alleged to have been in the same country as Osama bin laden once had a dirty weekend in Paris. Put it in the article. :) Vexorg (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because it happened little over a week before the article was nominated for deletion and I hadn't heard about it, until I searched for further information to add to the article. "I hear that someone alleged to have been in the same country as Osama bin laden once had a dirty weekend in Paris. Put it in the article." Wow, this coming from a user who got all teary eyed over being "patronised". TheoloJ (talk) 22:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Teary eyed' ??? - I think most long time editors would call you out if you placed a 'Welcome To Wikipedia' template on their talk page and then described their good faithed edits as 'vandalism', like you exactly did to me.Vexorg (talk) 22:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since when has there been a consensus to remove non-English language references? TheoloJ (talk) 22:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since when has there been a concensus to include many duplicate sources, especialyl when many of them are from sources not usually considred reputable on Wikipedia? Vexorg (talk) 22:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Irish times - Major Irish news agency
Thenews.com/pk - Pakistan's leading English language newspaper.
http://www.lavanguardia.es - Completely valid Spanish language news website.
http://g1.globo.com - Major Brazilian news agency
http://noticias.terra.com.br - Another notable Brazilian news agency
http://www.knack.be - Totally valid news website
So, do you actually have any basis to back up your claim that these are "usually" not considered reputable? Or was this yet another case of you removing references because you haven't heard of them? Also, please provide a link to where consensus was reached to decide any of these references should not be used, I can't find it. TheoloJ (talk) 19:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's all kinds of rubbish published in the Net. That's why sources have to be considered reputable. Otherwise Wikipedia loses it's value. You cannot provide any source that gits your agenda and then use the excuse that the opposing editor hasn't heard of them. Most of those sources you cite are only reputable in YOUR opinion. Wikipedia is not just about YOUR opinion. if information is notable enough it will be found in what is normally considered reputable sources, like the BBC or the like. Use obscure websites for sources when nothing else is available and your edits are likely to be removed. Vexorg (talk) 21:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although English-language sources are preferred, the websites you mention are published by major newspapers and media companies and are probably acceptable if they are used correctly. The fact that they are not in the English language doesn't make them obscure or unreliable. snigbrook (talk) 21:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although if you were referring to this edit maybe you were correct. snigbrook (talk) 21:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 19:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 19:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I notice there are legitimately-published books that seem to suggest this is a legitimate branch of study;

Al Qaeda in Europe: the new battleground of international jihad‎ - by Lorenzo Vidino, Steven Emerson - Political Science - 2006 - 403 pages

Joining Al-Qaeda: Jihadist Recruitment in Europe‎ by Peter R. Neumann - Political Science - 2009 - 71 pages

Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 21:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand--at present the article is really not informative enough to keep and could well be merged, but as Sherurcij has shown, there is a great deal of content that can and should be added. DGG ( talk ) 19:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article can certainly be expanded as the books pointed to be Sherucij suggest. I found another book here - Al-Qaida's jihad in Europe: the Afghan-Bosnian network by Evan Kohlman to add as a possible source. Davewild (talk) 21:39, 12 September 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 by nominator with no other delete !votes. Stifle (talk) 08:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide (character)[edit]

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

This article is on a fictional video game character that later appeared in real-life wrestling. However there's nothing to support notability for the character, and not much material when you boil the article down either. Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is on a fictional video game character that also later appeared in real-life wrestling as verified by sources present in the article, something that rarely happens with video game characters, i.e. it is a notable character with no reason to be deleted. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That fact alone doesn't make a character notable. There's hardly significant coverage in reliable, third party sources. As wrestling is in effect acting (no offense meant to any fans of it), it could be likened to any fictional character that appears in a film.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That it appears in both a game and on TV and is verified in reliable, third party sources does make it notable. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There was a discussion about creating this article at WT:PW. TNA won an award for taking a video game character and turning him into a real-life wrestler. There are reliable soures regarding this character at PWTorch, WrestleView, Canadian Online Explorer, Wrestling Observer, etc. Clearly notable enough for inclusion.--WillC 22:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn Per my discussion with the above poster it seems notability can be shown, and he's shown genuine willingness to improve the article to FA class. That's sufficient for me.
I will add on a completely for the record note I would appreciate it if User:A Nobody could stop badgering me and other members at AfD's.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh?! You replied to my general comment above first... Then I suppose by your logic, you should not "badger" me or anyone else who posts in disagreement with your nominatins? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:39, 9 September 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 rewritten and kept. GRBerry 18:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trilateral[edit]

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

~~Incoherent article, more like personal reflection than an encyclopedia article.~~ JamesBWatson (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination The dab page now existing bears no relation to the rubbish that I originally nominated for deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article may need editing by a more experienced wikipedia writer as opposed to deletion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jen.carrol (talk • contribs)

Convert to DAB page Someone feel free to revert me if they think I'm being hasty, but I'm going to convert this article to a dab page as originally suggested at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_September_9#Category:Trilateral. GDallimore (Talk) 19:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the edits I think are appropriate. Leaving it to others to decide now... GDallimore (Talk) 20:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on GDallimore's changes. Probably could be expanded to list other meanings. Agree with JamesBWatson - the original was incoherent. I would support a speedy closure. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep thanks to changes - no problems now. Johnbod (talk) 00:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose Speedy close as withdrawn with no remaining Delete votes. (I'm not going to do it, as I'm involved in the related category deletion !vote). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, per withdrawn nomination, and conversion to disambiguation page.Smallman12q (talk) 20:57, 14 September 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

London School Buses[edit]

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

I don't think a complete list of London school bus routes is encyclopedic. Mr. Quickling (talk) 16:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The nom has offered no valid reason to delete this encyclopedic list. I would understand a number of individual bus routes articles that can be merged into this one being an issue, but not the complete list. --Oakshade (talk) 19:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nominator is making the point that Wikipedia isn't a bus time table. Quite an accurate statement — it's quite a trivial topic that falls below our standards. Nyttend (talk) 21:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since when are we banning lists? Are we to delete List of bus routes in London?--Oakshade (talk) 22:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia is not for directories. Joe Chill (talk) 21:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are plenty of lists of bus routes in London which this article helps to support. This article does not just list stops on the journey it also includes contract information, vehicle information, etc. Both votes for delete only seem to support this because they are under the false illusion we do not include lists on WP. It seems to me that we love lists. Metty (talk) 23:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh really? Joe Chill (talk) 23:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - As Oakshade has pointed out, there is no valid reason given for deletion. This list came about as a result of AfDs on the individual route articles, which were merged into this single article as a result. No policy is broken here. Jeni ^(talk) 23:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a detailed timetable and Wikipedia is not a directory. This level of detail is like a daily programming schedule for a TV station. Edison (talk) 00:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin I think perhaps Edison was looking at the wrong article, as none of what this !vote states is actually applicable. Suggest ignoring this one. Jeni ^(talk) 11:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - Note to Jeni: Please read the article yourself. It talks about a 40 minute schedule change on Fridays, for instance, and gives far more than an encyclopedic amount of information about the routes and frequency of operation. I suggest not ignoring my input, thank you very much. Edison (talk) 18:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - So just because you don't think that the information in a single* entry in a list of ~65 entries is encyclopaedic you think the entire list should be deleted!? The words "sledgehammer" and "nut" come to mind. I'd think that a more appropriate course of action would be to either be WP:BOLD and remove it or highlight it as an issue on the talk page so a consensus of editors could be achieved.
      *I say single, because this entry (the 616) is one of only two that continue the word "minute" (no entry contains "minutes") and the other (the 603) uses it in the context of the direct service being in contrast to a 10 minute walk. The 603 is also the only entry to use the word "hour" or "hours", "a day" is used only in one entry and "per day" is used in the introduction and two entries. "journeys" is used in the lead, and in the infobox for four routes (out of ~65 remember) and never in the prose about a route; the word "interval" is not used in the article at all. Given all these facts I find your assertion that it is a detailed timetable exceedingly difficult to believe credible. Regarding WP:NOTDIRECTORY, I cannot find a single criteria there that applies to this article, so again I am not completely convinced you are reading the same article I am. Thryduulf (talk) 22:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - The typical directory entry in this list details 20 or thirty geographic points covered in the bus's route. How many students does it pick up/drop off at each one? Should I detail where County School Bus 22 stopped and who got on at each stop when I rode it to elementary school? Notability has no time limit, so every school bus itinerary in history is just as notable. It is trivial directory information that should be posted for the bus drivers and the students, but has no encyclopedic value for a worldwide readership. And yes, I am reading the same article you are. But I have read WP:NOT and WP:N. Edison (talk) 04:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Edison. Str8cash (talk) 00:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Edison. Bus routes and schedules are not appropriate for Wikipedia. If you want to know the route of a bus, you should go to the bus company's web site. Relying on Wikipedia is likely to result in people waiting in the sun or the rain at the wrong location or wrong time of day because our article was inaccurate or has been vandalized. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bus routes are appropriate subjects, their detailed schedules are not. How much detail of the routes should be included is debateable. The practice of combining articles in a combination one , and then deleting the combination one, strike me here as evasive and dishonest. It's an attempt to bring about a deletion for which there would not have been consensus for in the first place,. The merge was expected to be an honest merge, not a way station towards deletion. It was merge, not merge, then delete. DGG ( talk ) 06:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, it was me that nominated the original individual articles for deletion, the person who has started this nomination is some fairly new user with a dodgy editing background, and I doubt we'll see him again tbh. Stinks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT Jeni ^(talk) 11:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the articles with the original routes--and I'm glad we agree over this nom as well--now it is to be seem whether this nom as any sympathy, for there seems to some people with a similarly biazrre views about content, a view which has now been expressed over a range of subjects. Perhaps we need to explicitly limit the scope of NOT DIRECTORY. DGG ( talk ) 15:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an encyclopaedic list of bus routes, with additional information beyond simply the route. I've only looked at a random sample of the entries, but none contained timetable information, all contained the franchise details and many contained history about the route - none of which would be included in a travel directory. The TOC needs improving, and some of the routes need more information regarding history, but this is not something that should cause it to be deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 07:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and that would go for almost any bus route article. The problem with a bus route article is that the information is ephemeral: the designation, schedule, route and operator can change quickly and without much of a reason. They are not notable in the way a subway line is because it doesn't have a fixed infrastructure.Cmprince (talk) 14:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

in my part of the world, bus routes remain stable with changes measured in years, not in weeks. The busses I took to school years ago still run about the same way now, and with the same numbering--and, I am told, the same problems. From the articles, London seems almost as stable. The schedules themselves vary from season to season; at present there are no schedules in this article, for I removed the last one just now. Wikipedia can cope with changes over as period of years--almost ll of our topics overall have changes at that frequency. DGG ( talk ) 15:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, WP:IKNOWIT. Str8cash (talk) 20:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The London Bus network is very stable. Everything is controlled by London Buses, and very few changes are made. Tenders are renewed every five years, but operators can run a route for seven years if they perform well. Any route change has to go through a large consultation period. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 10:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that tube/"subway" articles are relevant because of their infrastructure, more because of what they do - moving huge amounts of people about every day. In this way, buses are just as relevant, so not "and that would go for almost any bus route article". Buses in London carry more people than the tube every day. And as for infrastructure, what about bus shelters, bus stop signs, bus lanes, raised kerbs, bus stations, the iBus system... Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 10:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: These routes aren't notable on their own. We have recognised this, and merged them into one. Now someone had bowled up and nominated the merged article for deletion, which doesn't seem right. Especially when thousands of school children are using these buses everyday. Also agree with what Oakshade has said. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 10:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- In the past I have had grave doubts as to the value of articles on bus routes in WP, on the grounds that they change from time to time and we cannot guarantee maintenance. However, I think the level of detail here is appropriate. Furthermore to delete routes 600-99, but keep other series would be inconsistent. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:53, 15 September 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 13:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Croatian Airplay Chart[edit]

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

After discussion at WT:WikiProject Croatia and with a Croatian editor, Sveroh (see this and this), I've come to the conclusion that the reason this article isn't sourced is because the described chart doesn't exist. There are some individual station charts that approximate the description, but none of those warrants the title "Croatian Airplay Chart." It's not clear to me if the HR20 chart is an official chart or not, but even if it is, it probably isn't suitable for an article in English Wikipedia, as it documents only Croatian language singles.—Kww(talk) 16:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I have posted notice of this AFD here in an effort to make sure that some editors that are likely to be able to deal with Croatian sources comfortably contribute to this discussion.—Kww(talk) 16:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. —GregorB (talk) 16:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per WikiProject Croatia talk page discussion. It is unclear to what chart this article is supposed to refer. GregorB (talk) 16:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, delete --SveroH (talk) 12:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is two statements, neither of which have been verified and are possibly false, per nom. If this is real and a verifiable article is created, I wouldn't have a problem keeping it. Cmprince (talk) 14:00, 10 September 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. basically for WP:PRODUCT, WP:NOT and basically no content other then that list JForget 13:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nokia BL-5B[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and this item is a parts catalog entry more suitable for an on-line shopping guide. Wtshymanski (talk) 17:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it is a (non-exploding) cell phone battery. Abductive (reasoning) 19:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this battery. Joe Chill (talk) 22:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I don't see any potential for abuse here, and a number of these batteries are appropriately sourced; I might hold out that this one would be too. Not strongly opposed to deletion, but I wouldn't mind giving this some leeway. Shadowjams (talk) 08:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And the potential for making Wikipedia into a parts catalog? Abductive (reasoning) 09:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that's fair. Like I said, I'm a weak keep, willing to wait on this one, which is an "argument" that gets thrown around on lots of AfDs, yet only in cloaked terms. Perhaps my approach to AfD is nuanced, but well written/small stubs that have limited aspirations are less problematic than Teh World's Most Awesome Cumpany/Band style articles. I'm not a blowhard on these issues. Shadowjams (talk) 09:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are some million people using it.Jack007 (talk) 09:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep coz there is no valid reason in deleting it The drunken guy (talk) 15:59, 9 September 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 15:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Indeed, it's not a parts catalog. Here's an opportunistic question: can this article be brough up to decent, say, B-class status? No. An article on Nokia 3210 (a bestselling, perhaps seminal cellphone from '99) can be brought up to fairly decent level because there is plenty of sources. An article on a Nokia battery will remain unsourced simply because there are no public and independent sources. It's not much different from a generic AA battery sold under your local supermarket brand. NVO (talk) 17:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - These kind of articles are very useful in Wikipedia. Vexorg (talk) 18:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it useful? The entire article is just a list of the phones it fit in. And it gets single digit daily page views, so people aren't using it much. Abductive (reasoning) 18:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a directory, nor is it a parts catalog. Should there be an article on every fastener in the parts bin? 1/2 inch zinc coated flat washer makes as much sense in an encyclopedia as this article. Also lacks multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage, so fails notability. Edison (talk) 00:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per JoeChill and no significant coverage. Clubmarx (talk) 01:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is no article here. If someone want a list of compatible phones they can go to the Nokia website. Is there a Wikipedia is not a warehouse for technical specifications in WP:NOT?--RDBury (talk) 04:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PRODUCT. Location (talk) 06:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JoeChill, Edison and Location. Cmprince (talk) 13:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PRODUCT, it's a battery, not even a phone. If this battery had done anything during it's existance besides running a phone, it might be a different story, but it just doesn't hold enough power to keep this article going. AP1787 (talk) 21:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment - even though some people might get a charge out of this, I find it leaves me flat. I agree that this article can be discharged. I'd be LIon if I said there was any voltage behind more articles of this type. --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:18, 11 September 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. As far as I can tell, the main arguments for keeping the article—the existance of "reliable sources"—were refuted. Indeed, many of the sources provided are unreliable blogs. Given this, consensus seems to indicate that the subject is not sufficiently notable. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IntelBuilder[edit]

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

Unremarkable content management system. References are reprints of press releases. Prod tag removed by article creator, who has a conflict of interest. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Few notable sources, if any (certainly not on Google News or on the first ten pages of Google hits; all are press releases). Sadly, this seems to be an example of how not to do PR. "Awards" in article appear to just be organizations that have some affiliation with the program/company. -->David Shankbone 14:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable product from the "content management" spam farm. The "awards" are pretty much limited to the industry, if they even have any significance there. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Jujutacular ^talk_contribs 15:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Coverage by reliable sources here, here, here and here. Heavy pickup in online media Yahoo News, Scottrade and Zacks Agassan (talk) 15:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IntelBuilder Content Management System is successfully used by US Public School System (Broward County Public Schools) here and here. World Market Media is a Social Media Investment Community is successfully using IntelBuilder here and here. Keep AfD Agassan (talk) 16:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those aren't reliable sources, they are aspects of websites that regurgitate PR releases. We are very familiar with them, and how they operate, and they don't pass WP:RS. Sorry. If the company has a great product, it will eventually be covered by independent sources. -->David Shankbone 16:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 15:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review. (talk) 16:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep, IntelBuider Content Management System is successfully used by US Public School System (Broward County Public Schools) here and here. World Market Media is a Social Media Investment Community is successfully using IntelBuilder here and here. Keep AfD Agassan (talk) 16:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't duplicate your votes. -->David Shankbone 16:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite apart from the striking out of Agassan's comment as a duplicate "vote",it is worth considering the nature of the links Agassan gives there. The first one is a link to a Google search for "www.mycommunityschool.com". It is not clear to me what the relevance of this is. At least the first 40 hits do not mention IntelBuilder in their summaries, and if somewhere among them is a page which does mention it then it would surely be more helpful to give a link to that page. The second and fourth links are simply web pages which use IntelBuilder for logins, not coverage of IntelBuilder in independent sources, reliable or otherwise. The third link is to a page with a brief paragraph about IntelBuilder and a link to its website. This page is on a website which describes itself as "a compelling marketing and distribution channel for ... their listed companies" [21]: in other words what we are given is a link to an advertisement for IntelBuilder. What is more, all four of them appear to be duplicates of links given already, further up this page: evidently it is not only votes that Agassan duplicates. Other links given by Agassan include pages saying things like "LLC is proud to announce that IntelBuilder Social Media Platform...", i.e. promotional press releases from the company. At least two of the pages linked actually use the word "ads" in their headings. In short, not a single one of them constitutes significant independent coverage, and most are neither significant nor independent. In fact, Agassan has persuaded me that this is not notable: if this is the best that can be done by someone who has evidently put some time and effort into looking for evidence to support "keep", then there can't be much notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:25, 9 September 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 13:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Triad C64[edit]

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

This article has been nominated for deletion before, but the article remains unimproved, with unverified original research. In addition to the questionable nature of the article, the notability is a little on the weak side. Medic007 (talk) 14:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Piracy-related deletion discussions. —Medic007 (talk) 14:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. At the first AFD many claimed it was notable because they'd heard of it themselves (see WP:ITEXISTS and WP:IKNOWIT), but the fact remains that there aren't any independent reliable sources which discuss Triad C64 - at least not on the first few pages of a Google search. Una Laguna^Talk 15:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this group. Joe Chill (talk) 21:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments --Teancum (talk) 14:16, 13 September 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. decision is unmistakable-- SNOW delete DGG ( talk ) 06:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Law of Tanglo[edit]

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

non notable "law", being promoted by its creator WuhWuzDat 14:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced neologism. WWGB (talk) 14:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not only does the article give no sources, but Google gives no hits outside Wikipedia for either "Tanglo's Law" or "Law of Tanglo". JamesBWatson (talk) 14:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion that this law is known on a significant level under this name. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sweet Jesus, what baloney. If I knew any Norwegian racial epithets, I would use them here, but then I would violate Tanglo's Law, so I guess its for the best that I don't. I did look for sources and found none.--Milowent (talk) 18:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete as WP:MADEUP. Cnilep (talk) 19:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everybody above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JForget 13:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Francisco Fuentes[edit]

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

Political candidate and recent murder victim. Not notable per Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts)#Victims and WP:BIO. Evil saltine (talk) 14:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unremarkable political candidate, not notable. Also, WP:NOT#NEWS. WWGB (talk) 14:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Political candidate, not member of subnational legislature, or even a politician. Star Garnet (talk) 03:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF criterion 6 as a university rector. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per phil bridger.--Judo112 (talk) 20:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to pass WP:PROF per Phil Bridger. Location (talk) 00:09, 13 September 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Crookes[edit]

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

non-notable band, nothing released yet, "debut single" not due out for 5 days, violates WP:CRYSTAL WuhWuzDat 13:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, easily passes WP:MUSIC. WP:CRYSTAL falls down when we have enough information to write an article, which we do. Coverage by reliable sources here, here and here, two found via google and one actually linked in the article. This band easily passes WP:MUSIC, and the AfD should be snow kept. Ironholds (talk) 13:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'd say the attention from NME and 6Music between them is enough. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage by BBC and NME meets the bar (albeit just barely) of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Yilloslime ^T_C 21:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:MUSICBIO#C1. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:36, 9 September 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) 06:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Crean (priest)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. He jumped on a bandwagon and wrote a book, but there is no evidence of any coverage of either author or book in reliable external sources. Fails WP:BIO; maybe also WP:AUTOBIO; and see WP:RESUME SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 13:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 09:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Since the subject is only potentially notable for authorship of a single book, the article falls exclusively under the scope of WP:AUTHOR. There is no evidence that this book has, by itself, been the subject of multiple independent reviews in periodicals (news search). Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent sources given, and none found: every single Google hit I looked at was plugging Crean or his book. It comes nowhere near satisfying either WP:BIO or the general notability guidelines. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while he and his book may become notable, they are not yet so. Bearian (talk) 17:51, 10 September 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 List of Governors of Delaware. Cirt (talk) 06:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Governors from Delaware[edit]

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

This is a slightly modified version of List of Governors of Delaware. The creator of this article has a history of creating duplicate articles non-standard naming conventions or formating. He has been warned and reverted multiple times. The content of this article is actually quite good, but the changes should have been made to the originl article rather than creating a duplicate. DCmacnut <> 13:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a slight improvement (and return to) the first development of the former way and considerable improvement to the current version. It also keeps a consistent development to other senator & representative improved...much easier for the reader. It can replay to current issue or remain in duplication if the earier is so current stilltim (talk) 13:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator I have merged your improvements into the correct article List of Governors of Delaware. That is the appropriate place for those improvements, not a duplicate article.DCmacnut <> 13:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously. -Rrius (talk) 14:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly a speedy. I guess I was expecting something scholarly, tracing every native of Delaware who ever went on to become a Governor of another state or territory. Since this appears to be the same 73 people mentioned on the list that it duplicated, how do we know that all these guys really were from Delaware? Isn't it possible that the current Governor was actually born in Kenya and then there was a fake birth certificate saying that he's from Delaware? That notwithstanding, one's own special version of an article will always exist in the article history. One shouldn't create one's own copy of a 40 KB article for personal reasons. Mandsford (talk) 14:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos Mandsford. Your point hadn't occurred to me, but you are very right. List of Governors from Delaware does suggest an article covering every governor who originated from Delaware, regardless of whether they served Delaware as governor or not. HonouraryMix (talk) 14:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Governors of Delaware Wikipedia now has two articles covering the same thing. We can't have that, for obvious reasons. One has to go, and I believe we should keep List of Governors of Delaware because it employs the standard title style. stilltim, no-one is arguing you can't advocate a change to the title of articles. However, the current title style used for list of governor articles has been established by community consensus, and you should therefore seek community consensus before you change the title style. HonouraryMix (talk) 14:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and please someone find a way of sanctioning Stilltim for thinking Wikipedia is his own personal playground. This nonsense has gone on far too long. Unilateral mass moves to nonsensical names, copy-pastes of old article versions to new places just because he's bitter that the old format is no longer accepted, creations and defenses of alphabetical listings (and when it was up for deletion, claimed there were far more important things to worry about, why are we removing this 'useful' article? The existence of categories having been lost on him), and worst of all, repeating the offenses. This nonsense is getting worse, I simply cannot comprehend how Tim thinks these are good ideas. Sigh. I guess a second RFC is in order. --Golbez (talk) 16:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, this needs speedying, as it violates the GFDL - it's a copypaste from the article's history. --Golbez (talk) 16:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment for more evidence on why this user needs to be sanctions, he created a duplicate Category:Governors from Delaware to go with his duplicate article. I have nominated that new category for deletion.DCmacnut<> 16:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I speedied it before I saw your CfD. --Golbez (talk) 16:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for obvious reasons. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and recreate as redirect; there's no reason to have separate articles, but this is a likely redirect. Moreover, Mandsford has a good point — this is quite an encyclopedic topic. Nyttend (talk) 21:13, 9 September 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) 06:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Color Morale[edit]

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

Well-presented article, but not (yet) a notable band. The article was posted by the band's promotion agency, see here. That isn't itself a reason for deletion, but it makes us look hard at the claims of notability: they have opened for notable bands, have just released their first album, and later in the year will go on tour as a supporting act. This is promising but does not yet meet the notability standard of WP:MUSICBIO. JohnCD (talk) 13:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage to merit inclusion at this point. Smartse (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The band just doesn't seem notable right now, they're on a small label and haven't charted or have any media coverage. The best of luck to them but the way to get promotion isn't in Wikipedia. -- Atama頭 18:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: in fact I would say speedy delete. There is no indication in the article of notability, and none found by searching. Speedy delete tag was removed apparently because of a claim that they will be part of someone else's tour as a supporting act; I don't see this as a claim of significance. Even if I am wrong about that, there is still no evidence for substantial independent coverage. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nominator - WP:CSD#A7 is a lower standard than WP:BAND, and some people expressed the view that there was enough assertion of importance in the article to lift it out of A7 territory. I'm not sure I agree, but the article sat with a db tag on it for more than 20 hours, during which time several admins must have looked at it and decided not to speedy it, though they were evidently doubtful enough not to decline the speedy. Evidently a borderline case. JohnCD (talk) 19:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the reasons above. The point about tours is I assume they should be the headliners, not supporting acts since presumably they would not have a national tour themselves. Clubmarx (talk) 00:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not yet notable. I was one of several who tagged this for speedy, only to have the original editor remove the speedy notice repeatedly. (He's spamming, too.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – db tag keeps getting removed by an anonymous user but no one ever adds any sources, probably because there aren't any. Rees11 (talk) 01:55, 14 September 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 Nordic aliens. Cirt (talk) 06:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Space Brothers[edit]

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

Most of the text in this article is un-sourced original research. One reference is used to support the term "Space Brothers" but any valid sources could be easily merged into Contactee where the alternative terminology for ET could be a one-line mention. The term is in practice rarely used and does not warrant a Wikipedia entry in its own right. The handful of valid matches in Google News invariably use the term in quotation marks, in relation to fiction and look suspiciously circular. Ash (talk) 13:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Nordic aliens article, which appears to cover exactly the same subject matter and provides reliable references. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 14:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, agree with above. -- œ ^™ 17:54, 12 September 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) Erik9 (talk) 02:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quizbowl[edit]

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

Can never be cited; meandering, unorganizable collection of original research; same reason that National Academic Championship was deleted Bullofconfusion (talk) 12:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elaboration on deletion nomination[edit]

The Quizbowl page is an agglutination of WP:OR about various wholly unrelated interscholastic competitions, Lithuanian game shows, and other things that fall vaguely under the rubric of "quizbowl." Despite being nearly ten thousand words long and having a missing citations notice placed at the top of the page nearly two years ago, the page has all of four citations, exactly one of which leads to a source that has anything whatsoever to do with the claim being cited. Previously, it was decided to delete the National Academic Championship page because of the following rationale found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/National_Academic_Championship :

"I have worked with this article on and off for a few months. There are really no reliable sources to cover this article. The article has been greatly pared down, until an an editor asked why it existed in the absence of reliable sources. Searches turned up blogs, message boards, and the company's rather biased home page. Article was deprodded."

The same situation applies to any quizbowl-related topic, and this particular article is already becoming a battleground with rampant WP:COI violations. Since, given the paucity of unbiased sources, it is impossible to ever make this article meet the WP:RS policy, or even make it readable, Wikipedia policy dictates that we must delete it. Bullofconfusion (talk) 12:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion. I am on my high school quizbowl team (in Kansas), and could easily source that section by borrowing a copy of the Kansas Scholar's Bowl rulebook. I'm sure that other editors could do the same with the other sections. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 14:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I was the nominator of the National Academic Championship's deletion. I spent 3-4 months searching for sources ... I even looked in the archives of the Chicago Sun-Times (the tournament routinely used Chicago as a host city), and could find no articles directly addressing the NAC (I found some articles noting winners, but that does not meet WP:V). There are sources for quizbowl out there. I will admit that the article is not well written, and could use sourcing and cleanup, but there are sources, and it could be cleaned up. As I recall, Ken Jennings wrote a book that addressed quizbowl and its community (just for starters) ... I note that the nominator of this article has only been with wikipedia briefly under this user name; could there be an elaboration on how long a search for sourcing has been ongoing, because I am a bit concerned that my words are being twisted to support a deletion that it should not? Is an article becoming a battleground for COI a reason to delete? Protect, delete unreferenced material ... sure ... but delete ... no. LonelyBeacon (talk) 14:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: New York Times article on quizbowl - from google search LonelyBeacon (talk) 15:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: here's another LonelyBeacon (talk) 15:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: and another ... The point: with minimal effort and limited time, I found three newspaper articles directly focusing on quizbowl ... and there's at leat one book (noted above). I think that demonstrates the existence of reliable sources which meets WP:RS and WP:V.LonelyBeacon (talk) 15:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Could the article be shortened and deleted? Surely. But quizbowls are part of the fabric of geek culture (and i mean that in the fondest sense) for high schools and college students, in at least the U.S. (and apparently elsewhere too).--Milowent (talk) 15:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added a short history section at the beginning of the article which could use expansion. Articles like Baseball and Tennis also start out with history sections, and I think a similar section here which gives some social context would be useful, before delving into the huge sections on gameplay and rule variations.--Milowent (talk) 16:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While not wholly relevent to the discussion, we have been trying to figure out why Bullofconfusion does not seem to exist in the user creation logs ... it seems this editor came into existence today, and has as quickly vanished??? LonelyBeacon (talk) 17:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't know how creation logs work, but clearly Bullofconfusion is familiar with the workings of wikipedia, and so likely has edited under another account in the past, I would guess. I see he accuses Mensa1960 of violating WP:COI here among his few edits. If his whole purpose was to nominate this article for deletion, he really should have chosen BOWLofconfusion for his username for maximum comedic effect. To me the relevance of these facts is that its potentially a bad faith AFD. This article is going to be kept, and hopefully will be improved, so can we close the AFD now?--Milowent (talk) 17:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I traced the account back, having found the log, and it seems that Bullofconfusion (talk · contribs · logs) was a new user account created by Numberwangchung (talk · contribs · logs), which was created on August 10, 2009 and has all of 3 edits. For someone with only a total of 10 (3+7) contributions, they seem to be disproportionately well versed in wikipedia policy...especially being on wikipedia only a month.Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 21:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vehemently Strong Speedy Keep While the National Academic Championship itself is hardly notable, Quiz bowl as a whole is very notable. That is completely off-topic to compare the entire game of Quiz bowl to the article on a single company that hosts a tournament. The article clearly needs work, and I have previously pared some down to reduce the OR, but that is bullshit to claim that there are no sources and that it can't even be readable! Every single interscholastic competition and Lithuanian game show (what, are you asserting that being Lithuanian makes it marginal?) on the page is quizbowl, not just something that falls vaguely into it just because there are no world-wide rules. Many, many states, countries and organizations have Quiz bowl authorities even though each one is a little different. The fact that there are scores of televised quiz bowl programs are on television provides notability. Although the article does not currently have many references, over a million exist. Ken Jennings wrote an entire book on Quiz bowl, its players, its questions, its history, and similar competitions. Some contributors may have a COI, but we delete that, not the entire article! Reywas92 ^Talk 20:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what I've done to justify everyone on this page not assuming good faith. I've laid out my reasons for why I think the quizbowl page should be deleted in accordance with the Wikipedia process. If the decision is to keep it, I will happily abide by that ruling. Considering that so many quizbowl-related articles are maintained as advertising fiefdoms by the companies that they describe, and trying to get a WP:COI complaint through over this fact is regularly denounced as the equivalent of stalking the editors, I find it an inappropriate double standard for my tenure on Wikipedia to be brought up in an ad-hominem way. I have presented an argument for deleting the article than can stand or fall on its merits, and I hope everyone else can respect policy and not attribute all sorts of motives to me that are neither true nor relevant. Bullofconfusion (talk) 22:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trying to bite you, it's just not every day you see a month-old editor starting AfD's and talking about COI...apologies if you were offended. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 22:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not sure that it was necessarily a bad-faith nomination ... there are some serious problem with the article, and the editor may have thought (s)he was acting appropriately, but the circumstances are certainly a bit out of the ordinary, and I think it would be natural to raise some questions and check some things out. In any case, I think the drifts have reached waist high, and it may be time to close things down. (edit conflicted) LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, what bollocks, Bullofconfucius! In your nomination explanation you wrote "Since, given the paucity of unbiased sources, it is impossible to ever make this article meet the WP:RS policy, or even make it readable, Wikipedia policy dictates that we must delete it." DICTATES! IMPOSSIBLE! Haha, don't distance yourself from your own good humour! In mere minutes, unbiased sources about quizbowls were found easily today from little rags like the NY Times and Boston Globe. The AfD will ultimately be judged on its merits, of which there are none for deletion. For improvement, and perhaps deletion of biased statements, yes yes yes. (Lonelybeacon appears to have done some nice work recently) For deletion, no. no. no.--Milowent (talk) 01:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: db-g11;WP:COI; WP:NOR I could go on . . .Strongly support arguments of Bullofconfusion. It doesn't take any long familiarity with Wikipedia editing to determine that this page violates numerous policies. Just read through the objections to his deletion notice. Lovely language.WP:Civility

Mensa1960 is hardly the only one with a WP:COI issue. Most of the article has been created by persons who represent various providers of Quiz Bowl questions or tournaments, whether they work for the company directly or just espouse a particular faction's point of view. As a result, the page violates the Wikipedia NPOV standard. Edits that attempt to remove blatantly biased material are routinely re-edited. It also lacks historical perspective on the development of Quiz Bowl and makes assertions that are contrary to fact or unverifiable. Contains original thought as to what constitutes "good" or "standard" formats for questions, competitions, etc., when there is (and can be) no consensus on these issues. Thousands of quiz bowl matches are played each year in dozens of formats. Any claims of superiority are a matter of opinion. Page also violates the "what Wikipedia is not" standards in that it is (2.3) a soapbox (primarily for groups of individuals associated with various Quiz Bowl companies or associations) and (2.9) an unorganized collection of information. It also has the potential to become a battleground. Because of their biases, certain contributors use these pages to pay back grudges, import personal conflicts, nurture hatred and attempt to drive competitors out of business. In fairness, all related pages should be deleted - especially the pages on the various companies. Then all the companies can go back to their fiefdoms and wage war outside of the Wikipedia domain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ObjectiveThinker (talk • contribs) 23:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Congratulations to ObjectiveThinker. The above edit was their first edit on Wikipedia. I will leave the standard welcome mat on their talk page. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, does anyone else find new accounts randomly popping up with knowledge of AfD, COI, NOR, and other policies slightly out of the ordinary? Or is this more common than I think? Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 02:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty common actually. -- Atama頭 00:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Query: Goodness knows some of the accusations flying here could be easily believed, but I went to the article and I am having problems finding evidence of the accusations being made against the article. Could any of the folks supporting deletion provide specific examples from the article as to bias, nurturing of hatred, and use of the article as a soapbox? LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Re objective thinker's comment: Who knew that quiz companies are so warlike!!! To the extent they try to edit content on wikipedia, are they that much different than any other industry? --Milowent (talk) 01:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Addition: To extent there is bias in the article, the way to deal with that is to whack unsourced parts. here is a Boston Globe piece on some of the rules that can also be integrated. --Milowent (talk) 02:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Responding to LonelyBeacon To understand how the article is being used as a soapbox, you would need to have some understanding of the various Quiz Bowl formats, companies, competitions and history. For anyone with that background, the bias is clear: e.g., Pyramid-style questions are preferred by "better" players (according to whom? - it's not as if there is an AP College Poll). Tossups are referred to as "buzzer beaters." Some teams, players, questions companies and tournament sponsors agree - and it appears that these are the main contributors to this article. Substantial numbers of others do not. For example, many televised competitions contain few pyramid-style questions because they slow the pace of the game. This article is written in such as way as to imply that there is a degree of standardization in Quiz Bowl that simply does not exist and probably never will. And I merely observed that it has the *potential* to become a battleground, much like the deleted article on the National Academic Championship. (If you want to see warlike, just Google a few of the companies mentioned in this article. As a retired teacher, I am apalled by the poor sportsmanship and general incivility. Honestly,you would think Quiz Bowl is run by soccer hooligans.)

Comment: Responding to MilowentYour Boston Globe piece explains the rules for college Quiz Bowl competitions. There is no standardization among high school tournaments. To cite any set of rules to the exclusion of others inserts bias.

Let's get some references in there then. I can't judge whether you are right or wrong on this point.--Milowent (talk) 04:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Responding to (TI have edited Wiki projects for school systems and have been involved with social networks since the days of message boards. Unlike Quiz Bowl, standards for objectivity and fair play are relatively standard across platforms.

Comment: I still believe that deletion is the wisest course of action. If retained, the article should be pared to basic *useful* facts, such as a listing of current and former competitions. Any discussion of formats, scoring, questions, etc. would have to be policed regularly to make sure that bias is not creeping back into the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ObjectiveThinker (talk • contribs) 03:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No way should this be getting deleted, ObjectiveThinker. Its a notable competitive game played in high school and colleges, even if the rules vary from place to place. There are a slew of articles in newspapers about quizbowl competitions. I think the Jonas Brothers needs much more policing that this, but we don't delete those articles because of vandals.--Milowent (talk) 04:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, the article needs improvement, but the topic is notable, and the article certainly isn't bad enough to warrant deletion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—just because the article has several major flaws doesn't mean it should be deleted. As others have pointed out, there are many reliable sources that can be used. The article should be rewritten, not deleted. RJaguar3 | u | t 06:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment don't know if this has already been mentioned, but Brainiac pp. 28-37 has a detailed description of quiz bowl. RJaguar3 | u | t 06:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that info. I was able to access most of that section of the book via Google Books and inserted a number of in-line citations based on it. Parts of this article go into such detail, it will be hard to find citations for details on the various formats of gameplay unless we have access to the rules of some of these organization - I suspect they are online, though. --Milowent (talk) 14:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KeepIf the numerous issues are corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mensa1960 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Per WP:SNOW, though I'm not inclined to do it. -- Atama頭 00:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - Well written, well sourced article. --AStanhope (talk) 18:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - If you delete our article, we will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomasse (talk • contribs) 22:35, 13 September 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. As pointed out in the discussion, being a serial killer does not make a subject inherently notable; given that most of the arguments for keeping the article seem to focus on this premise, I think it is reasonable to conclude that consensus is on the side of deletion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Arkwright[edit]

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

See WP:BLP1E. Wikipedia shouldn't be a publisher of true crime stories. This person has no historical significance that would merit an article, nor are there any truly biographical sources (that is, where he, rather than the one event he gained notoriety for, is the subject of the source). He committed a murder that was briefly the subject of news reports, and that is all. But Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Delete. Dominic·t 12:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Being a murderer, even one whose crime was serious enough to make it unlikely that he will ever be released, does not make him notable. JohnCD (talk) 13:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Killed four people, which makes him very unusual in Britain, where multiple killers are rare. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing turns up in a Google search of news (even in 1989) or books, indicating that he wasn't considered notable even when he was killing people. In fact, what few newspaper articles did come up were from another person with the same name. http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q="anthony+arkwright"&scoring=a&hl=en&ned=us&um=1&sa=N&sugg=d&as_ldate=1990&as_hdate=1999&lnav=hist10] "anthony+arkwright"&um=1&as_brr=0. Mandsford (talk) 18:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A regular murderer. Joe Chill (talk) 21:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article says he had the ambition to be as infamous as Jack the Ripper. By killing all victims in a short period, he frustrated the desire of tabloids for articles about an ongoing series of perplexing murders, not did he write taunting letters to the authorities. Thus a lack of books and secondary coverage. Also, no evidence of any enduring effect on society, beyond that if the 4 victims had been killed in a car wreck. Fails WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 00:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep in that I think serial killers (especially those in the UK [22]) are notable; however, I would acknowledge that he does appear to be your garden variety serial killer. Location (talk) 06:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that underscores the idea that multiple killers aren't really that rare in Britain, especially when there's a list of 35 living serial killers behind bars. I'm not aware of an inherent notability for killers -- maybe there should be one where you get an article after your 7th victim -- and this one doesn't seem to have attracted notice in the usual way. Mandsford (talk) 13:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er, have you actually read that list before commenting on it? A number of the people on it killed a single person and only ten could actually be defined as serial killers (note that a serial killer is not just somebody who kills more than once). Arkwright (who isn't a serial killer, by the way) is the only one on the list who appears to be a true spree killer (who tend to kill themselves at the end of their rampage). As I said, multiple killers are rare in Britain! As the only British spree killer currently serving a whole life sentence, is Arkwright really not notable? As usual, doing a Google search is an utter red herring - he was convicted before the internet. If he hasn't done anything notable while in prison then it's predictable that not a lot comes up on him. We do not, however, only document cases in the internet age. Try doing a Google search on any senior government official (for example) who lived before the internet. Nine times out of ten you'll find next to nothing on him too. Does that mean he's not notable? Of course it doesn't. Yet you'll find reams of information on complete nobodies who live now. Funny that! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing a government official to a murderer with no hint of notability that isn't one event? That reminds me of someone comparing Emmy award winners and murderers. Joe Chill (talk) 04:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please actually take time to read a post before you make an inaccurate comment about it! At no point did I compare anyone to anyone else. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Try doing a Google search on any senior government official (for example) who lived before the internet. Nine times out of ten you'll find next to nothing on him too. Does that mean he's not notable? Of course it doesn't." Joe Chill (talk) 19:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In what way was that a comparison? I was just making a point about the unreliability of Google searches for anyone who lived before the internet, even somebody (like a government official) with long and distinguished service. I was in no way saying that the notability of a murderer should be compared with that of an official. Google searches are overused in AfD debates in an attempt to "prove" notability or lack of it and this is a perfect example of how one is utterly irrelevant in this instance. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Location (talk) 04:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Necro is correct, I didn't actually read the list before commenting upon it. However, I think Google searches have become very reliable for pre-internet events. True, post-1995 gets more coverage on the web. However, Google News has improved to the point that it's an excellent repository for AP, UPI, Reuters, etc. articles for the second half of the 20th century at least. I consider it a good indicator as to whether something was notable at the time that it happened. Google Books, of course, is a good indicator as to whether something had "historic notability", since it shows whether an individual received mention years after they made the news. In both cases, I consider those to be more reliable than the Internet in general. While it's not perfect, I don't know of a better way that the average person can independently verify notability. Mandsford (talk) 16:31, 15 September 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.

Sticks card game[edit]

The result was speedy delete per author request. Jafeluv (talk) 17:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The first version of this was a short description with a link to a stickscardgame website, and I PRODded it partly as spam because I thought that site wanted to sell supplies. I was wrong, and apologise for that suspicion; the site only lists the rules and what you need to play. The article has been revised, without the link and with a detailed list of the rules. However, Wikipedia is not a game guide, and searches (click the "fiindsources" links above) do not find any indication that this game is notable. The qarchive and yahoo Ghits don't go anywhere. The document about it which can be downloaded from the website is dated 7 Sep 09, suggesting that it is a recent invention. JohnCD (talk) 11:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sticks card game page please. I created it and I do not want it up anymore. Please do a "speedy deletion" and delete the page. Dirtydevil13 (talk) 16:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Dirtydevil13Dirtydevil13 (talk) 16:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have tagged the page for CSD-G7, per his request. Until It Sleeps ^{Wake me} 17:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JForget 13:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Brown (YouTube)[edit]

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

Article does not assert notability. Making youtube videos is not worthy of note (in most cases) and an exact google search only come back with 57 hits (excluding repeats) which would be low for any biography, but for someone whose fame is on the internet it is exceptionally low. I have no problem with a small paragraph about his Rubik's cube method on that article but otherwise he fails to meet the bar. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well even if you think it is worth keeping the paragraph on Rubik's Cube, don't you have to keep an article to contain it? Or do you mean merge the paragraph elsewhere - in which case this would become a redirect, and would still have to be kept for attribution purposes. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A brief mention of his Rubik's cube video could go on the Rubik's cube page, there would not be a need for a redirect as the search would likely be for Rubik's cube, and Dan Brown goes to the author, so a mention could be on a disambiguation page, with a link to Rubik's cube. The bottom line is: the person is not notable, the video could be mentioned in passing at Rubik's cube, here. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The reason for the proposed deletion states, "Article does not assert notability. Making youtube videos is not worthy of note..." The subject has not just "made YouTube videos." He has also gotten a huge number of viewers, earned a lot money from it, and been covered by multiple reliable sources. The subject is notable. Also, deletion discussions are supposed to last for a week, but this discussion was closed after less than one hour. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By default any video on youtube will get viewers. The deletion discussion was opened and Ikip asked if I would be happy with a redirect, to which I agreed, but only on the grounds the article was not recreated. It has been so I stand by the nomination. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The so-called "discussion" to which you are referring was closed after less than one hour. Why are you against letting the discussion continue for a week so a consensus can be established? Grundle2600 (talk) 23:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep This seems to meet wikipedia standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.131.93 (talk) 20:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete dose not pass WP:N one or two articles in a news paper dose not make someone noteworthy to have a Wikipedia article. Above to Grundle2600 the deletion discussion being closed early was done by mistake by another editor obviously it has been reopened. Just because he has made a lot of money dose not make him notable you needed multiple reliable sources like you stated above but i do not see any but one news article.Kyle 1278 20:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since the findings of the sources stated below and on the article I believe now it passes the basic notability guideline. Kyle1278 20:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Any article can be changed and reformed to meet Wikipedia standards. Also, 100,000 subscribers, which he has passed recently, is definitely a significant feat and makes him notable. If having one of the (if not THE) most famous Rubik's Cube tutorials isn't enough, he has, as stated by Grundle2600, been covered in the news (I think I saw a CNN video somewhere), something that can often show a person is significant. --Kris18 (talk) 21:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An exact search gets 57 ghits, does that seem significant? As I said make a paragraph about him on the Rubik's cube page, and link to his videos, but he falls way below the GNG bar. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it gets 193,000 hits. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you click through to the end of the results, which means you subtract out duplicates, that search tops out at 648. When you're counting G-hits, always click through to the end. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even more actuallier, this means that there are 648 distinct hits in the first 1,000 results, and gives no indication of the actual total of distinct hits. Try a search for Microsoft or Wikipedia in Google, it will end at a few hundred results as well. Clicking through to the end of Google results is only useful when you have about 2,000 hits at the most, and only certain when you have 1,000 hits or less. (And I agree that Google count is not a good measure in this case, because of the many false positives). Fram (talk) 11:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. I didn't know that. Thank you. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An exact search gets you 55-57 once repeats are removed. Simply put "Dan Brown Youtube". At the top of this AfD click the search. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Putting everything in one set of quotes means that the search only returns webpages where "YouTube" comes directly after "Dan Brown." So if a source said "Dan Brown is very popular on YouTube," it would not appear in that search. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "Dan Brown YouTube" is not an exact phrase that's going to come up much. Put "Dan Brown" in quotes, and separate out the "YouTube" bit. That's how Google works. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with "Dan Brown" "Youtube" is that is get a lot of un-related youtube hits, and a lot of unrelated Dan Brown (the other guy) hits. And normally I don't place too much weight on Ghits, but this guy is famous for being on the internet, so if he only has a handful of Ghits then that is a problem. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's the problem with using Google to determine notability. Good thing we've got a Primary Notability Criterion, which says that "a topic is notable if it has received non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the topic itself." To verify that, you don't need any particular number of G-hits; you just need a few independent sources that document the guy in a non-trivial manner. -GTBacchus^(talk) 11:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kris18, it is manifestly not the case that "any article can be changed and reformed to meet Wikipedia standards. I love my pet ferret, President Fuzz, very much, but an article on her can not be saved. Hence, I bite my tongue, and I don't write it. And no, I'm not calling Dan Brown a ferret.

The word "notable", at Wikipedia, means in general one thing: "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the topic itself." For specific subject areas, there are more specific criteria, some of which are easier (in a sense) to meet, but nowhere on this project does notable mean "a significant feat", "famous", "important", "popular", "impressive", "n Google hits" (where n is any particular number) or "I think I saw a CNN video somewhere". -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I quit doing anything with Wikipedia a long time ago (until this problem came to my attention). Many Wikipedians are elitists at the highest level who have to get rid of anything they don't like. Yes, to make my point valid, I should have links like this: [23] (the fact he decided to upload it himself means nothing, it still happened.) I'll admit. I haven't read all of the guidelines (never planned to be number 1 contributor, just a little here and there), but this is a bit ridiculous. --Kris18 (talk) 20:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read all the guidelines? I make it a point to avoid them. However, I know that we went ahead and defined "notability" because it was an endless, pointless, directionless argument before, and having objective criteria is helpful. Do you think not? Should we scrap the verifiability policy, and the policy that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information? Where would you draw the line? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails all conceivably relevant inclusion criteria: WP:N, WP:ANYBIO, WP:ENTERTAINER, WP:CREATIVE, WP:WEB. As of now, no one opining "keep" has cited any policy or guideline upon which their opinion is based. L0b0t (talk) 23:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this article does meet the notability guideline. There is nothing in the notability guideline that prevent significant coverage in two reliable sources from establishing notability and I think the two articles [24] and [25] in the article now do this (eight months apart so not a single event coverage. This coverage has also been picked up elsewhere[26]. His win in the Youtube awards also gets coverage including internationally[27]. The article certainly needs cleaning up to remove a lot of original research but I think there is just enough here to write an article and meet the notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 16:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Darrenhusted, the editor who nominated the article for deletion, made this edit to the article, where he erased references from The Washington Post, MSNBC, Fox News, the St. Petersburg Times, and the Canadian CBC News. I don't think it's a good idea for the person who nominated the article for deletion to remove references in an attempt to make it look as if the subject of the article is not notable. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I knew who this was already, but wasn't 100% on notability until seeing that sufficient press coverage does exist. --Milowent (talk) 05:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - coverage in multiple reliable sources establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 13:11, 16 September 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) Erik9 (talk) 02:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Hamilton[edit]

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

BLP1E. Hamilton is not sufficiently notable to warrant an article. Wikipedia is a not a newspaper; there is no reason to immortalize this man due to limited and one-time reporting about him. Please delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 09:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Received considerable national media coverage in the UK because of its cross-border nature (both killer and victim lived in Northern Ireland, but the victim was returning from mass in the Republic of Ireland when she was abducted) and because Hamilton was a convicted rapist who had recently been released. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As well as the reporting at the time of the crime and trial there has been continuing coverage. A review of the relevant legislation took place as a result of the murder[28] and led to a change in the law[29], [30]. He was the first person to be sentenced to a whole life tariff in Northern Ireland.[31] and his appeal generated significant coverage.[32], [33],[34] This is not just a limited one time event but had a wider impact and merits an article. Davewild (talk) 18:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant coverage per the above. Location (talk) 00:32, 13 September 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) 06:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming English album (Ricky Martin album)[edit]

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

Today's (first) candidate for the HAMMER. No title, no track-list, no release date, nothing. Fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NALBUMS. JohnCD (talk) 09:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails every rule in the book, how many times do we have to stress that if it hasn't even got a name, it really doesn't warrant an article. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 10:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It really depends. If a tracklist is available and RS coverage is provided, then it warrents an article. My vote here is a mega delete. $TheWeak$ $Willed$ (T * G) 19:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But if something doesn't have a name how can it go in an encyclopedia? Any sourced coverage can be referred to in th artists article. Liking the mega-delete btw :-) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 10:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because sometime sourced coverage would take up too much space in artist's article, and would be notable enough for it's own article. Korn's ninth studio album has survived an AfD, and it still doesn't have a name. Mega Delete I came up with, stuff with strongly deleting, but not crappy enough to do it speedily. $TheWeak$ $Willed$ (T * G) 20:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete , STOP!!.......Hammer time. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 10:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I see it this article clearly fails WP:CRYSTAL. Any sourced information that is relevant shouldbe put into the parents article. Martin Raybourne (talk) 20:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, another for the WP:HAMMER because of no notability. Possibly speedy because of this entry that was deleted a week or two ago. talking birds 21:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hammer – nothing except that Martin is working on a new album to come out next year, nothing else currently. It wouldn't fall under speedy since G4 only pertains to pages deleted per established consensus at a deletion discussion rather than from a speedy deletion (the one you were talking about was speedy deleted for a copyvio). MuZemike 03:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:CRYSTAL. Rlendog (talk) 15:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. consensus on WP:N and some on WP:GNG JForget 13:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOLCODE[edit]

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

DELETE This is a wholly non-notable programming language, as evidenced by the heavy reliance upon primary sources and mounds of original research. JBsupreme (talk)

KEEP As a programmer, and lover of Lolcats, I'm partial to a bastard child of the two. More importantly, however, it is notable, if nothing else than because it's included in the .Net framework. There's something to be said about cleaning things up, however--this is very much a copy of the lolcode website. SithToby (talk) 08:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ILIKEIT much? Please base your argument on policy not your love for lolcats. Everyone loves lolcats. JBsupreme (talk) 07:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not my argument, that's my WP:CoI disclosure. My argument and observation follow that sentence. SithToby (talk) 18:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - I do actually believe it's notable. I point to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/LOLCODE where Gandalf61 said Featured at Microsft's TechED 2007 conference; implemented in Microsoft DLR; mentioned in Computer Department News at Lancaster University (home of creator) and on CNN (I have added sources to the article); and literally tens of thousands of Google hits. Obviously meets notability criteria. -- I am in full agreement. AlanI ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Article's sources show it easily meets the WP:GNG. Umbralcorax (talk) 13:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: None of the sited sourced look like they meet the notability guidelines. The most promising one is Chron.com, but that's a regional publication and it only mentions LOLCODE briefly at the end of an article on LolCat. I'd say merge with LolCat but that article already covers the subject sufficiently.--RDBury (talk) 03:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to lolcat. Significant in the context of the phenomenon, but apparently not on its own. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sourced and notable. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 99% of the sources cited are primary sources, and the other 1% barely mention the subject in passing. In what way is this subject "sourced and notable" as you claim? JBsupreme (talk) 19:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your understanding of the term "primary source" appears to be different from mine, and, more importantly, different from Wikipedia's definition. Gandalf61 (talk) 20:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Okay, I'll play along. Which of these sources meet the definition of "non-trivial coverage from a reliable third party publication" ? JBsupreme (talk) 17:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - You could read primary source to straighten out your misunderstanding. Gandalf61 (talk) 20:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this clearly meets WP:N. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I needed this information about a topic of some intellectual interest and endeavour by its creator who is a well known CS academic and found what I needed to know here on Wikipedia - that is or should be the prime purpose of the encyclopedia - to be honest I'm surprised and a little concerned it should be at risk of deletion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.78.145.155 (talk) 04:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems notable. Reference [1] is a third-party publication, which covers it in some detail. --Robin (talk) 14:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sourced and notable. Ghettoblaster (talk) 15:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not hugely notable but there is enough in sources to meet WP:GNG. Bridgeplayer (talk) 16:38, 14 September 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) 06:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Brownscombe[edit]

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

I fail to grasp the notability of this person. The title of FIDE master is not enough to confer notability. Having won 70,000 dollars at poker is not notable. Having worked 3 years as scholastic director is not notable. SyG (talk) 07:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't know much about notability in Chess circles, but although a search of FIDE didn't reveal anything, there were some references at United States Chess Federation: Karpov Chess School Names New Director; Lindsborg Boasts New State Chess Champ; Brownscombe Achieves 2009 Kansas State Chess Champion Title. There was also a mention in the New York Times Checkmate in Classrooms? It's Your Move, a lesser mention (2 sentences) in a Time article. There are other newspaper articles which mention him (see Google News Search, but as they are pay-per-view or subscription, I can't see them. There are a couple of minor mentions at Google Books search as well as mentions at Google Web Search. Altogether, it doesn't strike me as significant coverage - most of them are obviously either from Press releases, or a couple of sentences where he was interviewed in his capacity as Scholastic Director - none of them are particularly indepth about him and those that are seem to be press releases. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 08:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of notability. Bubba73 (talk), 15:51, 9 September 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) 06:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael C. Sulivan[edit]

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

Article is about a person who it would appear fails to meet the basic criteria for inclusion under WP:BIO, or indeed WP:N in general. There is nothing stated or implied in the account given of the subject's career in journalism to indicate any likelyhood of notability by that score. Otherwise, the subject is stated to be the author of two self-published books (cf. the publisher AuthorHouse). I am unable to find any indications that either has been "the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself", as the inclusion criteria per WP:BK states. No reviews, critiques, citations, or other appraisals, either of the works of the author, in any independent source. And as that guideline futher notes, "it should always weigh against an article's inclusion if the author or other interested party is the creator of the Wikipedia article", which appears to be the case here. The creation of this article triggers significant WP:YOURSELF concerns, it is hard to avoid the impression that there is a degree of (self-)promotional intent behind it. In the absence of any evidence supplied the article, or obtainable via the usual searches, that there are any notable independent sources that (a)validate the biographical info and (b)demonstrate notability, there seem to be no grounds for retaining an article here on either the author or his works. cjllw ʘ TALK 07:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable autobio/vanity page. 7 07:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Two self-published books, one in one WorldCat library only: that of his present place of residence, the other one not even that. Personally, I do not regard the assertion of a self published book necessarily a sufficient indication of possible importance to prevent speedy as A7. DGG ( talk ) 07:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 07:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC) .[reply]
Delete An author of two books which fail Wikipedia:Notability_(books) and who fails Wikipedia:Notability (people) himself. The fact that it is also seemly written by the author himself, with no references apart from his blog and one of the books is merely the cherry on top of the cake. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 07:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Incidently, if the article were to be kept, it would need to be moved to Michael C. Sullivan or Michael Sullivan (author). -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 07:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails our criteria as detailed by others above. I also agree with DGG, and probably would have speedy deleted it. Dougweller (talk) 08:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails it all. JBsupreme (talk) 08:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same justification as all above.Simonm223 (talk) 14:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per cjllw and Phantomsteve. Clubmarx (talk) 00:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Spam. Author's user page needs deleted as well. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 06:18, 10 September 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. Skomorokh 06:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slut Night[edit]

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

As explained in the good article reassessment page, there are no secondary sources that actually mention the topic of the article. Prezbo (talk) 07:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the references are to a non-reliable source, and if the remainder do not mention slut night, then this is basically an unreferenced article. A search didn't find significant coverage - it could be argued that a niche subject like this would not have much anyway, but as far as I am concerned, if no reliable sources can be found, it is too obscure to be worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Google News has no significant mention (most of the mentions are not about this article's practise) as there isn't on either Google Book Search or Google Scholar Search -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 08:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as slut night has yet to achieve encyclopedic notability, unfortunately. JBsupreme (talk) 08:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jeremy (talk) 10:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and point of order'. This is arguably the third AFD (see Talk Page). The second AFD has many votes for a well resourced article. As my city gears up for Slut Night very soon, I don't think this is really too obscure for inclusion. Niche, sure. But just because something appeals to a minority does not mean it can't be worthy of an encyclopedic article. "Sllut Night" is very much an understood "thing" in the lesbian community and the article seems to do a good job of explaining, in an encyclopedic way its origins, its place within LGBT culture, its importance in the butch and femme (way encyclopedic) dynamic. Scarykitty (talk) 12:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The earlier (first) AfD is here Geometry guy 22:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thinking the sources are very weak, it's fine to claim it's a well-accepted term but you'd never get that from the article and the sources presented, 5 7 of which are all of the same person giving their perceptive on it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete looking at the sources, many are just a cynical attempt at padding so that to the causal eye the core subject of the article is well-sourced - I cannot disagree with the assessment here or the claim that the article is really *unsourced* in terms of establishing this term has wider cultural impact. At present, it might be worth a couple of lines somewhere else. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this discussion is worth reading --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete the sources are very bad - essentially just the one website, which doesn't appear to be a reliable source in any sense. The curve magazine article MIGHT be a good source but it is a broken link (going back to the current contents) and the link immediately above says that it never even mentioned Slut Night. The book can't be accessed online so it's hard to judge what it says, but I'll just point out that the link immediately above suggests that there are COI problems with the article. Smallbones (talk) 14:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look for the curve article but am unable to find it, I'm not sure it's that important as the my reading of the article is that it's a source about the treatment of black lesbians rather than anything specific about slut nights. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I found the book online, it's simply used to source the def of 'genderfuck' and says nothing about Slut nights. The decent sources in this article are simply contextual and for background and say *nothing* about Slut night. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment LexisNexis has 3 trivial mentions that confirm the existence of "Slut Night" (one in Texas, one in Australia and one in Germany) but do not discuss the history, prevalence or cultural significance. It might be fair to stub the article pending reliable sources that discuss these areas. Thatcher 15:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - poorly sourced and seems more appropriate on Wiktionary than here. Half of the information on the page is clearly off topic and violates WP:COATRACK. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's be more appropriate on Urban Dictionary than Wiktionary. DreamGuy (talk) 21:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - more than half the citations are to articles on the Butch-Femme.com website; those articles by R. Drinkwater (a site founder) count as self-published, and the other articles by members of the community are arguably self-published too. Even if they weren't, it would be hard to qualify this site as reliable.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]

Weak delete - as someone LGBT myself, and living in the Bay Area, I've never heard of this term before. The sources in the article don't really check out. It needs a lot of work if it's to be a keeper, IMO - Alison ^❤ 20:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been living on borrowed time. Before the previous AfD it was a two paragraph stub, which was something between a place-marker and an advertisement. During the previous AfD (not the first, which is actually here) tremendous improvements were made (in one impressive edit). The AfD wasn't able to assimilate these improvements or realise that they did not add any reliable sources with third party coverage of the term. I checked all this when I closed the GA reassessment and was tempted to nom for AfD myself. However, I decided to tag the article to give it one last chance to demonstrate its encyclopedic value. That hasn't happened. Time is up, delete. Geometry guy 22:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Horribly badly sourced - six of the refs go to the same website, hardly useful for establishing notability, one goes to geocities and the remainder don't add up to WP:GNG. Ironholds (talk) 22:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to what I read here Slut Night is a creation of Butch-Femme.com, and all I could find giving any significant coverage was on Butch-Femme.com, i.e. not independent coverage. While I know that not all sources are available online, I doubt that Slut Night meets the notability criteria, and I'm very surprised that it passed a GA review. p.s. This is one of several articles edited by Benjiboi that have been nominated for deletion recently. Before anyone nominates further articles, note that hounding an editor can result in blocks. Fences&Windows 06:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt you'd get far with that line in this situation - it's almost a snow delete. Moreover, it's only natural that when someone is exposed as dishonest over a long period of time that their contributions are examined closely. I cannot see how you'd be able to make a hounding case in this situation. That would be liking saying the police shouldn't check to see if a mugger did not have other victims. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice myself arguing against deletion, my note about hounding was the general pattern that has emerged in the past week. Take a step back Cameron, please. Wikipedia doesn't need righteous zeal. Fences&Windows 09:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've got a problem with my recent conduct, you feel free to head over to AN/I. I've got no time for vague threats, so don't waste my time. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What vague threats? I'm asking you to back off, I'm not waving a banhammer. Fences&Windows 19:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record I'd like to say that I had never heard of Benjiboi before coming across this article and am not "hounding" him. I understand there's some kind of drama going on currently but I wasn't aware of that when I nominated this article.Prezbo (talk) 04:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What makes a website a reliable source?" I agree with the comment above that butch-femme.com is a reliable source in its own right and it does not exist for the promotion of Slut night. It is an active, vibrant online meeting place for this notable subculture. One section of their forum has more than 1 million posts. It includes a resource list with a guide to domestic violence, a legal guide, and a reading list [35]. I wonder if you went through every book on the reading list what you would find? I haven't seen anyone cite the guidelines for what makes a web-site a reliable or not reliable source (I don't know). It seems this article's fate turns on this question and criteria, and there have been innuendo that the site exists to promote Slut Night, yet this is simply not the case, which I know from my personal knowledge of friends who use the site as often as anyone else uses Facebook, but also from common sense by viewing the site and observing the incredibly high volume of activity and the extensive, non Slut Night related resources.

Also, Guess what a bunch of women interested in butch and femme dynamics are doing tonight in DC? Slut Night in DC at the notable bar Phase 1. [36] [37] Maybe there will be a write up about it or photos from it in the Washington Blade or Metro Weekly or maybe they'll ignore it especially as the latter is very focused on the gay male scene with occasional nods to what the gals are up to. See systemic bias. Scarykitty (talk)

You might read WP:RS to more fully answer your question, but to put it in front of unbiased eyes I ask about Butch-femme at WP:RSN. Smallbones (talk) 20:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reliability of a source is not an absolute, but depends on what the source is being used for. In this case the key issue is not the reliability of butch-femme.com (although that is in question), but the fact that there is no other coverage of Slut Nights in reliable secondary sources: almost all of the article is sourced to butch-femme.com, and this site helps to organize the events it describes. We can only have an article on something, whether it exists or not, if there is third party coverage in reliable sources. Providing such sources, rather than anecdotes or systematic bias claims, is the best chance to save this article from deletion. Geometry guy 21:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks independent, reliable and non-trivial coverage demonstrating notability as a topic. DreamGuy (talk) 21:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Butch and femme for now. Fences and windows pointed out to me frm one of the articles - We conduct Butch-Femme socials here in the San Francisco and Oakland area about once a month. Most of our members are from Butch-Femme.com. At one of our socials, - to me this suggests slut night were born out of butch femme social events, not started by but instead promoted by Butchfemme.com. Based on this I think merging to Butch and femme or even moving to Butch-Femme.com might make more sense and rework the material based on wherever it goes. IMHO WP:CSB plays a significant role here, butch and femme women are not well represented or even acknowledged in mainstream media, for whatever reason. I don't expect to find mainstream reports on their main social nights although some likely do exist. No one is disputing any of this information is true just the significance/notability; as the best known social organizing event of butches and femmes this would certainly be acceptable information in that article. As an alternative Butch-Femme.com might be another option although I would simply incorporate everything into the main parent article, Butch and femme, instead. -- Banjeboi 21:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minor comment - I think the issue with respect to the sources is as much verifiability as notability. Everything said in the butch-femme articles might be true, but some at least are written by one of the site's founders, and are thus self-published. Since anyone can start a website and publish whatever claims they like, WP is rightly reluctant base verifiability on self-published sources.KD Tries Again (talk) 23:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]

Delete - this looks like a poorly sourced advert. - Schrandit (talk) 12:07, 12 September 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.

AfDs for this article:

Pullad[edit]

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

There is a clear lack of available reliable sources. It was created as a content fork of Kumbanad originally, but I have no comment on what relevance it may have here. Poor quality of prose may be relevant though. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC) Withdrawn; SpacemanSpiff has taken care of it - hopefully he can keep an eye on the article also. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 05:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a verifiable place, it's a keep; fits well within our five pillars. And all that had to be done to get back to a clean stub was to revert to this revision when the last AfD closed. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 06:00, 9 September 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 without prejudice against moving or merging should boldness or local consensus so decree. Skomorokh 06:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Woodstock Revisited[edit]

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

Contested prod. Of the six references provided, two are trivial mentions, and the rest do not mention this film at all. No additional reliable, third-party, published sources supporting notability cited or found. Single Gnews hit which is a trivial mention. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Tim Song (talk) 05:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Tim Song (talk) 06:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This movie is not even on imdb? That strikes me as odd that it wouldn't be up there, as imdb generally has tons more films covered than wikipedia does. The NY Times ref just makes a passing reference to the film via a quote from the director. There is also a book out there with the same name (by Susan Reynolds). So far I'm having trouble finding proof of notability. --Milowent (talk) 17:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move to the director The NYT ref is enough to keep it in some form. That they interviewed the director so extensively shows his notability. (So , move the article to him, since there is another film also.) and merge the information from Woodstock Can't Get There From Here. Then, if it does take off, we can expand them again. DGG ( talk ) 00:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Agree with DGG. --Milowent (talk) 14:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep... or merge to filmmaker at the very least. IMDB is not the compendium of all films ever made... specially newly released documetaries. I am satisfied that the current souces provide just enough enough notability for this documentary record of an historic event to allow the article to stay and be further improved. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The dude has no page. The link goes to a disambiguation page. Joe Chill (talk) 01:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - legitimate, well-written and sourced page for an existing film. Why delete it? --AStanhope (talk) 03:40, 14 September 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) 05:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Luxury4play[edit]

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

Was a speedy, but contested with an underconstruction tag - there has since been no activity on page for the last 7 days. Doesn't appear notable, no sources. Can't find any reference to their 'own brand of clothing' other than their online store [38] which appears nothing more than a CafePress style site. Possible WP:CONFLICT issue as per article's talk page. AlanI ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 15:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see no evidence of notability. Doesn't seem to pass WP:WEB. JUJUTACULAR 20:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely no reliable source coverage I could locate. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Searches on varieties of the name and url brings up nothing useful either, and website (basically a forum) press area is nothing more than announcements of "partners/sponsors" that could just be affiliates. Flowanda | Talk 19:49, 15 September 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 userfied to User:Betccc/Article/James L. Cocca per Ikip (talk · contribs)'s request at User talk:Cunard. Cunard (talk) 18:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James L. Cocca[edit]

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

Notability is asserted, so A7 does not apply, but I cannot find any substantial sources about this individual.

The article lists this as a source; however, the subject of the article is Boeing Commercial Airplanes Wichita, not him. The other sources are either press releases or directories, such as Pippl.

I will withdraw this AfD if significant, secondary sources can be found about this individual. Cunard (talk) 05:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The creator posted on the talk page of the article:

Text

James L. Cocca is a highly respected national and international business leader. He has been featured in several articles over the years in business publications. He was the recipient of an international gold award from Schindler Holdings, AG.

Betccc (talk) 18:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

www.siteselection.com/features/2008/nov/Aerospace/ http://www.southwestmichiganfirst.com/userfiles/file/mediacoverage/05042009_SiteSelection_SouthwestMichiganFirstAwardedTopDealOfYear2008.pdf http://www.fmlink.com/ProfResources/Magazines/article.cgi?Site%20Selection:ss061109a.html http://wichita.bizjournals.com/wichita/stories/2007/02/26/story12.html http://www.hutchgrp.com/filestorage/181/Webbrochure8.pdf http://www.eesf.org/includes/downloads/1994safetyweekarticle.pdf http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-18525993.html References: http://www.zoominfo.com/Search/PersonDetail.aspx?PersonID=3579828 http://www.zoominfo.com/Search/PersonDetail.aspx?PersonID=850989272 http://www.zoominfo.com/people/level3page49929.aspx http://www.pipl.com/directory/people/Jim/Cocca http://www.manufacturersnews.com/executive.asp?f=Jim&l=Cocca&c=34489

http://www.spoke.com/info/pCH0WXJ/JimCocca

70.177.104.152 (talk) 21:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, the creator's argument do not show how this individual passes WP:BIO or WP:V. Cunard (talk) 05:19, 9 September 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. Skomorokh 06:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chinn Ho[edit]

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

WP:COI, article's sole source comes from a site with the same name as the author's username. non-notable, portrays the individual in a glimmering manner -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 05:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This person's lifetime was 1904-1987. Who would try to promote this individual?
This individual easily passes WP:BIO. See this article from The New York Times, this article from the Chicago Tribune, this article from the Los Angeles Times, this article from Time (magazine), etc. Notability is fully established. Cunard (talk) 05:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. COI is moot, Ho is a pretty common Chinese name. Answer to the lack of resources and the promotional air is to fix the problem, not nuke it. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per very good sources found. Quantpole (talk) 14:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete by User:Killiondude. Was a combination of G11 (spam) and G12 (copyvio). Non admin closure. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kris Sorbie[edit]

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

non-notable, portrays the individual in a glimmering manner, few reliable sources -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 05:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gonna go delete here. Has a blog in a teen mag, some of the sites are not so reliable, ran some event apparently. Does hair so wonderfully that she got an award for it. OK, why then is she notable? Please, refer to here and give us something to work with. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article creator, meniri shares a name with a creative agency linked to on the article ([39]). Their blog ([40]) also provides a link to "Official Wikipedia page for Kris Sorbie". As such, I suggest Speddy delete as promotional. Quantpole (talk) 14:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, copyright problems as duplication of [41]. Quantpole (talk) 14:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Check, added {{db-copyvio}} to page. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE No in-line citations, poor referencing, non-notable content, POV violations.Simonm223 (talk) 14:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kris Sorbie has given us an authorization to write this copy, how would you like me to prove it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meniri (talk • contribs) 23:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not necessary at this point. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:55, 10 September 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 Education in Malaysia#Vocational Programmes and Polytechnics Schools. Cirt (talk) 05:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Polytechnics In Malaysia[edit]

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

not notable enough to have a separate article; few reliable references, Conflict of Interest -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 05:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a list of schools. Seems to be a plug. Ben has this one down. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect This is an uncited laundry list with no given reason for notability. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of info so the collection of schools should be notable within itself. The list is already given in this article, where it mentioned within the context of education in Malaysia. I think this is a better place to present the material and this article should redirect to the one with the broader scope. Them From Space 01:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Themfromspace. This is a useful search term and the list highlighted by Themfromspace is far more useful than this one. Thryduulf (talk) 12:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Education in Malaysia#Vocational Programmes and Polytechnics Schools where the list already exists. I actually prefer it to be an editorial decision as to whether to break lists out from an article but since we are here redirect looks the best of the options. TerriersFan (talk) 00:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 00:05, 16 September 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) 05:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marcel Fernandez[edit]

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

Unreferenced, of little notability. Possibly autobiographical - listed at User:AlexNewArtBot/COISearchResult -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 05:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think it's safe to assume COI on this one. It sounds like they're tooting their own horn. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. --MaNeMeBasat (talk) 12:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above.Simonm223 (talk) 14:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 22:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources can be found; fails WP:BIO and WP:V. Neptune5000 (talk) 23:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
all the disc are real! and the bands wich work are real too! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waipea (talk • contribs) 23:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. Clubmarx (talk) 02:27, 10 September 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. Skomorokh 06:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Bluestone[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was already unanimously deleted previously, but I am renominating rather than speedily deleting it because that was 2 years ago and the current text is not identical to the deleted version. Having said that, I think it fails on essentially the same basis.

See WP:BLP1E. Wikipedia shouldn't be a publisher of true crime stories. This person has no historical significance that would merit an article, nor are there any truly biographical sources (where he, rather than the one event he gained notoriety for, is the subject of the source). He committed a murder that was briefly the subject of news reports, and that is all. But Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Delete. Dominic·t 04:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I concur, though I think WP:BLP1E is certainly a bit of a misnomer of an article under the circumstances, since he's not a LP. =) In all seriousness, though, he was a predator with a history of domestic violence, who ultimately killed his family and himself. It sucks, but it's not notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right that it's not a BLP, but I still like to think that that section of the policy makes sense for all biographies, really. The BLP policy is about Wikipedia's legal and ethical responsibilities as regards to potentially private or libelous material for living people, but the BLP1E section is more of a notability guideline governing the inclusion of articles on people, and has a wider possible application. Dominic·t 12:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WEAK DELETE after reading BLP policy I have to concur that this does not meet notability criteria. However I can understand why somebody might consider the article notable.Simonm223 (talk) 14:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep due to GoogleBook references that suggest enough notablility for someone to reference the case: [42]. Location (talk) 06:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Location (talk) 04:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, obvious hoaxes are vandalism, in addition to the concerns noted below about the potential harm that might come about because of a hoax Wikipedia article about a financial institution that does not in fact exist. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hamland Bank (Isle of Man)[edit]

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

There are serious doubts about the existence of the company; however, this is not blatant vandalism and notability is asserted, so this article should not be speedy deleted. Googie Lovelock (talk · contribs), who tagged this page for deletion, wrote on the talk page:

Comment on the talk page:

This article is completly bogus the "bank" is completly false and bogus and designed to fool and deceive. I have emailed the Isle of Man finance commission and below is the response i received

"Dear Googie Lovelock
Thank you for your query to our colleagues at Isle of Man Finance.
The entity concerned is NOT a licensed bank on the Isle of Man. It is NOT a company incorporated on the Isle of Man. You can find our register of genuine licenceholders at:
http://www.fsc.gov.im/licenceholders/Welcome.aspx?status=current
and search companies at:
http://www.fsc.gov.im/pvi/pvi_fr.html
I have forwarded your query to my colleagues who issue public warnings.
Under the circumstances, the Commission would strongly urge persons considering dealing with this entity to exercise the greatest possible caution before proceeding.
Thanks again for your help.

Paul de Weerd Senior Manager Financial Supervision Commission PO Box 58, Finch Hill House, Bucks Road, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM99 1DT British Isles Tel: (+44) or (0) 1624 689337 Fax: (+44) or (0) 1624 689398 Email: [email protected] "

--Googie Lovelock (talk) 09:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My own search for sources returned nothing substantial; however, I was able to find this website, which appears to be this bank. This company fails WP:ORG and WP:V. Cunard (talk) 04:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[43]Royal mail postcode yields no address?? Add postcode and no reference of hamland appears

Most of the content is stolen from this site http://www.cvcb.com/profile.aspx An example http://www.hamlandbank.com/board.html <-> http://www.cvcb.com/directors.aspx Note alot of the same names appear

One year registration for a well established so called "bank"

Domain Name: HAMLANDBANK.COM Registrar: DIRECTI INTERNET SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. D/B/A PUBLICDOMAINREGISTRY.COM Whois Server: whois.PublicDomainRegistry.com Referral URL: http://www.PublicDomainRegistry.com Name Server: HB1.HAMLANDONLINE.COM Name Server: HB2.HAMLANDONLINE.COM Status: ok Updated Date: 20-aug-2009 Creation Date: 14-nov-2008 Expiration Date: 14-nov-2009

Speedy delete. I don't care if it meets any of the criteria or not, but this article shouldn't be around a minute longer, let alone 7 days. Looks like some sort of dodgy operation, with wrong addresses, no answers at phone numbers (I tried out of interest), and no coverage at all. This, together with the response from the Isle of Man people just makes the whole thing stink. Quantpole (talk) 14:33, 9 September 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 The article was speedy deleted. Fire 55 (talk) 04:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan rajaseelan[edit]

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

This article is terribly organized and doesn't have any content. Also, it must be a notable topic being presented. Saebjorn! 04:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you created the article. WTF.--Fire 55 (talk) 04:13, 9 September 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. The article is extremely similar to the way it was at AfD2 in November 2008. DRV (in response to AfD2) would be the correct venue to appeal this, not starting the process over with the same article.. Tan | 39 04:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Reads like an advertisement. Trivial mentions in unreliable sources. This subject is not notable. Chicago Smooth (talk) 09:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —--Marc Kupper|talk 08:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Jeffries[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Strong Keep given the following evidence of WP:N:

Playboy magazine, July 1998 - 5245 word article about Ross Jeffries. The existence of the article is verified by front cover images where "The tricks of speed seduction" is visible.^[44][45]
Rolling Stone magazine, 781 (March 5, 1998): p.51(7). - Unknown size article by Erik Hedegaard. Jeffrie's web site says it's titled The Sultan of Schwing - Sex Tips That Work!. The abstract in my local library database reports the title as "Take my course," says Ross Jeffries, "and you will get laid!".(class on seduction).. Abstract: "Ross Jeffries is a self-proclaimed master of seduction, who claims he can teach any man the art of seducing women. Jeffries has recognized that most men would like to have sex with beautiful women, and he aims to teach them how to attain that goal."
Front magazine, February 2002 - Unknown size article but with a reputed title of Pulling a Fast One Speed Seduction - Existence of the article is verified via cover image.
Marie Claire magazine (UK Edition) May 1996 - 2271 word article about Ross Jeffries. Unable to verify on line and as it's the U.K. edition I did not check my local library database.
STUDIO For Men magazine, AUTUMN/WINTER 1997 - 2008 word article about Ross Jeffries. Unable to verify on line. Unable to find evidence of a magazine named "STUDIO For Men" either. There is For Men on Wikipedia but that article says it started in 2003. The small thumbnail on Jeffries's site shows a title of "For Men" but that's too generic to help find this magazine on line.
Book coverage
Bigge, Ryan A Very Lonely Planet: Love, Sex, and the Single Guy Coverage of Speed Seduction from page 167 to the top of page 169.
Clink, Tony and Witter, Bret The layguide: how to seduce women more beautiful than you ever dreamed - 16 page chapter about Speed Seduction. Verifiable on line with the first two, possibly three pages being on Ross Jeffries and the remainder covers Speed Seduction.
Markoe, Merrill Merrill Markoe's Guide to Love - Coverage runs from page 57 to 61 but is mostly a review of the Speed Seduction course.
Sands, Christopher Be Romeo: Guidebook for the Modern Lover - 22 mentions from page 24 to 83. It looks like little coverage of Jeffries though he's quoted several times and several pages are either about or borrowed from Speed Seduction.
Strauss, Neil The game: penetrating the secret society of pickup artists - While the book is in Google Books I could not spot detailed coverage of Ross Jeffries. He's mentioned 40 times from page 11 out to beyond page 410.
Zdrok, Victoria Dr. Z on Scoring: How to Pick Up, Seduce and Hook Up with Hot Women Coverage of Speed Seduction from page 215 to 217.
Google Scholar has 27 hits. Many of those are either junk or overlap with the book hits though this masters thesis titled Picking Up and Acting Out: Politics of Masculinity in the Seduction Community has a page or so on Jeffries. I'd call it weak or perhaps no coverage as the author was covering the Seduction Community field and used Wikipedia plus one of Jeffries' books as a source for the Ross Jeffries/Speed Seduction section.

The WP:N qualifying coverage that addresses the subject Ross Jeffries in detail is in the early magazines. His Speed Seduction system likely gets enough coverage to merit its own article. With the two combined in a single article it's a strong keep. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:55, 8 September 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 The Pickup Artist (TV series). Overall consensus here seems to be that, while this person has received some coverage, it is all in the context of the TV show: insufficient notability has been demonstrated for a separate article. ~ mazca ^talk 06:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JDOG[edit]

Delete - An appearance on The Pick-Up Artist does not make this person notable. Chicago Smooth (talk) 09:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

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

~~Comment but leaning towards delete~~ Delete - I ran out of time and so will just document where I'm at.

Summary - zero verified evidence of notability at this point. --Marc Kupper|talk 00:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the previous round I had been using my local library database. This time I used the Google Scholar, Books, and News links at the top of this AfD to look for evidence of notability.

Summary - Unable to find any evidence of notability. I commented on the lack of WP:ENT potential below. Decision changed from Comment but leaning towards delete to Delete. --Marc Kupper|talk 09:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. For various reasons, the top two: is one of the main guys on a VH1 show, & this (to me) appears to be a clear case of a person getting upset their own articles got deleted (presumably about themselves) and then went on a spree of deleting other articles in the same topic area (seduction community). Mathmo ^Talk 11:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC) http://www.seattlepi.com/lifestyle/327680_single16.html?source=mypi http://www.wweek.com/editorial/3342/9498/ http://www.ocregister.com/entertainment/pickup-mystery-artist-1791692-eight-women http://articles.latimes.com/2008/nov/09/entertainment/ca-monitor9 http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2007/08/01/pickup_artist/print.html[reply]

All of those links look great for the The Pickup Artist (TV series) article which currently does not have any WP:N sources at all. None of them cover JDOG in detail. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep WP:Pointy, disruptive nomination from a WP:SPA WP:COI editor who threatened to delete all other notable seduction biography articles if his were deleted. Theserialcomma (talk) 15:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

response to both of the Strong keeps. I agree that the nominator's motives appear suspicious but I personally don't care as it does not influence the notability (or lack of) for JDOG who is the subject of this AfD. Being "one of the main guys on a VH1 show" is not a notable point per WP:N or WP:PEOPLE. So far, JDOG is appearing to be less notable per WP:N than Alan Roger Currie. --Marc Kupper|talk 20:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you check out WP:PEOPLE under entertainers you will see he meets (at the very least) points 1 & 2 (and arguably #3 too). As he is a main character on a hit tv show in its second season (at least, could be even a third planned? I'm a bit out of touch with the latest developments of MM) and he has a large fan base. As a person only has to meet one of the points I would say JDog easily passes muster here. Mathmo ^Talk 20:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding WP:ENT - I had looked the other night and did not see that he met any of these. The VH1 cable network seemed weakly notable (only one article in the references covers the subject) but let's assume the network is "notable." The The Pickup Artist (TV series) show needs WP:N TLC as it does not have a single supporting reference for notability. Let's pretend the show is notable. JDOG's role lasted one season and that was as one of the two "wings" for the show's main presenter. One season as a wing on this show is not WP:ENT #1. WP:ENT #2 and #3 would need reliable secondary sources that state he has a large cult/fan base or has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. I did not find any reliable secondary sources much less one that made claims applicable to WP:ENT #2 or #3. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable enough to meet Wikipedia's standard. A lot facts and claims can not be verified. Handrem (talk) 20:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe there are issues with the contents of the current article then you can edit it yourself to correct it, this is the way such a claimed issue should be dealt with. Not by outright deletion. Mathmo ^Talk 20:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only issue being covered by this AfD is if the subject of the article is notable. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Pickup Artist (TV series). It's his only claim to notability, but there are no independent sources to support a separate article. Cmprince (talk) 00:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Pickup Artist (TV series) or Seduction community. Not enough evidence of notability for a separate article.--Blargh29 (talk) 04:06, 17 September 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. Skomorokh 04:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shay Laren[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO; no indication that the subject otherwise meets the GNG. Short, weakly sourced article with no indication that any reliable sources exist to allow significant expansion or improvement. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the nom says it aint notable son. JBsupreme (talk) 08:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage and doesn't pass pornbio. Epbr123 (talk) 06:30, 10 September 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 userfy to User:Cysinger/Scaje, redirect suppressed. No harm in letting this content stay in userspace for a few months on the chance that satisfactory sources can be found. Skomorokh 04:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scaje[edit]

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

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

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

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

Non-notable band. Evil saltine (talk) 03:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No hint of notability in article or in news search. See this news archive search for the relevant time period. ^Bongo_matic 03:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please view the talk page of the original article Scaje and it creators talk page to view arguments on how the page is still notable.Rebshlomorebshlomo (talk) 22:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After viewing the arguments on the articles talk page I agree that lack of notability is expected in this genre due to sociological reasons. However being a member of the Orthodox Jewish music community I know the bands credibility I say to keep it because they are noted in public opinion.Rebshlomorebshlomo (talk) 01:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Every article on Wikipedia has to be notable via multiple independent reliable sources. Evil saltine (talk) 01:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Lack of notability", whether "expected" or not, means that a topic is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. ^Bongo_matic 01:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are not different standards of band notability based on musical genre or "sociological reasons". Clubmarx (talk) 01:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is an ongoing discussion on the talk page about this performer having become very popular through word of mouth in the Jewish community; however unless a written source or two can be found (either online or on dead trees), such assertions are not verifiable, and therefore unless such sources can be provided it will have to be a delete for the time being, with no prejudice against recreation once such sources can be found. I recommend userfying. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - none of the claims of notability meet WP:BAND. Distributing 600 copies of an album (which BTW, sounds like a nice playlist that I'd like to hear) does not make it. The events described as having played are nice and were probably alot of fun (my old college band played similar stuff) but is not encyclopedic. At the end of the day, WP notability rules are guidelines more than rules. Right now Scaje is not verifiably notable as a topic. If the community decides to keep this article, that is fine. I feel it would shift the requierment from notable to potentialy notable.

On a side note, Holy holy hippos wrote on the talk page about articles without sources. He mentioned the article Contemporary Jewish religious music and said that "there are no reference because the genre is adverse to internet use and often is more about the music then the money/fame." He raises an interesting question and I would like to draw the following distinction between an article about a concept and an article about a individual. A concept (in this case a musical genre) can be difficult to define and catagorize. To be honest I don't know what genre to put Yossi Green, Avraham Fried, Uncle Moishy and Shlomo Carlebach in. They are all clearly notable yet their musical style is centered around the religious nature of their work. While Yossi Green is a pop artist and Shlomo Carlebach was a folk guitarist, in both their eyes and in the eyes of the Jewish community they have more in common musically than Green has with a-ha. As such an article about the style that contemporary Jewish musicians play is appropriate (yet difficult to source).

Regarding Scaje and specific bands. Yes, there is a certain notability one can have in a community without major websites or wikipedia articles. This is why WP:BAND offers options of "major tours" and such. Chaim-Dovid is a name that headlines concerts and his albums are sold in every Jewish music retailer in Israel and North America. So even without a website, I feel he qualifies. When Scaje can do that or even reach what Blue Fringe has done, this article should be reinstated. Joe407 (talk) 05:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KeepYo! I really don understand the whole commotion. Scajes stuff is awsum! And if u were never fortunate enough to hear their stuff, ya jus shouldn go blasting about like, "Yea i never heard of them"... I mean no offense, et with the program in jerusalem. Anyways i heard their having a reunioun after the high holidays in jtown, so be there! Plus, its the only known religious band on the scene that poses alternative rock with infuences ranging from beatles to godsmack. WOw..get with the program.79.181.30.254 (talk) 21:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC) — 79.181.30.254 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- This page is the above user's only contribution. Evil saltine (talk) 22:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the reasons people cant find Scaje in so many checks is spelled out in the article. The name is only a temp. The band isn't crazy about the name and therefore doesnt usually reference to themselves in such a manner. I don't know how many people on this forum have ever been to a Kumzits but I have been to one practically every Thursday and Saturday night for the past three years. Not once in a true Kumzits environment have I seen a band name posted anywhere at the scene. With rare exception any one who wants to come and play does and therefore there are no advertisements that would be commonly found. The music isnt about about what groups is playing but how well they are able to connect people to their true feelings and escape from the environments they are surrounded with in their individual lives. That said I can attest to seeing members of Scaje at the weekly Thursday night Kumzits in the Old City by Judaisms holiest site, the western wall, dozens of times. They also were a staple at events for yeshivot like Sha'arie Tvuna and Nekuda Tova, not that anyone here understands the significance of that. People all over the Mir (a yeshiva with approx. 6,000 students) can tell you about the American kids who go around with their instruments all day long. Scaje, the name, might not be significant to these people and therefore hard to reference, however Scaje the group is definitely well known. I heard these guys over two dozen times before i knew they had a name. From Safed to Jerusalem (and even a few times in the states) my friends and I would run into these guys performing all the time. I think that makes them significant and referenceable as they could possibly go without them altering their artistic style, religious ideals and feelings on selling out. Thanks for hearing my opinion.Welcome back home (talk) 22:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC) — Welcome back home (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- This page is the above user's only contribution. Evil saltine (talk) 22:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have seen and played with scaje many times. they are a great band and have played with notables such as Dov Shurin, and Eli bayer this band has a lot of promise to be the next greatful dead, but only of the Jewish world.Avijonny (talk) 00:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC) — Avijonny (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

comment Eli Beer is a another real talent coming up in the Kumzits circle. He has a few videos on youtube and is called the next Reb Shlomo by virtually everyone who has heard him. Ran the Thursday night Kumzits by R Motti Freifeld and Nekuda Tova. Someone should make a page on him.173.63.52.157 (talk) 04:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC) — 173.63.52.157 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Userfy per Blanchardb. Unless reliable sources can be found about this band, it's gotta go. JUJUTACULAR 20:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Shuki (talk) 22:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Shuki (talk) 22:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per Blanchardb. For the record, there was a request on my talk page to comment here. Either way in this current state, it does not pass WP:N, or WP:RS, if the band is notable some RS should be able to be found (even if it is a non-Internet source), in which case my opinion would change. - Epson291 (talk) 17:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence from WP:RS that subject meets WP:MUSIC. I would not be averse to userfication to preserve the current content if someone is willing to make a good-faith effort to find such sources. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:42, 13 September 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. Skomorokh 04:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will Vladimir Stoyanov[edit]

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

Non-notable inventor. It's difficult to figure out exactly what's going on in this article, but there appears to be no viable claim to notability with references from reliable sources. Author saw fit to include references written by the subject's adviser--that's not how Wikipedia works. The reference, by the way, is an interesting read--I would have removed it from my portfolio. Drmies (talk) 03:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Did anyone else notice that the MS-word personal references and the "Journal of Anti-Aging" link are hosted at the same IP? Someone editing under that IP also came to another AfD and admitted to being Stoyanov (as well as pulling deletion tags from this article and the one in the other AfD). This is vanity, and MS-Word documents hosted on the subject's website are certainly not reliable. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. --MaNeMeBasat (talk) 12:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable and unintelligible content. There's a related AfD here. It seems the author has made it his mission to use WP as an outlet for a set of home-grown theories concerning the biology of telomere maintenance. Malljaja (talk) 21:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there are no reliable sources independent of the subject of the article that establish notability. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dy yol (talk) 15:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lots of verifiability problems, borderline crank entry. Hairhorn (talk) 15:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Autobiography by a non-notable individual. Also see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/82.29.113.227. Fences&Windows 03:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly not yet notable. DGG ( talk )
Delete Not notable. Google only returns six results, two of which are Wikipedia. -- GSK (talk ● evidence) 11:51, 13 September 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. Skomorokh 04:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Karenella[edit]

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

WP:MADEUP, or otherwise non-notable neologism. Ironholds (talk) 03:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any references that would support what this article is saying. Appears to be a hoax. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, violates WP:V. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above.Simonm223 (talk) 14:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of US-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 22:43, 9 September 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. Skomorokh 04:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Air travel, climate change, and green consumerism[edit]

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

This is basically a personal essay- it's not about something, but is rather a collection of information presented so that it's telling what can or should be done to stave off climate change. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, appears to be an essay which violates WP:NOR and WP:SYN. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a soapbox. JUJUTACULAR 20:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after rescuing any useful info for the Aviation and the environment article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete depite being well-referenced, anything with this title will inevitably offend WP:POV. It is an important subject, but should be addressed in a differnet way. It is posasible that there may be information that can usefully be merged elsewhere, but I do not know where or how. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:57, 15 September 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. Skomorokh 04:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guolong Li[edit]

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

non-notable person. Fails WP:BIO, since those sources that are actually reliable (we're citing facebook several times) are about his single controversy. He thus falls foul of WP:BLP1E, and his article has no place on Wikipedia. Ironholds (talk) 02:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Classic BLP1E. Lara 03:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as noted above. BLP1E, insufficient sourcing, etc. GlassCobra 03:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect to Cambridge University Students' Union. Obviously I'm biased on this, but whilst I can understand you thinking it comes under WP:BLP1E, the article is about someone who has been in the news for separate elections, therefore multiple events. WikiWebbie (talk) 11:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "news" are internal Cambridge things. The one reliable external source is the Daily Telegraph, which deals exclusively with the homophobia row. The internal Cambridge things were either 1) written by students or 2) gave Li the same coverage as they'd give other candidates, which isn't indicative of notability - it indicates that he ran. In any case those references are neither independent of the source or secondary - cambridge-related sources for cambridge-related things are a no-no when it comes to establishing the notability of a subject. Ironholds (talk) 13:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think the article should be changed to cover the story more specifically then? The student newspapers, which are independent of the University, are obliged to give the same amount of coverage to all candidates in the interests of fairness. WikiWebbie (talk) 16:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think 1) the sources are not enough to cover the individual, because only one is from a reliable source as set out in WP:GNG, and this falls foul of WP:BLP1E and 2) we cannot justify an article on the event, which falls foul of WP:NOT#NEWS. Changing the article to focus more on the story does nothing to deal with any of these concerns. I would've thought my nomination of the article made it clear - I think the article should be changed to be a redlink. Ironholds (talk) 16:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even the president of a students' union wouldn't normally be notable; a candidate for the presidency certainly isn't. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Student newspapers generally don't count as reliable sources for the purposes of notability, and none of the positions he holds or has stood for comes anywhere near WP:POLITICIAN. The fact that his ill-advised comments on gay people made the Telegraph is a claim to notability, but that alone is a clear WP:NOTNEWS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Neville-Smith (talk • contribs)
Delete for insufficient sourcing. Rirunmot (talk) 21:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Necrothesp and Rirunmot. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:59, 10 September 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) Erik9 (talk) 02:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My Ex[edit]

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

Non-notable movie. — Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 02:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sources, non-notable. Racepacket (talk) 06:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep and Improve Thai film industry has a large audience, movie may in fact be notable. I'd certainly agree that what we have here is a stub and needs substantial improvement including the provision of reliable references.Simonm223 (talk) 14:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 00:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. —Caspian blue 02:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
Keep if Thai sources are available. I've found one English source from a Singapore news site.[46] which covers the general plot.--Caspian blue 02:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and Close Sources were / are available. Article can be / has been improved. AFD is not for cleanup. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:01, 12 September 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 02:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gumrah (1993 film)[edit]

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

Non-notable movie. — Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 02:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I fear. This poor fellow is convinced I'm "bullying" him and I'm not. I was going to try and clean this up, but it's so garbled that even if it were a notable film, the article would require a total rewrite. I'm certainly not against it staying if references can be added and if someone can clean it up. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 04:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 04:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The fact that it is hard to understand is not an insurmountable problem (the editor who created it has a history of writing articles which need re-writing), but the fact that it fails Wikipedia:Notability (films) is. A search failed to find significant coverage - most of the references I could find refer to the 1963 film (Gumrah (1963 film)), and the rest are one-line mentions. I couldn't find any full reviews, let alone those "by two or more nationally known critics", it is not historically notable going by the guidelines, there is no indication of it winning any major awards, etc. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 07:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as per SpacemanSpiff and Shreevatsa's arguments below -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 09:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The same user has created a few more of these same types of articles. One movie article had exactly one relevant hit while a few others had blocks of copyrighted text in them, something I warned him about before. I've left word on his talk page offering to help him on his next idea. He seems to mean well, but he's having trouble grasping the concept of the site. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per PhantomSteve. Clubmarx (talk) 01:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has been rewritten, expanded, and is now coherent. Search for sources is made difficult because there are several films with the same name made by different filmmakers. Search using "film name"+"director name" is showing results. Made enough of an impression when it screened in Nigeria in the mid-90s that author Brian Larkin made special note of the audience's reaction to the film in his 2008 book Signal and noise: media, infrastructure, and urban culture in Nigeria‎. Now while I have not yet found a New York Times or Variety review of this 1993 Hindi language Bollywood film, I believe it would be prudent to consider WP:CSB and allow the article to remain and be further improved, as there is most definitely a language barrier that must be considered. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I said above, as far as I was concerned, the fact that it was poorly written was not an issue - indications of notability, including references, was. Having had a look at the four references cited, here are my comments:
- The first reference merely confirms the details in the first paragraph. As such, it is suitable as a reference.
- The second reference doesn't necessarilly indicate that the sound track was a "hit" - the actual quotation at the reference is this six-track album of Gumrah is on the steady rise on the popularity charts - it doesn't indicate where it entered those charts (it could have been rising from position 100 one week to position 95 the next - or it could have got to number 1) - there is no evidence of how successful it actual was.
- The third reference refers to the 1963 film of the same name (quote from the source cited: Sunil Dutt starred in the successful Gumrah of 1963) - the rest of the reference mentions this version (Both films did well) but it doesn't indicate what it means by that. Does did well mean it made a lot of money, didn't have a shortened run, or what?
- The fourth reference about Nigeria was an interesting one - but from the text you haven't been told the complete context - was this film actually only one of a very few films that the cinema showed repeatedly because they couldn't afford to buy many films? We don't know, and the book doesn't enlighten us about why it was so well known, merely that it was. I might be wrong, but I wasn't aware that Nigeria was a huge importer of Indian films - so this was an interesting reference, to say the least.
However, Wikipedia:Notability (films) gives the following criteria for notability for films:

Notability criteria checklist

- A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. N
- The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. N
- The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following:
  - Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release. N
  - The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release.N
  - The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release. N
  - The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema. N
  - The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking. N
  - The film was selected for preservation in a national archive. No evidence found
  - The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program. No evidence found
- The film represents a unique accomplishment in cinema, is a milestone in the development of film art, or contributes significantly to the development of a national cinema, with such verifiable claims as "The only cel-animated feature film ever made in Thailand" N
- The film features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career. N
- The film was successfully distributed domestically in a country that is not a major film producing country, and was produced by that country's equivalent of a "major film studio." Articles on such a film should assert that the film in question was notable for something more than merely having been produced, and if any document can be found to support this, in any language, it should be cited N

~~In summary, I do not feel that there is any evidence that it meets notability for a film article on Wikipedia~~ -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 12:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Quite obviously you aren't going to find online reviews because the online archives for The Hindu go back to 2000, The Times of India to 2004 and Indian Express to 2002 and none of the Indian Film Magazines have online archives more than a year old. The fact is that more than 15 years after the film was made, it's still referred to as a hit or in the context of the cast/production team and that content is sufficient to create a stub. As for plot summary, Yahoo movies can be a source. While this can't be used as a source, it's a reproduction of an article in Movie magazine (India) highlighting Sridevi's role. In this Screen India interview, orginally 1993, reprinted in 2004, she talks about Gumrah - a future movie. Sridevi was also nominated for the Filmfare Best Actress Award for this movie. And Cine Blitz has covered the movie even before launch - here and here, and India Today had pre-production coverage, so is it even likely that the film would not have been reviewed by two national critics? And add to that the cast includes Sridevi as the protagonist, Sanjay Dutt as the lead actor, Anupam Kher in a supporting role, directed by Mahesh Bhatt, produced by Yash Johar. So, ignore the fact that this was created by a user who may have created other inappropriate pages, stop the wikilawyering, stub the article with material that is referenced and keep it. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 16:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment An interesting reasoning for keeping the article. As you would have seen above, the fact that the wording wasn't good, and that the user has created other inappropriate pages has never been an issue for me. The issue for me is notability. Yes, it received pre-release coverage - but why is it, then, that post-release coverage isn't available, if it is that significant? Yes, the cast and crew are significant in their own right, but does that automatically mean that all movies using a combination of them are automatically notable? My feeling (and this is my opinion, not using any guidelines or policies) is that if a movie is that notable, it would have been referenced in various scholarly works - I know that Google's coverage of non-Western publications isn't extensive, but surely any movie which meets the criteria listed above for notability for movies would be covered somewhere? Or are you saying that this film is a significant role and/or a major part of one of the cast/crew's career - even if reviews, etc, of the film are not available because online sources don't go back far enough, I would have thought that if it was a significant part of one of the cast or producer's careers, there would be significant coverage of that. SpacemanSpiff, I have found that generally when I see a comment from you on something, I tend to agree... this is one which we will have to agree to disagree about, as although I understand what you are saying (online sourcing isn't the be-all and end-all of citations, I agree) I still think we need more evidence of the notability/importance of this film. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 17:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The reason you aren't going to find online reviews is because India Today doesn't review films, it covers them; Cine Blitz and India Today archives in Gbooks are restricted to what was available at University of Michigan at the time of Google's scans. Film reviews will be found in The Hindu - Friday features, The Times of India, Indian Express, Filmfare and a few others, none of which have either Gnews or Gbooks archives going back to even 2000, let alone 1993. The reason for including the cast and production staff in my comment - would we even think that a movie starring Russel Crowe and Meg Ryan, directed by Robert Redford and produced by Warner Brothers not have been reviewed? The comparisons are obviously exaggerations given Oscar wins etc, but notability within Bollywood for the cast/crew of the movie roughly translates to these comparisons. If anyone has the time to go to a library and dig up the Microfilm archives for Times of India in 1993, they'll find the review, until then, the good faith assumption, taking some of these publications at face value when they say the movie was a success or Sridevi's role was great etc should be sufficient. Now, I've argued on both sides of the delete debate for a wide variety of Indian films that come here, and this one's a good faith keep IMO. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 18:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - If this is kept, here are some references I found that could be useful for expanding the article - how many would count as reliable, I don't know! These are basically all of the ones I could find (most other references were either "x starred in Gumrah" type with no details, or links to buy DVDs or download about the film):

Sources of information about the film
Reviews: Sridevi.biz review Blog about Sanjay Dutt - Review of Gumrah Cast and crew: IMDB Cast & Crew ApunKaChoice.com (Bollywood at your fingertips!) Synopsis and Cast/Crew links Bollywood Hungama Cast Listing Awards IMDB Awards: 1994 Nominated Filmfare Award Best Actress Sridevi

- - - Although I don't think the article should be kept, as I don't feel it meets notability, if it is kept then I've done all I can (without going to India, I guess!) to find sources of information. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 19:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - It would also need to be added to Bollywood films of 1993 -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 19:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SpacemanSpiff's rationale. Salih (talk) 19:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a notable film, and easily more so than many of the American straight-to-video movies considered "notable". It must be kept in mind that notability is not simply the outcome of games played between Wikipedia editors with WP:NF as rules, but something that is presumed to exist and for which WP:NF is a guideline. There are two arguments in the delete vote that would be a dangerous precedent: (1) "would have been referenced in various scholarly works": this is not the case, as most movies (and popular culture in general) in India simply do not get anywhere the level of obsession or academic attention that is granted to them in the West. Does this mean that Indian movies are inherently less notable? (2) the reliance on online resources: this is bad, since as SpacemanSpiff pointed out, online archives are flaky. Both of these, and other things to watch out for, are covered at WP:Countering systemic bias. In this case, given that it is a big-budget film produced by Yash Johar and featuring major stars and director, and the sources online mention phrases like "mammoth production" and "company's biggest hits over the years, from Dostana in the 80s to Gumrah in the 90s to the more recent Kabhi Alvida Na Kehna" (which isn't actually true, but whatever), and the coverage before launch mentioned above, it is fairly clear—and safe to assume—that the film was notable, did arrive with a lot of hype, and received reviews (more than two!) in national newspapers and the like. To use Spiff's pat analogy: would you assume, in the absence of other information, that any film starring Russell Crowe or nominated for one of the major Oscars might be non-notable (by the current guidelines. I'm not proposing a new criterion for notability)? Shreevatsa (talk) 03:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have changed my !vote to keep, as the points raised by SpacemanSpiff and Shreevatsa have persuaded me that this film is notable enough to be in Wikipedia. Major stars, big pre-release publicity, big budget - all valid arguments in combination for its inclusion. That's the good thing about AfDs - you get to hear lots of arguments for and against, and get the opportunity to re-evaluate your position. Thank you both for your arguments. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 09:04, 12 September 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. Skomorokh 04:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anicka Haywood[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP, no significant roles. Not notable. SummerPhD (talk) 02:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Very on-the-fence about this one. WP:ENT says "has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". Three roles in notable productions: What I Like About You - Men, Women & Dogs - The Rose Technique. Hard to say if those are any/all of those are significant. I can't say I'm crazy familiar with any of them. Jujutacular ^talk_contribs 14:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The role in Men, Women & Dogs is an unsourced claim of a role in an unaired episode. If that is notable, we would need considerable sourcing to show it. The Rose Technique is a low-budget, direct to DVD work. Haywood's role was not notable enough for mention in the article (which lists 10 characters). This leaves 6 episodes of What I Like About You. The lengthy (very plot-ish) season summaries in that article make brief mention of Haywood's character, as part of season one. The character is not otherwise discussed and Haywood is not mentioned in the article. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable.Rirunmot (talk) 21:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mainly per SummerPhD's follow-up. Thank you. Jujutacular ^talk_contribs 21:49, 10 September 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. MuZemike 02:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joker Blast[edit]

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

Game with seemingly no ghits. Unreferenced. Clubmarx (talk) 01:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "developed... in 1998". It's a drinking game that two people came up with one day. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find anything to show this is more than WP:MADEUP. Jujutacular ^talk_contribs 14:08, 9 September 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. Skomorokh 01:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joaquim Jack[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking GNEWS and GHits to support article. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb1 (talk) 00:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional as the creator is the subject of the article. Clubmarx (talk) 02:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity; I'm not finding third-party coverage of this individual. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:14, 9 September 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. Skomorokh 01:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket conspiracy[edit]

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

Promotional essay on a topic that can't be salvaged. Has been deprodded before. Fences&Windows 00:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is advertising, not an encyclopedia article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:An essay with no sources to speak of, this must go. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely a personal essay by the wording; I can't find any sources that would suggest this is even a real thing. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This guy's all over the charts. He basically posted an essay about ticket brokers that doesn't seem to really work up to much of a point. This is best found someplace on a blog somewhere I think. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't look like an encyclopedia entry at all. Probably someone's essay. No sources. Netalarmtalk 05:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It appears to be a poorly written essay and is chock full of OR. Not salvagable.Simonm223 (talk) 14:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, an original research essay apparently meant to promote certain ticket brokers. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:16, 9 September 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. WP:SNOW. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You Got Served (drinking game)[edit]

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

The creator contested the prod. A made up drinking game. Joe Chill (talk) 00:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - madeup drinking game that I can not find any reliable sources that discuss it. --A new name 2008 (talk) 00:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails Wikipedia's verifiability policy. There's no way someone from outside where this game is known can check to see if this game exists. Therefore, we can't have an article on it. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per A new name 2008. Clubmarx (talk) 02:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, violates WP:V, fails WP:NFT. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Something made up one day; this has no outside coverage. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. By the article's own admission, this suffers from a terminal case of madeupinschoolitis. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:V, WP:MADEUP. Snow, anyone? Tim Song (talk) 05:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't find any converage on this 'game', Netalarmtalk 05:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is important topic The drunken guy (talk) 16:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Care to clarify on that, please? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Mrs. Wolpoff (talk) 16:42, 9 September 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) 15:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grasswidow[edit]

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

The article is about the word not the concept. As such it is a dicdef and not appropriate to Wikipedia. Some of the content can be merged here. I would add that there is no such word as 'grasswidow', the correct term being 'grass widow'. Though this could be dealt with by a page move and rewrite it doesn't solve the fundamental problem. Delete. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The references support both terms equally--that part is the proper subject of a move discussion, not an AfD. I see the article as discussing the concept as well as the word. DGG ( talk ) 00:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - sorry, the references don't support both terms equally. There are two refs and neither contain the term. The Webster reference, for example says "grasswidow - The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above. 1. grass widow 2. grass widower". The fact that the article contains some example of incorrect usage is not a reference. Where does this contain encyclopedic material? The lead is a definition. The first para under 'Term' is etymology, the second para under Term is an unsourced assertion - who says this is a more common usage? and the rest examples of usage. Guidance is at WP:NOTDIC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, no matter which spelling (links suggest grass widow; there also is no word such as dicdef, btw. Being a stub-class article is not a sufficient reason for deletion.--Flammingo^Hey 07:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The article doesn't seem to add anything beyond what wiktionary:grass widow has. The section 'Term' is problematic in that it cites a single source, which it disagrees with. The source, World Wide Words, speculates that the 'grass' might refer to hill stations in British-occupied India, making love in the fields, or being "put out to grass"; the Wikipedia page says confidently, "The 'grass' refers to the mattress, which used to be filled with grass." Cnilep (talk) 14:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article doesn't add anything that isn't otherwise covered. No matter what you read into what the article intends to cover, it simply isn't covering a concept; it's the word (the rest is diambiguation/see also material). Shadowjams (talk) 08:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG. There's potential for expansion into a fuller definition of the concept, and nobody seems to argue that sources regarding the concept can't be found. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete everything except the "see also" section, which should be converted into a disambiguation page. The rest of the article is a pure dictionary definition that adds nothing to Wiktionary's entry - while this does have an etymology it contradicts it's only source and I don't believe it worth transwikiing the resulting unreliable material. Unlike Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, I do no think that there is the possibility of making an encyclopaedic article about the concept as I can't see anything beyond dictionaric material in the sources I've looked for. What I think would be possible would be to write an encyclopaedic section on the widow article about the situations where "widow" is used in combination where the husband is away, e.g. "grass widow", "golf widow", "wiki widow", etc. If written, this should be referenced from the dab page at this title. Thryduulf (talk) 09:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE This belongs on Wiktionary.Simonm223 (talk) 14:37, 9 September 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. Skomorokh 01:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Gonzales (Kumbia All Starz song)[edit]

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

contested prod. no indication of how this meets WP:NSONGS RadioFan (talk) 02:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - There seems to be a lot of 3rd party coverage of this song as it relates to the release of a new Speedy Gonzales DVD, there are also a lot of mentions of it in the spanish press. From what babelfish translator says this appears to be non-trivial coverage. I don't speak spanish though and these things are notoriously unreliable. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 03:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. I personally don't see the point in a redirect due to the non-plausible nature of the title as a search term. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Chelo61 (talk) 22:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? MuZemike 02:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: It was released as a single, however, it has failed to chart anywhere. I found this (English), but it is the only one that I found. talking birds 15:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If the song has received significant coverage in Spanish sources, that would be adequate to establish notability per WP:N, since notability isn't language specific. My Spanish is too weak to attempt such a search, so I am inclined to AGF on Panyd's assertion, although I cannot tell how significant the coverage is. I did check the Spanish Wikipedia and not that they do not seem to have an article for this song, which doesn't necessarily mean it is non-notable, but I would have been much more comfortable !voting keep if I had evidence that Spanish Wikipedia considers it notable. Rlendog (talk) 15:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If this does not meet notability, I would not have a problem with a redirect, although in this case the parenthetical text would be awkward enough that I suspect User:Esradekan may be correct about a redirect for this having little value, but on the other hand, redirects are cheap. Rlendog (talk) 15:49, 31 August 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! 04:56, 2 September 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) 00:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Tim Song (talk) 00:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Tim Song (talk) 00:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting Comment: Wasn't sorted. Now sorted and relisted. Tim Song (talk) 00:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without references to show otherwise, individual songs fail notability. Miami33139 (talk) 01:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the basis of no references. WP:NSONG. Gosox5555 (talk) 01:56, 9 September 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. Skomorokh 01:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any2[edit]

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

Delete, a network device run by a non-notable company. Irbisgreif (talk) 19:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a service, not a device, but that's a minor quibble. Why is it non-notable? It appears to be run by a medium-size internet company, and this service, as noted, is one of the largest peering services in the United States. Can you be specific in your suggestion of non-notability? —fudoreaper (talk) 01:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One source is CoreSite's own site, two are simply copies of a press releases, and one is a database of different peering locations. Togeather, these are not reliable sources and they do not satisfy notability guidelines. Irbisgreif (talk) 02:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 09:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - According to whom? The article was created by a User:Mjobson; on the parent company's website, this page, the CoreSite marketing director is listed as a "Mark Jobson". --Orange Mike | Talk 01:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Skomorokh 00:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the fence This is significant coverage, this may be. But aside from these, couldn't find much else. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (CSD G3) all as blatant hoaxing and vandalism. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michaëll[edit]

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

As near as I can tell, this seems to be a hoax or wishful thinking. The unique spelling of the name should turn up hits, yet nothing to speak of. This should also include the two albums which have articles as well.

I'd speedy delete it but claims of awards, charting singles, etc. mean it needs to go here. Pigman☿/talk 00:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- ETA: OK, it appears clear to me that the edits of 87.211.191.50 (talk · contribs) are related to these articles and my opinion that all three articles are hoaxes has gone up to about 98%. Pigman☿/talk 01:08, 9 September 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. No consensus to delete but the nominator is correct that the article needs some sourcing. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Valentine Nonyela[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTE, lacks significant discussion in secondary sources independent of the article's subject. Side note: It is a WP:BLP article that does not cite any references or sources. Cirt (talk) 01:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He starred in a film which won a significant award at Cannes, and Google News shows significant coverage of that film, unfortunately most/all of it is in PPV archives. NYTimes movie archives show he's had nontrivial roles in several other notable films, and he apparently worked frequently in British TV for a few years, including a recurring one-season role on a longrunning TV series. There's enough to show he meets WP:ENT; this is a cleanup/improvement project. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looking through his IMDB roles, they all seem minor ("Nambutu Embassy Official"), and with the lack of significant coverage, I dont see a reason to keep Corpx (talk) 06:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - subject received a significant amount of coverage for his lead role in Young Soul Rebels in newspapers [47] and coverage for a variety of different roles in books.[48] --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones specifically, so I dont have to go through all of them Corpx (talk) 03:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep While he doesn't have many roles, aside from the starring role in Young Soul Rebels a couple of his imdb credits from the 90s look like starring roles (Welcome II the Terrordome and On the Eight Ball). There are quite a few g-book references hitting on the name as well, as some of these films have been book reviewed. (Looks like this is a vanity case judging by the creator's username.) JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep small article, but well-written. established notability. overall passes wikipedia guidelines.--Judo112 (talk) 16:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and with respects to Corpx, I cannot agree that his roles all seem minor, as the opposite seems the case. His role is a descriptive in only two of his many projects. In all of his others his characters have names. More to the point, and in meeting WP:ENT, I give consideration to the three different series where his characters or abilities were significant enough to have him brought back multiple times... London's Burning (5 episodes, 1989), Holby City (2 episodes, 1999-2004), and The Bill (6 episodes, 1987-2006). MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:16, 14 September 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.