Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 April 26

< 25 April	27 April >

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. -- Cirt (talk) 13:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Twitterverse[edit]

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

Contested prod. Fails the general notability guideline, has been tagged with {{Notability}} since August 2009, no improvement since then. TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 22:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. --TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 23:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete News hits on Google yield items to do with Twitter and stuff unrelated to the article. A general search yields a link to the blog of the creator of the subject at hand and other stuff unrelated to the subject at hand. The image is nothing more then subjective with select Twitter applications. There are other applications that should be on there that are not. Plus the article doesn't assert notability and why it is relevant. It just seems like it is riding the coat tails of The Conversation Prism. The Twitterverse and The Conversation Prism seems to be pretty much of the same. Plus it hasn't been expanded to assert notability. It is basically an intro with a lack of substantive content. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 01:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per the excellent argument of editor above whose name is basically invisible to me as a color blind person. (; --Nuujinn (talk) 14:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 13:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redwood Mary[edit]

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

A PROD tag was removed and a large-scale edit attempting to bring this into Wikipedia's boundaries was reverted without comment. An examination of the long list of "references" reveals very little that is actually material to the precise topic or contributes in any way to the subject's notability only a single reference, that of a foundation's newsletter, seems to me to be at all useful. There are significant neutrality problems with the current incarnation and it is unlikely that pruning this to a neutral stub would stand in situ for long; I suggest that an absence of any information is better than potentially compromising our standards and retaining the brief stub which might be appropriate. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Could possibly be edited to NPOV but would still fail notability.--Chuunen Baka (talk) 08:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Frankly, the title alone was Wikipedia:CSD#G11-worthy. If anything was worth merging into Brian Quintana, let me know and I'll undelete to user space...especially since I wouldn't be surprised to see a sequel to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Quintana. — Scientizzle 20:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Quintana for U.S. Senate[edit]

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

Non-notable article that should be merged with Brian Quintana. I attempted to do so, but Quintana supporters/detractors appear to want this article to stand and have reversed attempts to merge. ttonyb (talk) 22:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 22:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Speedy merge, no need for a separate page, autobiographical entry from blocked user. Hairhorn (talk) 23:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for G5 and filed new SPI case. Hairhorn (talk) 23:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - with respect to Hairhorn above, there is not even a need to merge because everything of note is already at Brian Quintana (perhaps thanks to previous merge attempts). If supporters or detractors have reversed merge attempts, SALT might be worth discussing. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Anything notable is at Brian Quintana. This is an attempt at a puff-piece duplicating much of the same content. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as spam. -- Whpq (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability doesn't require that the campaign committee be famous or popular, some people seem confused on that fact. Brian Quintana for U.S. Senate is a notable entity in Hollywood and Washington DC as the many sources indicate. This page was not created by a banned user as noted by Hairhorn who has made numerous changes to Brian Quintana page and may be biased. alphamale7 (talk) 04:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC) — Alphamale7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment – Making a statement that something is notable does not make it so. If you feel it is notable please indicate how using Wikipedia guidelines. ttonyb (talk) 19:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Fails WP:N. --Morenooso (talk) 19:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes notability test easily, but the article is in danger of becoming a WP:COATRACK for BLP violations; I am not certain that the cited material in Brian Quintana article (all about harrassment suits and the like) doesn't violate WP:UNDUE in some real way; however this is a cleanup issue. This new Senate Campaign entity seems notable so the article should be kept. --User:cathycamp.talk.contribs 12:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC) — Cathycamp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment – Making a statement that something is notable does not make it so. If you feel it is notable please indicate how using Wikipedia guidelines. ttonyb (talk) 19:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Admin - User:cathycamp has been canvassing for keep !votes. See [1], [2], [3] -- Whpq (talk) 19:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without merge or redirect. Unlikely search term, anything notable or useful can be noted at Brian Quintana article. Note: I was specifically canvassed to comment here : [4] because I voted "keep" in a prior deletion debate on the Brian Quintana article, and I was asked to vote keep here as well. --Jayron32 19:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] would indicate there is more than a minimum of coverage to establish notability. Issues of article ownership, conflict of interest, tone, and verifiability can be dealth with through editting. -- yourmistaken (talk) 12:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)— yourmistaken (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Group Audio[edit]

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

Non-notable tiny business that happened to catch the eye of one reporter one time. Orange Mike | Talk 22:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 22:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable subject and spam. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is an advertising piece, not an article. PK T(alk) 12:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted: blatant hoax and therefore vandalism. Article was about a supposed Japanese "slave" who defended Yamato Province in World War II with archery. Based on the article Tokomaro, as noted; Tokomaro is somewhat more plausibly placed in the seventh century. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ojtnawi[edit]

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

Contested speedy about what I think is a hoax. There are only five Ghits for this name, all Wikipedia or mirrors. Erpert (let's talk about it) 22:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I originally thought it was a hoax too, but had enough doubt to remove my own speedy tag. However, now that I have looked into the matter further, I back my original assertion. No sources that discuss the history mention his name, and I was not able to find it in translations. Further, in my studies of Japanese, I believe it is impossible to have a Japanese romanization that would produce that name. In Japanese, a "t" cannot follow a "j" without a vowel in between. The lack of mentions anywhere on the internet indicates at worst a hoax, and at best that this man is not a "war hero", but in fact a person whose named is listed in a battle registry and had absolutely no impact on history. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 22:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ delete - This cannot be an ethnic Japanese name, the phonetics are all wrong. Given that there are exactly 0 results for all of the above Google searches, it's either a hoax or terribly misspelled. ~~Voting weak delete because if any misspelling can be resolved and the article sourced, it could likely be kept.~~ --Darkwind (talk) 22:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given the comments below, it's looking more likely a hoax - nothing weak about my !vote now. --Darkwind (talk) 02:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 22:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable and most likely a hoax. --DAJF (talk) 23:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as blatant hoax. --DAJF (talk) 02:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the Nihonshoki was written at least 14 centuries ago, supposed heroes of WWII cannot appear in it. On the surface, given the contradictions and bad orthography, this looks like a hoax. To allow for the possibility of garblement, I say only delete without speedy, to allow time for fixing mistakes. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You know this whole time I had skipped the first sentence, and only taken the last paragraph into account. WWI in the Nihonshoki? This probably should be speedied then. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 00:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another reason this article is vandalism: the whole thing is copied from Tokomaro, with the wars changed around to the world wars. At this point, I am going to label it to be speedied as both a copyvio and a hoax. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 02:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus There are some good policy based agruments to delete. But there are references in reliable sources and there does not appear to be a consensus that these are insufficient. A merge may still be in order but that is a topic for the talkpage. Polargeo (talk) 07:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jerkcity[edit]

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

This article had about a hundred sources when I found it, but every single one of them was the comic itself, or its related "DJ Rapekit". Oh, apart fomr one interview on Pigdog Journal (surely a reliable source for something, I just can't work out quite what). Guy (Help!) 22:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keepy keep keep keep 124.198.166.5 (talk) 12:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. This has been covered before, and nothing has changed. If anything the article is far better sourced now. What a typical waste of time. Xihr 22:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Excising most of the article's content and putting it up for deletion while the page is still protected from editing feels like a very bad-faith move to me. Who's been whining behind the scenes in the elite wikipedia inner circle, I wonder? Stromcarlson (talk) 23:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since you are attempting to implicate me and possibly Ruhrfisch without directly saying so, I'll state for the record that I've had no involvement or discussion about the article other than public remarks to and from the original administrator Ruhrfisch, as I noted to you on the article's talk page. A little less of a conspiracy-minded attitude can only help your case here. I do think this deletion request is poorly timed given the then-existing protection and ongoing talk page discussion. -- Michael Devore (talk) 00:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have de-protected it for now (and was the original protecting admin). Will comment on notability later. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Restored the article. Let's debate the uncastrated version. Stromcarlson (talk) 23:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, good webcomic but there are no reliable third-party sources cited in the article, nor can I find any in my searches. Nothing in the article nor the above "speedy keep" comments adresses sourcing issues at all. I see no claims that this meets Wikipedia:Notability or Wikipedia:Speedy keep. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 04:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article's topic is definitely notable, and the article is a decent coverage of the topic. There is no reasonble cause to delete it just because someone's pedantic feathers got ruffled. If folks want to find additional sources, more power to them. JoshuaRodman (talk) 07:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. --TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 09:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For me the relevant guideline here is Wikipedia:Notability (web). I fail to see where this has "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." There is a brief mention in The Comics Journal but this is an interview with one of the comics' creators and in 7,219 words, only 66 words (6 sentences) are about Jerkcity. There is also an article in Salon.com but it has one sentence on Jerkcity and shows one of the characters (not labeled). So these are the two best mentions in reliable sources, and both seem fairly trivial to me. There is a nicely written article on Jerkcity at Rotten.com but I do not see that as a reliable source and the article does not give an author or date or source (if it is a reprint from a RS). There is a Jerkcity book, but it was apparently self-published and I cannot find any reviews of it. I asked on the article's talk page a few days ago for reliable sources and what I have mentioned here were the best provided - I've looked but cannot find better sources. I do not see how the article meets notability and so !vote for deletion. If better sources are out there, please provide them. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Remove EVERYTHING which is not independently referenced. This article is a mess, hardly any, if any, independent coverage, and all hundreds of references are to the page itself, and should actually all be removed. Today I even found references to old Wikipedia revids, while we are certainly not a reliable source. Some editors should be really reading the policies and guidelines, and edit accordingly. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So let me get this straight -- Jerkcity fails the notability test because it has barely any references which are not completely independent or sourced from jerkcity itself, but, for example, Sledge Hammer! is fine because it has...uh...only three references, all of which are sourced from the show itself? Or Payphone, which, for YEARS, has been one of the most laughably inaccurate, badly-sourced, and unevenly edited articles I've ever read on this site? Or how about Dust bunny which seems to somehow have survived an AfD with no references at all? I'm unclear as to how those flimsy articles stand up to all the wikipedantry, but Jerkcity doesn't (unless, as I'm inclined to suspect, this is a bad-faith AfD because someone's feathers got ruffled). Stromcarlson (talk) 13:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply This AfD is on Jerkcity, not anything else. Please see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Please feel free to nominate those articles for deletion if you wish. I would spend my time looking for more reliable sources here. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply I'm calling into question the validity of this AfD. Your explanation seems evasive at best. Stromcarlson (talk) 14:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply I also support calling the validity of the AfD into question. It seems as though both the editor who took issue with the addition of, "Also, cocks" and the administrator who subsequently became involved with that particular debate were not interested in impartially resolving the issue, but rather making it go away permanently through deletion of either the phrase in question or the article as a whole. At this point, the AfD appears to be a retaliatory action and nothing more. Harblesque (talk)
Comment Oh oh, and what about Fresh Air which has as its sources Fresh Air and Fresh Air and also Fresh Air? Should we AfD that one too for not being notable enough? Publishing and broadcasting something on a regular basis for over a decade doesn't seem to count according to Wikipedia. Let's cut the evasive crap and actually answer this one, eh? Stromcarlson (talk) 14:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I did not initiate this AfD, but I have given my reasons for supporting deletion above. Many things and people are not notable, myself included (and I have been around much longer than this comic). If more reliable sources about Jerkcity can be found, I am willing to reconsider my stand. Complaining about other articles will not change my mind or elicit any other responses from me. Nor will it influence the closing admin's decision on this AfD. If you want to save this article, stop whining about other articles and find reliable sources. Have you tried contacting the creators - if this has appeared in newspapers or magazines presumably they would know about it. Signing off, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There are plenty of other articles on Wikipedia which should also be deleted. Hundreds of articles are deleted every day. That other articles exist which should also be deleted does not change the issues with this article. Note that it took me all of 10 seconds to find sources for the Sledge Hammer! article in the Washington Post and New York Times. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 14:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Good point above: Has anyone tried contacting the authors of the comic, to find out if there are offline articles about Jerkcity? If noone else has, I will, but I don't want to deluge their inboxes...
I and other editors have tried searching online extensively, but there are just no Reliable Sources covering this comic. (which itself is a problem that should be remedied. Just because it's wonderfully obscure and vulgar, it's somehow escaped the attention of comic-journalists for 12 years?!? He deserves critical recognition, damnit! Plus, then we can use that as a reference...) -- Quiddity (talk) 19:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just to be very clear, I have not contacted the authors. I hope they have more information on reliable sources to add. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've sent them a note, asking for unmentioned sources. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If my voice ever counts, I found this article useful, more than once. Maddingue (talk) 21:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater by deleting it; there is a lot of useful information regarding the subject in the article itself. Harblesque (talk)
Keep. Mention in Salon and The Comics Journal establishes notability.VoluntarySlave (talk) 22:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article has references although Salon's website is SNAFU right now for me. ((Back to wikibreak!)) MonsterShouter (talk) 04:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 13:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abducted by the 80s[edit]

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

Article has existed for eight months but with no updates to "future album" status. Various unreliable sources indicate that the album has been in the works for years, but as of now there appears to be no confirmed release date or track listing. WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER apply. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Chung is still around? Wow. When and if the album comes out, I guess that an article would be appropriate. Mandsford (talk) 12:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 00:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER; no confirmed release date or track listing at this time. Gongshow ^Talk 17:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Murphy (Maryland politician)[edit]

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

This is a self-promotion page of an individual running for public office. The individual has never held public office, a political appointment, or won a primary election before. It is being used a personal webspace to advocate the personal candidacy of public office. Signed for User:Biowarewatch

This is a political candidate who has been discussed in several newspapers and blogs -- most notably the Washington Post -- and who will be in a primary in September. It is unclear why it would be marked for deletion, as it fits none of Wikipedia's deletion criteria. It has no copyright violations; it cites reliable sources, including the Washington Post; and the subject is a political candidate who has been discussed elsewhere.

If you disagree, I suggest we all beef up the article with more information, with references. Otherwise, I'm interested in hearing reasons why it should be deleted altogether. Signed for User:Samsonitus

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 21:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 21:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He's merely running in the primary. If he should run the primary there might be a case for an article as he candidate of a major party, but there certainly isn't now. DGG ( talk ) 21:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ya. One of millions in a primary nationally. No need to have a page for every single person in a primary. If he wins his primary, then sure. But right now not relevant. He has no public service either.. Biowarewatch ( talk ) 23:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the above. Even a major party nominee isn't necessarily entitled to an article, and the nomination hasn't been decided. Wikipedia hosts articles about politicians in the British sense of the word-- i.e., a person who has been elected to public office -- rather than in the American sense (campaigning for office). Mandsford (talk) 12:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but Change The article currently reads like a self-promotion page. But, the candidate received a high profile endorsement from the previous Maryland State GOP Chairman, Jim Pelura^[1] He also is running with a former State Delegate Carmen Amedori as his running mate. T0llenz(talk) 11:36, 28 April 2010 (EST) NOT TRUE. Amedori is not on the ticket. I did not know that Jim Pelura was a public figure
Delete. Fails the community's standard of WP:POLITICIAN: he's not even a candidate; he's a candidate to be a candidate. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To further this discussion, I point out the following. Murphy has been covered in the Washington Post^[2]^[3]^[4]and other media.^[5]^[6] He therefore meets the general notability criterion: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." The WP:POLITICIAN guidelines specifically provide that a candidate can be notable if he meets the general notability criterion. --Samsonitus(talk) 8:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Delete I fully agree with Biowarewatch and Mandsford. PoliticoMaryland (talk) 16:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it. This is page has zero neutrality or substance. Every time I post anything with valid references someone from the Murphy campaign deletes it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.69.191 (talk) 00:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good gravy I'm eating a turkey, how'd that durn bird get down ma' gullet? Whatchu' lookin' at? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.240.134.27 (talk) 10:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Consensus is pretty clear on this one, but for the record, the !votes which cited a lack of reliable source coverage were no longer accurate at the time of the closure, the trending is more "keep" as the AfD continues, and at least one !voters gave a "delete or merge" option, which is a conflicted vote. Jclemens (talk) 06:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody Draw Mohammed Day[edit]

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

This observance seems to fall squarely in the realm of WP:NFT. It appears to be something made up recently by a blogger and has little or no true notability. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 20:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Generally, blog posts are not reliable sources. That is true in this article's case. It's really not notable either way. —Untitledmind⁷² (let's talk + contribs) 21:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The article as it stands looks amateurish, but the event is real. It is a historical event in progress. There is a Facebook group on it, has accumulated about 100 drawings of Mohammed. Just because the blogs are picking it up does not invalidate it; they discussed Dan Rather's little mistake too, that was part of history. Google News lists 85 articles on it. John Stewart has done a commentary on it. The fix is to improve the article not delete. I will do this but I wanted others to have a chance not just myself.Friendly Person (talk) 22:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC) The preceeding comment was added by the article's creator. Just thought I'd point that out.[reply]

It would be better to make your own comment rather than tacking something onto mine. Yes, I am the creator of this article. I was invited to join this discussion by the person who nominated the article for discussion, or by the software that handles such matters. I presume it was so that I could defend the article. I labeled my edit as such. Peace, Friendly Person (talk) 23:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I put that on there is because, if the creator of an article is defending it at an AfD, they're supposed to say so. As far as I could see, you didn't. And I've also put my own comment at the end of this section. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 12:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- where is the guidance that says "if the creator of an article is defending it at an AfD, they're supposed to say so"? Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wp:Articles for deletion#How to discuss an AfD - it's the third bulletpoint. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 23:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tx. Curiously, the lead-in makes it sound not like a "supposed to do", but rather says "here are a few basic practices that most Wikipedians use". Could be poor drafting, though.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What isn't there a Facebook group for? And although there appear to be several Google hits, if you look at them closely, they're all blogs. Erpert (let's talk about it) 22:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The L.A. Times has now picked it up. ... Ack, before I could get this edit squared away, the New York Times has now picked it up also. May I suggest waiting a few days before you all just nuke the article.Friendly Person (talk) 23:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, they can't get rid of it until seven days have run. By that point there will be dozens of reliable sources. The closing admin for this discussion will have to take those reliable sources into account and discount all of the comments made about notability that become outdated as evidence of the reliable sourcing builds and builds and builds. We need to start adding them to the article and editing the article to Wikipedia style. This AfD was probably inevitable, but it's a colossal waste of everyone's time. I suggest working on the article and, for the most part, ignoring this AfD. Deletion on notability grounds won't fly. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 21:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Where's the link to the LA Times article? Erpert (let's talk about it) 00:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't see anything on reliable sources to grant this notability. (And to Erpert - I've just googled "Everybody Draw Mohammad Day" and limited it to the LA Times website. It couldn't find anything.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 12:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should have "Everybody Spell 'Mohammed' Day", because that's how it's in the news [10]. Whether it's historically notable or not is another matter. Mandsford (talk) 12:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, of course ~~This is such utter nonsense.~~ There are reliable sources. The Washington Post should be good enough for everybody. [11] The Los Angeles Times [12] should be good enough for everybody. This is a website run by reliable-source broadcast-news organizations. [13] and [14] Serious subject + enough reliable sourcing = worthwhile article subject. ~~Why, why, why do people bring these things up for deletion without researching the matter first?~~ -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)removed my irate comments, see my comment with this same timestamp below for explanation[reply]

By the way, blogs are allowed as reliable sources when the authors of the blogs are professional journalists writing on the websites of news organizations. This applies to the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times blogs I link to above. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Name changed for accuracy Regardless of how anybody else spells "Mohammed" (more popular English spellings are "Muhammad" and "Mohammad", the subject of the article spells it "Mohammed". I moved the article to that title. The redirect should help with readers who use the initial article spelling, and additional redirect pages can be created for alternate spellings. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and changed the name of this discussion to follow

Keep, this has been getting a significant amount of secondary source coverage. -- Cirt (talk) 02:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Some people apparently were searching with way too narrow inputs. For example, 44 results for "everybody draw" and "south park". Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 02:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. Any search with a name like Mohammed/Mohammad/Muhammad is going to be problematic. I also found a number of sources now in the article by using the same search phrases Cirt mentioned. I can see how an editor might think this was not notable if an alternate spelling was used (and the article did have another spelling when it was put up for deletion). -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good work so far, the article is starting to look better, but it could still use some referencing improvement, and also utilization of some of the other more noteworthy sources out there covering this notable issue. -- Cirt (talk) 02:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously those asking to have it deleted miss the entire point of the subject, that of being anti-censorship and for the basic human rights of free speech and access to information. JQF • Talk • Contribs 02:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, obviously. I'm sure it didn't have anything at all to do with the article having no reliable sources other than a blog. Mandsford (talk) 12:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mandsford, that is an incorrect statement. The fact of the matter is that there are multiple WP:RS sources covering this subject matter in critical commentary and in significant amount. -- Cirt (talk) 12:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I was the first guy to look for them and find them simply by using the usual spelling for Mohammed (see above). When the article was first nominated, however, it sourced only to a blog. My objection was directed to the suggestion that the people who first supported deleting it "obviously missed the entire point of the article". That's not why it was nominated. Mandsford (talk) 14:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is based on source coverage of the subject of the article, not the present state of the article itself. -- Cirt (talk) 15:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy just to get in the last word. Mandsford (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Additional coverage of this subject, by sources including: The Washington Post, The Independent, National Post, The Wall Street Journal, FOX News, and National Public Radio. -- Cirt (talk) 20:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article needs some work, but that's not a reason for deletion. The AFD was obviously premature. Hence all the early comments that say there are no reasonable sources, even though tons of them have now popped up... — Hun ter Ka hn 22:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTNEWS. I am also concerned about the WP:BLP implications. The cartoonist who jokingly suggested this idea has clearly backtracked and is alarmed about the publicity this story has gained - shouldn't we respect her wish that the episode be forgotten? Also, the article is not about an "Everybody Draw Muhammed Day" because no such day actually exists. It's about a brief controversy that arose concerning censorship on a TV program. There might be a case for an article on the broader controversy, but not I think for a standalone article on this particular aspect of it. Gatoclass (talk) 23:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The phenomenon has taken on its own momentum, and it is likely the "day" will proceed with or without the endorsement of its original creator. It is certainly getting ample source coverage in other independent secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 23:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Per WP:CRYSTAL, we cannot justify articles based upon speculation about what may or may not be "likely" to occur. If an "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" actually gets established and becomes a notable event, obviously we can revisit the issue, but AFAIK that is not the case ATM. Gatoclass (talk) 00:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass, I thought quite a bit about your WP:BLP concerns before I expanded the article, and I absolutely agree it's a proper concern. By having a Wikipedia article with reliably-sourced statements that she has backtracked, and hopefully an article that is prominent in the search engine results (right now it's #45, by my count), we help make it even more clear for anyone interested (or even half interested) that she backed off. She didn't just jokingly suggest the idea, however. She appeared on a radio show (quotes are in the article) and defended the idea. She pushed it. For instance, she's the one who sent the cartoon to Dan Savage, and the idea got its major, early boost from his posting it at his blog. This is all in the L.A. Times source in the article. The name of the article is the name of the subject, which is actually both a cartoon and a proposal. The subject is defined in the first paragraph as a proposal (I'm going to go back now and add that it's also a cartoon drawing). The controversy is larger. If this AfD somehow results in a deletion, a shorter version should be folded into 201 (South Park), the article on the TV episode. If, by May 20, this thing is shown to have deflated entirely (I'd judge that by whether or not we have news articles from a major news organization on that day or the next), I'd favor merging the WP articles. As Cirt indicates, what the cartoonist did was start a "movement". Movements proceed without overall organization, so it doesn't need the originater to proceed (although we'll see if her about-face deflates it). -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may not need the originator to proceed, but Wikipedia does not need to look like a promoter of the movement either, and this article is currently up for promotion to the front page via DYK. In regards to the cartoonist's own promotion of this notion, she herself summed up her present attitude to those actions with a single word: "Stupidity". Gatoclass (talk) 00:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Gatoclass: It is already notable, due to the significant amount of coverage received in WP:RS secondary sources, regardless of what may or may not happen in the future. But those events are not reason to delete, especially in the face of the source coverage. -- Cirt (talk) 00:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:EVENT. Gatoclass (talk) 01:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOTE. -- Cirt (talk) 01:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, the part of WP:NOTE that says, "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". -- Cirt (talk) 01:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EVENT is a refinement of WP:NOTE, written precisely to address this kind of issue. You can't quote from the broad generalizations of WP:NOTE as if they somehow trump WP:EVENT concerns. Gatoclass (talk) 01:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" is just that. Simply crying "WP:EVENT! WP:EVENT!", does not change that fact. -- Cirt (talk) 01:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it does "change that fact". WP:EVENT was written specifically to deal with situations where the employment of NOTE would lead to undesirable outcomes. To put it another way, WP:EVENT essentially states that there are some circumstances in which WP:NOTE is not sufficient to establish the legitimacy of an article. You may disagree that EVENT applies in this particular circumstance, but you can't argue that NOTE trumps EVENT. Gatoclass (talk) 01:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: WP:EVENT -- there are so many caveats in that guideline that it essentially boils down to: "Do you think this subject will have a lasting effect in the future?" It's a judgment call. I would rather keep for now and wait a couple of months. If the event day fizzles, we'll know. If it produces quite a bit of coverage (and, say, a bunch of newspapers and magazines print cartoons with an image of Muhammad), then a great case can be made that there has definitely been an effect, one that looks lasting (how would cartoonists be threatened in this way in the future if very many of them do the same thing and they aren't then all targeted?). In other words, this AfD is premature. In any event, it isn't clear that this article is in violation of WP:EVENT. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still think this information would be better added to a broader article about the controversy surrounding the South Park cartoons, or to the episode articles themselves. There's very little here to justify a standalone article in my view. And the brief (but limited) spike of interest this story got around a few blogs is likely to fizzle out just as quickly. Certainly I think we would be in a much better position to judge the importance of this story a few weeks from now. Gatoclass (talk) 02:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with merging it into the episode article(s) or specifically tying it to South Park is that, although Comedy Central's censorship was the immediate trigger that sparked this, it pretty clearly ties in with the broader dispute between Westerners valuing free speech and some Muslims who are offended by any depiction of Muhammad. cmadler (talk) 00:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then well fold it into one of the existing pages dealing with depiction of Muhammed controversies, or maybe create a meta-page to deal with them all. IMO it's still somewhat difficult at this stage to tell whether this particular "event" will have any legs or if it will be a mere blip on the radar. Gatoclass (talk) 15:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or at least wait until May 20)

This is something not well-established (unlike the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy), presently only popular in USA, and sounds more like the "capitalist" hallmark holiday. If this article is there in Wiki, then all these days like US National Indian Pudding Day, Eat What You Want Day, and Draw a Picture of a Bird Day should also be included in Wikipedia.

Please use the spelling Muhammad instead of the old 'western only' version Mohammed in the article (except in the original title of the day obviously). Using the word Mohammed may gives an impression of an 'ignorant Americans' to certain groups of people. Everybody knows that nowadays you use Uluru instead of Ayers Rock, and Mumbai instead of Bombay. Same thing with Muhammad.

I don't know of any written source that is referring to this as "Everybody Draw Muhammad Day", regardless of whether that's how it "should have been" spelled. Mandsford (talk) 16:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think that this article should not be an article of itself. I think it should be a section of an article about Molly Norris, which is not in Wikipedia right now (and probably won't be); or perhaps within the Muhammad cartoon article should be re-established. But of course we can wait until May 20, as it seems that this issue is gaining quiet a momentum.

I'm having a hard time thinking this as an encyclopedic material, I'm sorry.

Be aware that this article may upset people and create a long-lasting unnecessary war.--Rochelimit (talk) 23:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The spelling should reflect the original cartoon's spelling, which is "Mohammed". We would do this for the name of an old movie or book, as well, and it doesn't imply an endorsement of a particular spelling. This is a matter of accuracy, and I don't think we have a choice there. (Although, if it turns out more people are out there using a different spelling for EDMD, we'd be within guidelines to change it.) I don't know whether or not this article should use another spelling other than in the title and in the proper name of the cartoon. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this comment by JohnWBarber (talk · contribs) regarding the spelling of the article. -- Cirt (talk) 00:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is a well put together article with fine references. The subject itself - the day - has seen some notable commentators giving opinion, also. It also doesn't seem like anything that's slowing down, with the date approaching, so it's not like it's some little event that has come and gone - it's ongoing and it's relevance/note only appears to be rising. I say a delete at this point would be a little hasty.--Breshkovsky (talk) 01:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cirt.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:THIRDPARTY a lot of valid / reliable sources out there for this.. Traxs7 (Talk) 02:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cirt.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Very notable subject and the article is well sourced.--Gilisa (talk) 03:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable subject surrounding this whole South Park controversy. Str8cash (talk) 04:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cirt. --Plasma Twa 2 04:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or see May 20, if it is not established widely, then delete or move to a subarticle of Muhammad cartoon, reading this entire discussion, I have the feeling that there's a slight element of 'promotion' involved.--Rochelimit (talk) 09:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's attracted plenty of notice from the mainstream press, and regardless of whether it started out as a foolish way of getting attention, it turned into more than that. Besides the sources already cited, it's in this week's issue of Newsweek and probably Time as well. Mandsford (talk) 12:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:NFT doesn't apply here. The movement has significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. OlYeller^Talktome 14:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can certainly see how WP:NFT (Wikipedia is not for things that you or your friends made up. If you have invented something novel in school, your garage, or the pub, but it has not yet become well known to the rest of the world, please do not write about it in Wikipedia. Write about it on your own website or blog instead.) might have seemed applicable when the article was nominated, but it clearly doesn't apply in this case. The article clearly meets the WP:GNG. As for WP:EVENT, that guideline is problematic for any current event, because it requires "coverage that persists over a period of time"; this article seems to meet most or all of the other elements of that guideline. Going on, that guideline says "The duration of coverage is a strong indicator of whether an event has passing or lasting significance...However, this may be difficult or impossible to determine shortly after the event occurs, as editors cannot know whether an event will receive further coverage or not. That an event occurred recently does not in itself make it non-notable." In this case, I think there's likely to be some persistance of coverage, due to the tie-in to what seems to be an ongoing clash between the Western value of free speech and the somewhat widespread desire of some Muslims to prohibit depictions of Muhammad. Although 201 (South Park) was the proximate inspiration for this, it's clearly also related to other instances of this conflict, such as the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. Viewed in that light, as an episode in a much larger continuing dispute, I think this does have persistant notability. cmadler (talk) 15:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It appears that some people have mistaken Wikipedia for a promotional vehicle, not an historical record. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Let's stop covering issues in presidential campaigns as well. And mention of the ipad. I hate that promotional stuff mucking up my historical record.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A throwaway cartoon that has garnered some momentary attention is hardly of the same order of importance, surely. Gatoclass (talk) 15:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the cartoon that "garnered some momentary attention", it is the response that did. I believe that 90% of people (and I am one of them), who know about the cartoons now, would not have known about them, if there were not the threats to kill over those cartoons.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK there have been no "threats to kill" over the South Park episodes, just a warning, though that might reasonably be interpreted as an attempt at intimidation. Let's try to stick to the facts please. Gatoclass (talk) 17:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Gato, I was responding of course to the !voter's post, which focused solely on the issue of promotion. You change the subject, trotting forth a "momentary attention" argument. The problem with the "garnered some momentary attention" argument is manifold. First, the person making the statement doesn't know that the attention is only momentary. He can say that as to just about any single event, and in the initial days cannot be proven wrong. I recall that being trotted out as well in the AfD over the Fort Hood Shooter. Second, the attention here is decidedly more than "some". In the first two full days of the article's existence, it garnered 3.6 thousand hits. The phrase "some" is subjective, but I would say the attention it has garnered is significant. Third, it appears that people on this page (to date) have a different view. By a nearly 2 to 1 margin.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the person making the statement doesn't know that the attention is only momentary

Yes, but that's not an argument for retaining an article, it's an argument for deletion. Articles should not be created until it is reasonably clear the subject will have some sort of lasting significance. And "attention" does not translate to "encyclopedic", I'm sure there are thousands of crufty topics on Wikipedia that get a lot more attention than this article, that doesn't make them more encyclopedic. Gatoclass (talk) 23:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I always stick to the facts--Mbz1 (talk) 17:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Gato: No -- I'm suggesting that when you say it will not have lasting significance, you don't "know" that. You're just saying words. Whereas the number of hits the article has had, and the coverage it has had, suggest the opposite. Furthermore, you say "'attention' does not translate to 'encyclopedic'". Well, first of all what is 'encyclopedic' is another of those mushy phrases that people don't have a clear definition of, and what is in this encyclopedia is different than what is in any other, because of its different format and limitations. Second of all, of course attention counts as to notability -- which is our test here. Coverage in RSs in "attention". We have it. And we haven't seen it wane. And we have enough for a wiki article -- as 2/3 of the editors here have said. The consensus seems pretty clear that just this sort of article is what we editors feel is notable.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we don't know whether it will have any lasting significance or not, what is it doing in the encyclopedia? Per NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT, it's not our job to cover ephemeral events - certainly not to glorify them by giving them their own articles. As for your other comment about the majority thus far voting to keep, please see argumentum ad populum. Gatoclass (talk) 06:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I love Latin as well. Fine language. But since this is the English Wikipedia, I'll stick with WP:CONSENSUS. Policies and guidelines reflect established consensus. Simply the way AfDs close, guidelines and policies are written, and business is done in these parts. And the consensus on this page is indubitable.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may well turn out to be correct, but the consensus is indubitable is still not a valid argument to make in an AfD. Gatoclass (talk) 07:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for proving my point. That is a warning, not an overt threat. If they had actually threatened to kill those writers, they would be under arrest. Gatoclass (talk) 18:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not an "overt" threat. Just a thinly veiled one. They posted a gruesome photo of the dead Dutch filmmaker, as well as the address of Comedy Central's New York offices, along with their statement that, gosh, something could happen to the creators of South Park. That isn't just an observation. What they put on the Web has been widely reported as a "threat" (that word used) by reliable sources. If New York cops and prosecutors don't think they can get a conviction, that's a separate matter. "Nice little cable channel ya got there, Comedy Central. Hate to see anything happen to it ..." Capisce? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, their actions could reasonably be interpreted as an attempt at intimidation. However, they don't rise to the level of an overt threat. If they did that they would almost certainly find themselves in trouble with the law. Gatoclass (talk) 23:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gato--That's a gross oversimplification. Threats are not black and white. As Homeland Security will tell you, they appear across a broad spectrum. And the responses of the law range widely, including backround checks (the Fort Hood shooter approach), surveillance (the Najibullah Zazi/New York City attempted subway bomber approach), speaking with the target privately (the Jihad Jane initial approach), and setting up the person with an FBI agent acting as a co-conspirator, up to the moment of the attack (the Michael Finton approach).--Epeefleche (talk) 07:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject is notable and there are reliable and significant sources. Broccoli (talk) 17:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —cmadler (talk) 17:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As previous users covered, it's definitely notable, as evidenced by the numbers of reliable sources. --Exer 505 (talk) 00:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If on May 20 there's any real repercussion we can recover it, but as it stands now it's just not notable enough.--RR (talk) 16:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cirt. Seems to be quite notable with reliable and notable sources. Stellarkid (talk) 18:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Effort to organize the event has been called off by its creators per a RS, the LA Times. [15]. It would help to promote it on Wikipedia, but is that what Wikipeda is about? 209.44.123.1 (talk) 19:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I condemn or condone the movement but I'm not sure it's hers to call off anymore. OlYeller^Talktome 19:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This event may turn out to be a big event for the year in terms of culture and history, we do not know the implications of teh event yet and is related to notable controversy, KEEP!
Keep This provides information on a topic that people are looking for more information on. Deleting the post would give the appearance of caving into the extremists.

Good point. 1.7K hits on its first full day in existence, 1.9K on its second full day, and 1.8K on its third.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I think that it's important to note that this article has received 3.6k views in the past two days. We may want to add Template:Not a ballot. I don't see that any editors contributing to this discussion are brand new to Wikipedia but I would be surprised if that doesn't change. OlYeller^Talktome 21:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The more I think of it the more I think the article is important even if the "Day" never comes off. The dialog that has been generated is a big issue and it has tentacles to the Danish cartoon situation as well as the Theo Van Gogh story. Stellarkid (talk) 03:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The amount of coverage this has already received in the quality press easily makes it notable. It is inconceivable that in future this event will not now also be remembered and brought up every time the Danish cartoon is mentioned. Arguments that this is WP:NFT or WP:NOTNEWS really will not wash. If this were not a controversial current event and were, say, an event in 1900 and we could find this amount of coverage in quality newspapers there would be no question that it meets Wikipedia notability standards. There is no grounds for treating this article any differently just because it is current. SpinningSpark 11:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Additional (ongoing) coverage, subject itself referred to in the title of this secondary source coverage. The Daily Telegraph -- "America's disappointing reaction to South Park censorship: America's failure to rise up against the intimidation of cartoonist Molly Norris and South Park animators is a sad sign, says Alex Spillius." Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 14:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant coverage--I even heard this covered on CBS news on my car radio. If after some time has passed this is seen as a flash-in-the-pan story, it can be merged with Depictions of Muhammad. But the depth of coverage, as detailed in the article, points to keep. JNW (talk) 17:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quite sufficient coverage my major media to pass WP:N. Favonian (talk) 17:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly received significant coverage in secondary sources. Editors opining that this is just a flash-in-the-pan news event have to prove it, but they can't at this point because the controversy is ongoing. Perhaps they should try to delete at a later time.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep given the growing number of reliable sources of high quality, the ongoing improvements to the article and the exponential increase in page views. Given that there is a near zero chance this article will be deleted (now -- possibly may be AFD'd later if it peters out), I'd vote for closing this AFD early per WP:SNOWBALL so that we can remove the AFD litter tag in the article. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 05:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Gericke[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable. The only reference is to the subject's website. Rrius (talk) 20:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 20:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 20:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added references to the article and included information about other books he's done. There are a number of news reviews for his books alone, so I feel that he meets WP:N and WP:AUTHOR handily. Silver seren^C 20:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 21:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think three novels, one with multiple translations, is adequate to keep. Kdammers (talk) 09:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not quite; see WP:Author. -Rrius (talk) 15:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Lots of trivial local (Chicago area) news results, but none appear to provide significant coverage of him. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NRVE. Tucoxn (talk) 21:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Click on the Google news link at the top of the AFD. They talk about the writer. Dream Focus 09:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't that simple. Look at the quality of the mentions. There are several book reviews, a smattering of announcements of Chicago-area book signings, stories where he is referred to as a staff editor of the Chicago Sun-Times (in one he is clearly a witness to some event), one where he is mentioned in a story about people at the Sun-Times winning awards. That is not enough to establish notability. In fact, if you remove "sun-times" hits from the search, there are only 35 hits, essentially all being book reviews and book signing announcements in local press. In fact, only one hit is not from a Chicagoland source, a notice of a book signing in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, and only one is not for a book signing, a Chicago Tribune book review. Mentioning his name in reviewing his books is not a discussion of him. Notices that he is going to sign his books are clearly "the result of promotional activity" and are likewise not really discussion of him. The combined knowledge obtained from these sources is that he wrote such and such book, at least was an editor at the Sun-Times, was a contributor to American Handgunner, and wants a local shooting range. If he is so notable and he truly has had significant enough coverage to establish notability, why is that all we can glean? -Rrius (talk) 15:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. A merge discussion might be pursued on the article's talk page, as Pcap mentioned. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blackdown Java[edit]

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

This article on a minor defunct Java fork appears to be pretty much entirely self-sourced. The only reference that's not from the project itself is a blog noting its demise. Guy (Help!) 20:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 21:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is not temporary & it is notable that this was a default package in many Linux distributions. Google Books has a dozen pages of hits for Blackdown Java. Admittedly, some of this coverage is cursory. But there seems to be enough in Building Embedded Linux Systems to source this article & there are InfoWorld and AUGGN articles that provide decent coverage too. --Karnesky (talk) 21:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with JDK and perhaps mention in OpenJDK. It is notable as the 1st Java implementation on Linux, which had Sun's blessing/licensing (see [16] Linux Journal story). The article is unlikely to expand beyond its current size, so it's more suitable as a section in the history of the JDK. The Blackdown code did not depart significantly from SunSoft's reference implementation, but there were some changes. It's not a matter of deleting this content tough, only where to best place it. We currently don't have good articles on this stuff. SunfSoft's reference implementation was considerably different than Sun's Solaris JDK implementation; the latter had a whole lot of optimizations. There are references about this kind of stuff. Pcap ping 14:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

M. Christian[edit]

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

After five years we seem to have established only that he has written a book. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:BEFORE and WP:BK. This author has written a number of books that are available on Amazon.com and Barnes & Noble. The article has citations and other ghits can provide more reliable sourced addition or length to the article. The nominator placed a PROD on the article and an admin removed it after reviewing the PROD. DGG explained his actions in this DIFF. Please see articleRevHist to see that the admin was not its creator. This is a classic case of a nominator being too eager to delete an article before following WP:BEFORE's admonition to improve first. --Morenooso (talk) 20:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator. What has WP:BK got to do with this? The article is about a person and the criteria at WP:AUTHOR are rather more stringent: it seems fairly clear that he does not meet them. There is no evidence of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, for example. WP:BLP also applies here of course. Wikilawyering about alleged failure to follow WP:BEFORE has nothing to do with the case. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

N.B.--the convention if for the nom to express his views in the nomination, and not make a separate "del" entry, as that appears as a second vote.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 21:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
very weak Keep That I decline a BLP prod because there is some sourcing does not mean that I necessarily think the article should be in Wikipedia. In this case, a very weak keep only, because Amazon reviews are not enough to establish notability, unless they've been reprinted from a reliable source. But he works in a subgenre where sourcing is particualrly difficult, & I leave it for those who know SF to decide if these prticular reviews can be considered sufficient. KT did quite right to bring it here, where the community can decide. He did make one error, which I can hardly blame him for, as I also didn't catch it. If it's been here since 2006, it's not eligible for BLP prod, which is only for new articles. DGG ( talk ) 21:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Morenooso.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

N.B.--the convention is for afd participants not to vote, because afd is not a vote. Rather, the convention is for afd participants to discover and evaluate sources usable in improving the article in question. I hope i have helped clarify this convention for you. 160.39.213.222 (talk) 02:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. AfD participants indicate whether they believe the subject article is about a notable topic. The closer reflects the consensus of the participants in that regard.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're almost there! Just two steps away. First, remember that notability is defined in terms of sources. Second, change "not really" to "you're right, because". And then you've got it! 160.39.213.222 (talk) 16:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^{User:160.39.213.222 has made few or no other edits outside this topic.}

Keep Google news had 12 thousand results to sort through so I added in the name of one of his books, and found a news source, Locus Online, stating "Among the best-known and best of the erotic-SF writers is M. Christian." They speak highly of him in that opening line alone. [17] One another new source appears as well. More could probably be found on him, but that's enough for me. Dream Focus 09:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Further discussion over whether to redirect or keep as an article may be continued on the article's talk page. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Climate Audit[edit]

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

We need to take this through an afd, since some people insist the content should be deleted. I don't see any agreement on that. Nsaa (talk) 19:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NB: After the AFD-request the page has been altered again. The AFD is about this version, not the current one as of 2010-04-10T22:30. Nsaa (talk) 22:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NB: Well, the above is a trifle disingenuous. In fact the article was restored to the version that has been stable for a year now William M. Connolley (talk) 23:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are disruptive with your removal of the content over and over again. Are you afraid that people may find more and better sources for the article? It's bad [18] and again [19]. (hint you see the small print above: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL?) Nsaa (talk) 22:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inconveniently for the experts, global warming IS a con The Sun "In order to keep the reality hidden from sceptics, especially Climate Audit, he allegedly asked for emails to be deleted, data altered and on one occasion convinced the university not to release information to Climate Audit because of "the types of people" they were."
Professor Phil Jones’s leaked e-mails reveal climate of secrecy and distrust The Times "Many requests for data came from climate sceptics connected with the Climate Audit (CA) blog, which questions the IPCC’s conclusions. Climate Audit is edited by Steve McIntyre, a former mineral industry executive. In one e-mail sent in 2008, Professor Jones tells a colleague how he managed to persuade the university to refuse information requests from Climate Audit. “When the FoI requests began here, the FoI person said we had to abide by the requests. It took a couple of half-hour sessions — one at a screen, to convince them otherwise showing them what CA was all about. Once they became aware of the types of people we were dealing with, everyone at UEA (in the registry and in the Environmental Sciences school — the head of school and a few others) became very supportive.” In possibly the most damning e-mail, Professor Jones asks a colleague at another university to delete e-mails discussing contributions to the IPCC’s fourth Assessment Report. “Mike, Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith re AR4?” "

Just checking the two first sources given by the search (ok, The Sun is a tabloid, but people read it, and they need more info about the Climate Audit blog like presented in the next article from the highly regarded The Times. Nsaa (talk) 22:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, no deletion, no redirect. This is a well sourced article and adheres to Wikipedia:WEB and WP:GNG. Nsaa (talk) 19:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep no deletion, no redirect. Both are notable enough for their own articles mark nutley (talk) 19:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
redirect as is now William M. Connolley (talk) 20:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
redirect, weakly favor: I generally prefer to lump rather than split. Pete Tillman (talk) 21:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
redirect as before. Climate Audit gains its notability because Stephen McIntyre writes it, and McI is notable because of his involvement in the Hockey stick controversy... it has no notability by itself. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Article's "full state" that is being deliberated can be found here, as opposed to the current redirect. --Darkwind (talk) 21:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 21:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. It seems apparent that Climate Audit has no notability independent of its sole proprietor. It might be different if it was a group blog, but it's not. Compare the much more widely read The Daily Dish, which redirects to its author, Andrew Sullivan. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - since the article was merged into Stephen McIntyre a year ago, we can't delete this article alone without deleting both articles. So either the parent article needs to be added here, or this needs to be closed on procedural grounds. This appears to be a "Request for de-merging" (see here) and not a real deletion nom, and is, IMO, outside the scope of AFD. Guettarda (talk) 23:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have a point. I thought there was something not quite right about this AfD - I couldn't put my finger on it, but I was considering suggesting that it should go to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion instead. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as redirect and slap nominator with a trout. Hipocrite (talk) 01:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as redirect. Climate Audit is an extremely WikiNotable blog and Wikipedia definitely should cover it. But the best place to cover it is in our Stephen McIntyre article, IMO: it is better, both for our readers and for editors, to have one not-particularly-long article than two shortish articles. CWC 03:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is notable, being covered in detail by good sources such as Assessing climate change. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't give a flying fuck The article wasn't "deleted by redirect" as Nsaa claims on the CA talk page, it was merged. The redirect cannot be simply deleted since content was actually merged from the Climate Audit article to the Stephen McIntyre article and it wasn't simply redirected. To delete the redirect, the McIntrye article would also have to be deleted. This AfD is Nsaa disrupting Wikipedia by proving a point, and this nomination should be speedy closed. Also, many thanks to the nominator who clearly doesn't understand why AfD is for, and for wasting everyone's time with pointless bureaucracy. You should also brush up on your English and learn the difference between a redirect and a merge. -Atmoz (talk) 17:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nice one. Going after the person when you are short of arguments ("You should also brush up on your English and learn the difference between a redirect and a merge"). For the first. You may be aware that I nominated the article for deletion (and it's disputed content), not the prior redirect. It was no merge discussion at the talk page, It was just done without any discussion (this is the only mentioning of it after it happend Talk:Climate_Audit#Redirecting). I didn't in fact see it before now (yes I have not followed every article in this area, and I think that's the case for most people with day work, contributing here. Nsaa (talk) 21:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that your English sucks and you think you can contribute to the English Wikipedia is your problem, not mine. You don't see me trying to contribute to the Greek Wikipedia. As mentioned on the talk page, there is no requirement needed before a merge takes place. If you don't understand that, please read up on the English Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. As I mentioned, the article cannot be deleted unless the Stephen McIntyre article is also deleted. The content was NOT DELETED. It was simply moved to a different article. IT WAS NOT DELETED. This AfD serves no purpose, because the article cannot be deleted. Also, your edit summary of "AGF" is pointless. I'm not assuming anything. Simply mentioning that your English needs work. Also, if you actually read my comment you'd notice that my comment was not Ad hom. It is that the nominator doesn't understand the English Wikipedia's policy on deletion and how that differs from merging. An Ad hom would be, "Nsaa is stupid, therefore delete." My argument is, "Nsaa doesn't understand the difference between merging and deleting, therefore this AfD should be closed." If you want to de-merge it, use the talk page. -Atmoz (talk) 22:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then. Iff you find bad and not proper English from my contributions here you are welcome to point it out (in a friendly tone so I can learn from it). Again this is an attack on my ability to read, understand and write English. Yes it's not native, but I've never run into trouble before because of this. Just done some 25.000 edits to en-wp in my five years here. Yes, and I do understand the difference between a merge and a deletion. As far as I see most of the content is removed (deleted), with some of it merged into the bio. Nsaa (talk) 22:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What information in the Climate Audit page (diff provided above) was not added to the McIntyre page (diff provided above)? If you can't tell that the entire page was merged, then your English isn't good enough. -Atmoz (talk) 00:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as article. I was planing on creating this article sooner or later. I found enough information in Infotrac and in a couple of books I have that definitely confirm it's notability. This blog is currently used as a reference in at least one article. Above, KimDabelsteinPetersen recommends a redirect or deletion for this article. I find this odd since the same editor advocates using it as a source. Cla68 (talk) 22:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's that straw man good for? We don't need articles on any source - there is none on Journal of Automated Reasoning, for example. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There should be. By the way, Climate Audit's Alexa ranking (54,309) is much higher than RealClimate's (73,509) and DeSmogBlog (75,807), both of which have their own articles. I started the DeSmogBlog article, in fact. Cla68 (talk) 23:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes? Is that an argument to AfD or merge RC or DeSmogBlog? Btw. as you well know Alexa (by Alexa's own recogning) is not reliable for information when the sites have this ranking - so why are you presenting it here? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, Alexa rankings become more accurate the higher the traffic is for a site. So the traffic gap between RealClimate and Climate Audit may be even greater than the rankings indicate. Anyway, Climate Audit is a notable player in the AGW debate, along with RealClimate, Watts Up With That (15,539 Alexa rank), and DeSmogBlog, and merits its own article. Cla68 (talk) 00:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the uncertainty becomes lower the higher the traffic. If uncertainty is higher than the delta between the sites, then it shows nothing - and Alexa is saying that the uncertainty at that level makes the figures unreliable. Unreliable == unreliable .... Not: 2Ah but the rankings are still good.". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alexa's self-declared caveats inre the relative reliability of "rankings" (emphasis mine)...

Generally, traffic rankings of 100,000 and above should be regarded as not reliable.[20]

...and...

Sites with relatively low measured traffic will not be accurately ranked by Alexa. Our data comes from many various sources, including our Alexa users; however, we do not receive enough data from these sources to make rankings beyond 100,000 statistically meaningful.[21]

Web traffic reported by Alexa from all of the above mentioned sources fall well within Alexa's parameters for "statistically meaningful rankings". According to Alexa, while the "reliability" of relative rankings improve proportionally with increased traffic, websites with reported traffic placing them within the 50,000 to 100,000 range can be legitimately characterized as "somewhat reliable" or "somewhat unreliable", not "unreliable". JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please link to articles in Infotrac. I have access and can't find any. -Atmoz (talk) 00:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Which Infotrac database do you have access to? I just checked Academic OneFile and found this: THE GREAT CLIMATE SCIENCE SCANDAL; Leaked emails have revealed the unwillingness of climate change scientists to engage in a proper debate with the sceptics who doubt global warming, writes Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor." Sunday Times [London, England] 29 Nov. 2009: 16. I haven't checked General OneFile yet. Which of the two do you have access to? Cla68 (talk) 00:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also found what looks like nine references to Climate Audit in ProQuest NewsStand. Actually 17 hits came up, but some of them are duplicates and a few appear to be letters to the editor. Do you want me to list them so that you can add them to the article? Cla68 (talk) 00:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of The great climate change science scandal exactly would you add to the Climate Audit page? Talking about hits is all well and good, but if the hits produce crappy results they don't add anything. -Atmoz (talk) 01:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That article confirms who the founder of the blog was, at a minimum. You didn't answer my question, which of the two main Infotrac databases do you have access to and why didn't you find the Times article when I was able to? Also, are you interested in using the NewsStand articles to expand and source the Climate Audit article? Cla68 (talk) 01:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my god! It confirms who the author of the blog is! I change my vote to KEEP! Was anyone disputing that? Is that the best source you could find? List the other sources here and I'll evaluate whether they deserve to be mentioned in the article. -Atmoz (talk) 01:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't answered my second question. Actually, you didn't answer my first question either. Cla68 (talk) 01:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re infotrac: appears I only get access to "Health Reference Center Academic" (whatever the heck that is) and some other minor things. I previously had access to the one you mentioned, but I haven't used it in a while. Perhaps it twas the other library that had the good stuff. But, if you provide me with sources, I'll evaluate whether they should be used in an encyclopedia article about Climate Audit. I can't guarantee that I'll use them because if they're anything like the "source" you provided above they shouldn't be used as sources. Were there any other questions? If not, would you please answer mine? Is that the best source for an article on Climate Audit that you can find? And if not, please provide better ones. -Atmoz (talk) 02:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I can do that. It really doesn't matter anyway. Even if the article gets changed back to redirect now I'll expand it later in my userspace then repost it. As DeSmogBlog shows, it is possible to take bits and pieces from different newspaper articles, including opinion columns, and fashion a complete article on a topic. Cla68 (talk) 02:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a list of Newspaper articles from NewsStand that discuss Climate Audit. I concealed the article texts in footnotes to protect the copyrights:

You have got to be kidding? None of these articles are about Climate Audit, and only one of these mention it in more than 1 paragraph, 5 of the references mention it in a brief one sentence:Here are the links to the actual articles/Op-Ed's - and i've written how much CA is mentioned - as well as put a paranthesis around what focus it has (Climate Audit or McIntyre).

One sentence mention. (McIntyre)
One paragraph mention (McIntyre)
One paragraph mention (Climate Audit)
Two paragraph mention (Climate Audit)
One sentence mention (McIntyre)
One sentence mention (McIntyre)
One sentence mention (McIntyre)
One sentence mention (Climate Audit)

--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finding the links. These mentions establish notability. Also, as I pointed out earlier, I will be expanding this article later using these and other references. As DeSmogBlog shows, it's not that hard to put together a fairly complete article using bits and pieces from various sources. Cla68 (talk) 22:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - but this is abysmally bad sourcing. Most of these are mentions in passing of CA on par with "Steven McIntyre who writes the blog Climate Audit...". If you create articles based on material such as this - then there is something wrong with the articles. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we'll have to disagree. DeSmogBlog contains a lot of references like this, and it passed GA review. Cla68 (talk) 06:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That says alot more about the GA review, and the article on DeSmogBlog, than it does about whether there is appropriate sourcing. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I also think it goes to notability. If newspaper reporters and columnists are starting to mention the blog in their articles/editorials, then it's starting to get noticed in the media. I understand if you don't agree that it rises to sufficient notability for Wikipedia. Cla68 (talk) 06:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as article - per Cla68. ATren (talk) 02:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a full article. From the Guardian "McConchie Law Corporation, acting for Weaver, said that the National Post articles had "gone viral on the internet" and were reproduced on dozens of other websites, including prominent climate-sceptic sites Climate Audit and Watts Up With That.". Obviously notable as it gets noted. Weakopedia (talk) 05:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep merged/redirected and speedy close. This is the wrong forum and a WP:POINTy nomination. And deleting would violate GDFL. The article was merged by consensus like a year ago, so the proper path splitting it back out would be to initiate a discussion at Talk:Stephen McIntyre. It doesn't appear this basic first step has been taken yet. Yilloslime ^T_C 21:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article was merged by consensus like a year ago Really? Have you got a diff to that then? Cos i have asked the others for a diff to this consensus but it does not seem to ever appear mark nutley (talk) 22:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Stephen_McIntyre/Archive_1#Climate_Audit.

Thanks, as i thought there was no consensus to do the merge, nor one to have it kept merged mark nutley (talk) 15:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as redirect The links given by Atmoz above show a complete merge except a little of the introductory paragraph (the McIntyre article had material serving a similar function at that time). Much of the material is still there, over a year later. If the articles are unmerged, the Hockey stick controversy material will need to be rectified to be attributed to the man or the blog; or, better yet, leave them merged and present the story as a unified whole. Thepisky (talk) 02:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as article. Atmoz's claim simply to have simply merged the articles would be more credible if there had not been subsequent efforts to reduce the mentions of Climate Audit in the Stephen McIntyre article, such as [22][23] NPOV requires rather more on Climate Audit than the couple of lines currently in the biography.--Rumping (talk) 00:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Article - On traffic stats alone, it surpasses those of other, comparable stand-alone articles. JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 13:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I Megaliteres Epitihies + Kai Se Thelo[edit]

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

This compilation album was mistaken as authentic when it is actually a fan-made compilation/bootleg. The only coverage on Google is from file sharing sites and Wikipedia mirrors. Indeed if this was official, then there would be ample google hits of legit sources for an artist of Rouvas' calibre, as well as physical and digital retailer websites. Imperatore (talk) 19:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.
Speedy Delete. Non-notable fan-made compilation lacking reliable sources. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a fan-made compilation. The only site that actually "sells" the download for it is a black market site. Greekboy (talk) 20:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 13:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Ballads (Sakis Rouvas album)[edit]

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

This compilation album was mistaken as authentic when it is actually a fan-made compilation/bootleg. The only coverage on Google is from file sharing sites and Wikipedia mirrors. Indeed if this was official, then there would be ample google hits of legit sources for an artist of Rouvas' calibre, as well as physical and digital retailer websites. Imperatore (talk) 19:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.
Speedy Delete. Non-notable fan-made compilation lacking reliable sources. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This also appears to be a fan-made compilation. Greekboy (talk) 20:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G11 - Vianello (Talk) 05:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actionable intelligence[edit]

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

Article on a non-notable advertising phrase, being edited by a WP:SPA account associated with the company. Another editor attempted to prod, but tag was removed by the SPA. RL0919 (talk) 19:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; vague advertisement for a non-notable allegedly trademarked term. Possibly redirect to a target like Intelligence (information gathering). Glenfarclas (talk) 20:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11 - that advertising is pretty unambiguous to me. --Darkwind (talk) 21:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Egypt Sherrod (media personality)[edit]

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

Spammy unsourced BLP Orange Mike | Talk 19:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 21:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A number of Google News hits describe her as "Syndicated Television and Radio Personality" but there aren't that many mentions, and none of them provide significant discussion of this person. Drmies (talk) 16:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per naming conventions, and since there is no other article on Wikipedia for someone named "Egypt Sherrod"... only a redirect from THIS to the current article... the current article name and thus the "findsources" links above act to limit rather than expand searches. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Story points[edit]

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

This is a "how-to" manual for a specific form of software development; violates WP:NOT#MANUAL in every way. Orange Mike | Talk 19:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete': Per WP:NOT#HOWTO. Joe Chill (talk) 20:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 21:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn, see rationale at Videosmarts 2 says you, says two 16:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ComputerSmarts[edit]

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

~~Not a notable product, unsourced, three different google searches turn up absolutely nothing. 2 says you, says two 18:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) Ost (talk) 19:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would have preferred to discuss this with the Videosmarts AfD as I pointed out in that discussion (which I suspect led to this nomination). These devices need to prove notability and Videosmarts has a start. If sources can be found to associate the two products and satisfy WP:N, I'd recommend a merge. —Ost (talk) 19:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Week delete, prefer rescue. Rescue/Merge. Am I missing something or does VideoSmarts actually have nothing to do with ComputerSmarts except sounding similarly and presumably competing in market? Both articles have basically the same issues. — Hellknowz ▎talk 19:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC) Restate. — Hellknowz ▎talk 20:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- According to the articles, they have a similar manufacturer. They also have very similar logos. This is certainly not proof that they are related, but I suspect that they operated together or that one succeeded the other. But admittedly without sources, I'm just speculating. —Ost (talk) 19:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with VideoSmarts or Rescue and Keep. There are fewer sources for this than there are for VideoSmarts, but Google Books still shows a few relevant hits. The products are pretty clearly related. Both manufactured by Connor, similar VHS-format system, nearly identical trade dress. No need to delete verifiable information if, like this topic, it passes the minimum requirement for notability. -Thibbs (talk) 20:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 20:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 20:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added the sources that I can for now, though i'm sure there are more. The problem is that the news sources clearly have information on the subject, but they're all past the Pay-per-view barrier. At the very least, the Tampa Bay Magazine has an entire article on the subject, so i've referenced that in the article. Silver seren^C 20:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oleg Sokolovskiy[edit]

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

Contested prod, only reference provided is a primary one. No indication of how this person is notable. Google News, Scholar, and Book searches produce zero results. RadioFan (talk) 18:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Have also done all the searches and come up with the same empty result. Favonian (talk) 18:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Possibly an A7 candidate, at that. Have done the above mentioned searched as well, and no dice. Rather telling that Google Images turns up zilch for an artist, eh? ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 21:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 21:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N for lack of secondary coverage. Ty 21:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. None of the Google News archive results from a search in Cyrillic appear to be about this Oleg Sokolovskiy. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this promotional page. Drmies (talk) 18:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Blithe Spirit (play). Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Madame Arcati[edit]

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

Obscure blog; author has some bizarre idea that blogging about a notable person makes one notable! Orange Mike | Talk 18:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails "multiple," "non-trivial coverage" requirements. GScholar, GHits, GNews, GBooks return nothing to establish notability. Exercise caution when searching, of course (Madame Arcati is a character in a Noel Coward play!). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Blithe Spirit (play). This may actually become an encyclopedically notable blog, but as of now, as best I can tell, Ginsengbomb is correct that coverage is by far too sparse and too passing for notability. Glenfarclas (talk) 20:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 21:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 13:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simufarm[edit]

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

Non-notable failed online video game development project. I can't find any reliable-source coverage at all, just some forum postings, Rapidshare downloads, and the like. PROD contested without comment. Glenfarclas (talk) 18:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this video game. Joe Chill (talk) 20:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. No real sources.— Hellknowz ▎talk 00:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant, third party coverage, a game that is still in development and has not yet been released. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 01:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete of the snowball variety. Marasmusine (talk) 13:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Molten core[edit]

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

Non-notable dungeon within a game. Was proposed for deletion, but was contested with rationale: "(removed tag. I can show you 100 videos of molten core raids. It was the highest dungeon at one point (notability does not expire) and if the fictional sacred heart hospital from tv show scrubs is acceptable for an article.. this is.)"

The "videos" refer to youtube videos and the like, which do not grant notability. The argument of "all or nothing" is similarly not convincing.

Has been tagged for merge some time ago, but no discussions have taken place, and there is no content to actually merge as it is not relevant to the topic, nor notable enough to add to the target article about it. Taelus (talk) 18:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) Taelus (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interested parties notified: The page creator, contestor of the proposed deletion, and editors of the merge target at Talk:World of Warcraft have been informed of this listing. --Taelus (talk) 18:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relevant past AfD discussion can be found here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deadmines. A page on the same topic was deleted, although under a different capitalisation. Hope this helps, --Taelus (talk) 18:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To butcher an old saying if we're not going to do something right, it's not worth doing at all. If we were to have this page it should be comprehensive. If there's no desire to have that here (as I expect) I'm not sure there's any value in a stub.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to World of Warcraft. Redirects are cheap, and its a reasonably plausible search term. Oh, and nerf rogues. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally I would be against redirecting here, as it is not mentioned in the target article. I have nominated several redirects similar to what this would become if this were the outcome here: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2010_April_26#Black_Temple, so please do leave your opinion. Whilst I agree with redirects being cheap, I don't like the way that some articles are "deleted by redirecting", especially when targets have no relevant detail and never will do. It's just misleading readers into thinking we have content that we don't per the notability policy. --Taelus (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete. Oh, come on, WoW instances is beyond WP:FANCRUFT. To previous comment on "sacred heart hospital" or in general WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument for keeping this. I don't see Naxx or ICC having an article. The best Warcraft universe currently deserves is an article on its locations. There is WoWWiki for this. And calling MC notable because it was end-game at 60 is close to calling Aesir Corporation notable because that's the end-game of Max Payne. — Hellknowz ▎talk 19:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, absolutely no secondary sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Do not redirect as the term is not mentioned in the WoW article. Glenfarclas (talk) 20:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article has the kind of info for WoWWiki or some other WoW-specific site that helps gamers, not something appropriate for Wikipedia. The content isn't appropriate to include in the WoW article, so I don't recommend a merge, and a redirect would be confusing since there's no info on Molten Core in the main article (nor should there be). -- Atama頭 22:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete - WP:GAMECRUFT in its purest form. Let it snow so we can move on. --Teancum (talk) 13:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete obvious WP:GAMECRUFT, please delete this immediately, it's already snowy. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of country songs[edit]

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

Way, way, way too wide a scope. Even just counting the charted songs from 1944 to late 2008 filled a 672-page book. There are far more focused lists that present this in a more rational manner, such as List of number-one country hits of 2010 (U.S.) and multiple artists' discographies, as well as Category:Country music songs. I mean, which songs can be included? The last track off Joe Nichols' incredibly obscure 1996 debut? Some song that peaked at #87 by an artist who doesn't have an article? Unreleased tracks by Rascal Flatts that show up under their name in BMI or ASCAP? Last AFD was "no consensus." Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is possibly as broad as the Lists of piano pieces which were successfully deleted after a couple tries. Honestly, I don't know how this didn't pass the first AFD. Clearly the topic is too broad, and broad lists encourage spam and non-notable nonsense. Please delete this page! — Timneu22 · talk 17:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clear inclusion crieteria for a notable topic. Being a big page isn't grounds for deletion. Lugnuts (talk) 18:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that page size isn't a problem, but notability and WP:IINFO are problems. What's the line to determine if a song should be included? You'll never get them all. — Timneu22 · talk 18:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The opening line states "This is an alphabetical listing of notable country songs". Notable songs - songs that have (or are likely to have) their own WP article. Lugnuts (talk) 18:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which would still make for an ungodly huge list which would be slanted towards recentism. Most non-#1 songs before the Internet age are unlikely to have their own standalone articles (with a few exceptions) simply because there was nothing along the likes of Country Weekly, Country Standard Time or The 9513 to review them. Something like I Still Like Bologna, which only got to #32, has an article because modern web sources reviewed the single in depth, but I doubt you'd find enough information to support an article on, say, "Whatever Comes First" by Sons of the Desert, which went to #10 in 1997, or Southern Pacific's #2 hit "New Shade of Blue" from 1988. Even more, there are years-in-country-music articles such as 2010 in country music which already list each Top 20 single from the year in question. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is titled "list of country songs," but that conflicts with saying "this is an alphabetical listing of notable country songs." Now if it's a list of country songs, then it would list all country songs. That would take eons to find and list every single country song. The article also says "Notable songs of a particular year can be found via list of years in country music." That list is not just about songs, but about about other notable happenings in country music period. With the article in question, what criteria is set that makes these particular songs notable? The list is just subjective and what someone considers notable may not be the same for someone else. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 19:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 21:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep By our standard practice, "List of country songs" means List of notable country songs." If we did list all country songhs, that would in fact violate NOT INDISCRIMINATE. If we list the one's notable enough for Wikipedia articles, that's the appropriate way to do it, however long the list may be. If not all the notable country songs have articles, they should. For the time being, it would be enough to keep them on the list if they obviously qualified, such as a clear reference showing the charting. If the list gets too long for people to handle on slower connections, it cn be divided alphabetically. The length of a list is no bar to having it. We are NOT PAPER. DGG ( talk ) 21:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand we have categories and lists that overlap, but isn't a category good enough here? If all we're doing is providing the song title, it seems like we could just redirect the list to the category page. I really don't see how this page is needed; or if it is needed, why it should be modified manually... in fact, why not just make all lists like this one be created automatically based on the category, via a bot? Maintaining this monstrosity is too tedious, especially when the category already exists. — Timneu22 · talk 21:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Timneu, but what DGG and Lugnuts are failing to realize is that it's unreferenced which make the entries notability questionable and the grounds for inclusion in this list is subjective and so what one person deems notable maybe different for another person. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 01:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep quite simple inclusion criteria, if i get the jist of it. however, all these unlinked songs have got to go, or have references here showing notability. if a song is on an album by an artist, and that album shows the songs notability, then link to the album article. anyone who shows a reference for a song should redlink it. it will be much smaller once trimmed, and all the songs can be added over time by devotees. however, length is not the issue here, nor is cleanup.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Filling a book is no reason to delete because it is our policy that Wikipedia is not paper. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Notable songs are already broken down by year and listed in Category:Years in country music. If we're going to make a list of every country song with an article, Category:Billboard Hot Country Songs number-one singles alone contains more than 1,500 pages! Eric444 (talk) 04:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this page will never be completed as there are thousands and thousands of country songs out there and I doubt anyone would want to go and add every song recorded by every single country act out there. This would be better in categories than a 6000+ list of songs. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 05:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & above commentors: there's just too many country songs and a list doesn't really make sense, categories would be better CloversMallRat (talk) 00:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Caldorwards and CloversMallRat. A list doesn't make sense at all when we have categories to work with. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 22:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erotic Torture Chamber[edit]

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

Non-notable anime, unreferenced for two years (one dead link, one web site with user-contributed reviews, one web forum ... these are not what I call reliable sources). Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I found one review but I don't think this is enough. If more reliable sources are found I may change my vote. – allen四names 19:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NOTE and much of the single review from reliable source review it did get is a plot summary with very little critical commentary, mostly comparing it to the other two videos in the set. I have went ahead and removed the two unreliable sources from the article. —Farix (t | c) 20:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: CSE results. --Gwern (contribs) 15:33 28 April 2010 (GMT)

Could you explain the message you're trying to convey here? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 11:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's linking to a search filtered to just sources relevant to anime and manga that are known to be reliable. It would help if he said that in full each time, given there's always going to be someone who hasn't seen that before. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that these web sites are "published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"? Are any of them "academic and peer-reviewed publications"? "Mainstream news sources, especially those at the high-quality end of the market"? Do I need to restate that "self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable"? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are reliable sources that review this, as Gwern's link clearly shows. Dream Focus 14:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Only one reliable source which I've already explained above. —Farix (t | c) 14:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 13:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Insect film[edit]

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

Unreferenced original research. What on earth is an "insect film"? The author has simply invented this genre. Fails WP:OR, WP:RS andy (talk) 17:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely 100% Delete. Georgia guy (talk) 17:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Spray with Raid Non-notable neologism. No reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - article creator has a history of vandalism and creation of false articles. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smoosh - per WP:NEO, WP:OR, and possibly even WP:NFT. --Darkwind (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per arguments above. Mike Allen 06:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. No such thing. 68.218.24.252 (talk) 00:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not a genre. Joe Chill (talk) 00:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The most comprehensive list of film genres that I know of is located at AMC's website where pages on Main Film Genres, Film Sub-Genres and Minor Film Sub-Genres all fail to mention "Insect film." It seems made up, definitely no reliable sources can be provided to verify its existence. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Having no bug in this fight, I do not think that this is entirely made up as the nom suggests: see The Insect Fear Film Festival, Insects of Film, Insect Snuff Films. I suspect there's more out there as well.--Mike Cline (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WITHDRAWN BY NOMINATOR WWGB (talk) 10:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC) (NAC)[reply]

Melbourne Storm salary cap scandal[edit]

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

Nothing in this article improves on Melbourne_Storm#Salary_cap_breach. While "Melbourne Storm salary cap scandal" may well in the future continue to be described as "the biggest fraud in Australia's professional sporting history", Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Shirt58 (talk) 16:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Melbourne Storm#Salary cap breach and redirect to the same - as the nom states, this article doesn't improve the main one, but it seems a reasonable search term. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 19:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Melbourne Storm article for now. If the salary cap breach topic grows (as seems likely) then a separate article may be split off at some later date. Anyway, "scandal" is a value-laden media-driven term that is inappropriate here. WWGB (talk) 02:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily notable - this has received literally pages of coverage in the major Australian newspapers and is certain to be of lasting significance. Nick-D (talk) 09:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs expansion, not deletion, and keeping it in the Storm article would overwhelm it, when it's fully done. And why has the article creator become the article deletion nominator? Split personality or am I missing something?The-Pope (talk) 13:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have asked, in what I would assert is a tone of neutrality, on the Melbourne Storm talk page for editors to consider and possibly contribute to this AfD. --Shirt58 (talk) 11:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but only if the highest standards of verification and NPOV are achieved. It's not uncommon for WP to cover unfolding events in stand-alone articles. Tony (talk)

12:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC) I agree with the comment above about the non-neutrality of "scandal". Isn't there a better term? "Issue" is a bit tired. "Controversy"? Tony **(talk) 12:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is not a problem. Most of the information in the Melbourne Storm article relating to this should be merged into this eventually. Prefer "Breach" to scandal. AIRcorn (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Breach' would probably be the better word to use, as it states exactly what the event is. -- saberwyn 07:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination. It's obvious that the consensus will be keep. Apologies to folks who responded, for obvious reasons, chiefly that I should have started the article - about a current and contentious issue - with much more than its scant content, then waited to see what happened to it. Would seek your assistance with improving it! --Shirt58 (talk) 10:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 08:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul William Day[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Paul william day

Articles for deletion/Paul William Day (2nd nomination)

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

Poorly sourced BLP; no improvements have been made since previous AFD nomination. -- Davnor (talk) 16:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Davnor (talk) 16:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources can't be verified (author has admitted most are not available online), and appear to amount to little more than "local interest" coverage, not significant coverage. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with respects to the nominator, I do not believe that waiting just 12 days since the last close to renominate is an appropriate length of time to allow improvements over time. Did you take this to DRV first to contest the non-consensus keep close of 12 days ago? Sources not being online is not a valid reason to delete, and the sources do appear to be more than just "local" coverage, being sources from all over that contenent. Further, even if available sources are all Australian, notable in Australia is notable enough for en.Wikipedia per WP:UNKNOWNHERE. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}

Comment With respect to Mr. Schmidt, the subject of this article is the owner of a local recording studio who has produced a single, highly amateur film, which has garnered a bit of "hey isn't this interesting" type of local coverage in the Brisbane press. As a musician, he was a member of two bands which also received some local Brisbane press. The only hint of "national" coverage is the purported interview with Midday host Ray Martin. However, since the text of that interview is not available, it is unclear whether that bolsters notability or not. Since the original article was an autobiography, it is fair to assume that claims of notability made in the article are likely exaggerated. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given that this is a BLP, I believe it is appropriate to hold the article to stricter standard, and thus a period of nearly two weeks should have been sufficient time to have seen at least some improvement to the article's sources. Nevertheless, if there is a consensus that this was not enough time, then I agree that it would be appropriate to keep the article for now. I also agree that the degree to which the notability is localized should not be a significant factor in the decision. What is at issue, however, is the quality of the sources: are they reliable, and do they provide significant coverage of the subject? The issue of reliablity was raised during the previous debate (see the last comment in particular), and I think the concerns noted there still apply. Regarding the issue of significant coverage, it is unclear whether or not the sources are simply fluff pieces, rather than substantive coverage. Davnor (talk) 21:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment with respects to User:WikiDan61 & nominator User:Davnor. While the original version did not meet BLP, that is no longer the case. The current version meets BLP concerns while the original did not. The Article went through many changes since it was first created by a one-edit SPA as it became property of Wikipedia and other editors looked in. This became THIS... showing that editors were/are interested in making it a decently encyclopedic and sourced article per WP:IMPROVE. If the close was somehow incorrect, a DRV would have been the proper course, rather than a hurried renomination. Policy acknowledges that immediate perfection is not demmanded. So 12 days from a non-disputed close to a renomination of a non-consensus kept article seems just a bit of a hurry, no? If this had not been improved in six months and then returned to AFD, I might be more inclined to agree with you. But this is just too soon back at AFD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note, that the policy to which you referred also states that "This principle is not as broadly endorsed for biographies of living persons." Regarding the degree to which the renomination was too hasty, we must simply agree to disagree. Thanks! Davnor (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 12 days is way too soon to return an article to AFD. ~~I would submit that this nom may look to some like emotional involvement, of some sort, in this particular article~~. I would also like to add that a film being characterized as "amateur" has no bearing on notability. Evalpor (talk) 22:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for your contribution; I respect the opinion that the nomination was too hasty. However, I also respectfully urge caution about implying a bias, emotional or otherwise, without due evidence; especially when that implication is couched in weasel words ("may look to some"). Thank you! Davnor (talk) 15:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Davnor, you are absolutely correct, particularly regarding my use of weasel words. I retract that part of the statement, with apologies to all, most particularly to the nominator. Evalpor (talk) 15:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on the sources found last time, in the previous AFD. They wouldn't interview the guy if he wasn't notable. And whether any of those sources are added to the article or not, isn't relevant. You don't delete an article because you don't like it. You delete it only if the subject is notable. Past evidence proves them notable, so that's it. If you want something added, then you can do it yourself. Dream Focus 10:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "They wouldn't interview the guy if he wasn't notable" is a fairly weak argument. Non-notable people get interviewed all the time. Local interest or local color stories do not generally count as significant coverage, and most of the coverage for Day appears to be of the local color variety. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MichaelQSchmidt - sourcing seems adequate, although not online. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Peter 16:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Sassy lamma sassa[edit]

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

WP:NEOLOGISM. Lacks citations to significant coverage in reliable sources. Contested prod. RadioFan (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTMADEUP. WP:NEO. WP:V. Ka renjc 16:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons given above. Can we speedy this under WP:SNOW?
Yes. Peter 16:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment and block the creator while we are at it. I've replaced the AFD tags twice on this nonsense article in the past few minutes.--RadioFan (talk) 16:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G7 page blanked by author JohnCD (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruehl Airlines[edit]

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

Contested prod. A fictitious airline likely used in online gaming. No indication of notability. Lacks any coverage in 3rd party reliable sources. RadioFan (talk) 16:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 13:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IBall Challenge[edit]

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

Unremarkable minigame. Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources, contested prod. RadioFan (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. No real coverage and no ascertaition of WP:N. — Hellknowz ▎talk 23:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 13:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KidStart[edit]

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

I cannot find significant coverage for this site. Most of the sources I found on Google dealt with a separate Canadian group also called "KidStart". • ɔ ʃ → 15:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:WEBSITE which correctly states that "Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance...". This article is part of a promotional campaign (see Cashback website#See also) and has no encyclopedic value. Johnuniq (talk) 02:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 13:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marvin Nallbani[edit]

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

Football player who has not played in a senior match - doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE or WP:N guidelines. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Having never played a senior match, let alone a professional one, this player clearly fails WP:ATHLETE. The lack of significant coverage also means he fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 19:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails both WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG Steve-Ho (talk) 12:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Merging options may be further discussed on the article's talk page. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Septic abortion[edit]

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

This page violates notability (events) under routine coverage. Wikipedia has no notability guidelines that specifically address medical complications - anyone want to start one? This is just a complication of abortion. There is no article about septic appendectomy. Perhaps a section on under abortion is better, that way the info can be kept. I'm willing to help. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Septic abortion appears relatively often in other articles - see Special:WhatLinksHere/Septic_abortion. Therefore, I thought it would be easiest to have an own article for it, rather than having them all redirecting to a section in e.g. abortion, since all such redirects stop working once the section title is changed. Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyhow, I think deletion is very exaggerated. I would accept a merge to Abortion, however. Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I agree. Deletion is too cruel for all this work done and all those references cited. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep location is still what I'd prefer, but let's see what the third voter says. If merging, however, miscarriage would probably be the best target. Mikael Häggström (talk) 19:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The refs are not WP:MEDRS compliant. This is a complication of a mischarriage and should be combined into that page.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate all comments above. My opinion is that this article should be retained as a separate article, with the title to remain as is. Septic abortion is not merely a complication of a medical or surgical procedure; rather it can and frequently does occur "spontaneously", much like certain other life-threatening infectious processes (e.g., appendicitis, tonsillitis, or ascending cholangitis). The diagnosis of septic abortion overlaps with other related diagnoses, like infectious endometritis and puerperal fever. But it is sufficiently different, IMHO, to warrant its own article. That having been said, this article is in need of LOTS of work. In particular, it needs to be brought into compliance with WP:MEDRS guidelines for medicine-related articles. I would also like to seee some discussion of the incidence, diagnosis and differential diagnosis of septic abortion, as well as its cost to society. And for what it is worth, I am a practicing physician. :-) DiverDave (talk) 01:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I must admit don't understand this deletion discussion. Google might not be the ultimate referee but gives a massive 121,000 hits for the exact term. Scholar still has 4000-something works listed. So it seems to be a well-established, extensively researched process (not an event, of course). That there is no special guideline for it should not be a reason for deletion. --Pgallert (talk) 08:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The google hit data has been used to have an article on Amanda Knox, who has over a million hits. Amanda Knox was deleted and made into a redirect. I am in favor of making google hits some consideration but this is not to be. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge. Content is important. And I agree that the main source sucks. JFW | T@lk 19:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability as a medical condition other than a complication from an abortion or as a type of miscarriage is neither asserted nor proven in this article. This article is cited to a dictionary definition and one online "encyclopedia" article. Repeating that single citation roughly 30 times does not make this any better sourced than if it had one per paragraph or even one non-inline cite at the bottom of the page. As it stands, it's a partial rewording and slight condensing of a single copyrighted source. The WP:MEDRS guidelines for medical articles are in place for a reason. - Dravecky (talk) 02:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic has real merit, both medically and historically. The article needs vast improvement, but the past neglect does not impact the notability of the topic.Novangelis (talk) 15:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - although the title appears to be POV, it is neither an abortion nor exactly a regular miscarriage. Bearian (talk) 17:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 13:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wild West Online: Gunfighter[edit]

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

Article has no significant coverage from any reliable sources. Contested PROD --Teancum (talk) 15:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - A search using WP:VG's custom search engine gets results from sites like IGN, and GameZone, but none have reviews or anything to establish notability. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Remove all the primary sourcing until proper secondaries are present. Add this at least: [24] and maaaaaybe these: [25], [26]. I cannot argue for WP:N, but there seems to be marginal coverage. — Hellknowz ▎talk 19:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was the original PRODer, and never found references that I believe demonstrate notability. If someone familiar with video games, related reliable sources and any special video game-related notability guidelines can explain how this game is notable, I might reconsider. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 01:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 13:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neale Smith[edit]

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

This Scottish photographer's claim to fame seems to be doing work for various Scottish bands -- but since I cannot find any information on him other than that, he appears to fail WP:INHERITED (as well as WP:BIO). Erpert (let's talk about it) 15:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as proposed. -- Hoary (talk) 22:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley Perkins[edit]

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

Article about a real person with no references and is a non-noteable rapper considering he has released multiple albums but none are important for there own article STAT- Verse 15:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Query. Is the nominator aware of WP:Notability (music)? Does the subject fail to pass the requirements of that guideline? Abductive (reasoning) 01:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has released multiple albums on the indisputably notable Stones Throw Records (around since 1996, roster of well known performers). Passes WP:BAND criterion #5 handily. — Gwalla | Talk 16:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Gwalla is correct. Drmies (talk) 17:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 13:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Hardy Vodka[edit]

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

Unfinished nomination. Once again I'm the ONLY PERSON ON THE WHOLE WIKI who can fix a freaking redlinked nom. Tagged as possible copyvio, questionable notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hammer, do you want a cookie for your efforts? The life of an editor. Boo hoo! I'm sure you'll get over it. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 19:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I'll bring the Ed Hardy vodka to go along with the cookie. I'll confess, I get really irritated when I see the words "this article's entry" in bright red within the "this article has been nominated" box. Most of us like to at least read the article before we offer our two cents worth, and we take it for granted that we'll dash over there and then come right back to the discussion. If it's properly linked, no problem. But if it's a red link, you get over there, read the article, you say "Yeah, this is crap, this really has got to go, I'll just click here and go back to the discussion and... what the fuck?!!! Just for that, I'm going to vote to keep it..." Mandsford (talk) 13:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete. No sources available. NN. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#Spam. No indication of notability. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 22:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom (excluding the brief rant). --Nuujinn (talk) 00:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 13:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jose De Jesus Rodriguez[edit]

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

Football player who does not meet WP:N or WP:ATHLETE guidelines. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article itself affirms its own non-notability in saying "He has not yet debuted with the club." He therefore fails WP:ATHLETE, and there is insufficient coverage for this article to pass WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 19:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails both WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG Steve-Ho (talk) 12:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 13:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff_Hewitt[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Since last deletion debate in 2007 subject has not achieved anything in the Australian comedy industry that would really warrant him still having his own Wikipedia page. There are many comedians in Perth and the rest of Australia who have achieved as much as Hewitt but do not have their own Wikipedia pages. He is unknown as a comedian by the majority of Australians and thus has no real notability...he seems to have made this page for himself (or had a friend do it) purely for promotional or self-indulgent reasons.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable.--Grahame (talk) 01:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references sufficient to establish notability. Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough Shorngenius (talk) 11:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 09:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Pink[edit]

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

CSD tags repeatedly removed by creator and IPs. Not notable, no verifiable or reliable sources. Appears to be a autobiography. No GHits (excepting self-published websites), no GNews/Books/Scholar hits. GregJackP (talk) 14:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snow delete. I agree with everything GregJackP said; in addition, her label, Pinkilition, has three Google hits. Erpert (let's talk about it) 15:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - might be too early for Snow Delete, but the nominator and first voter are correct about total absence of coverage in reliable sources. The article is a self-promotional biography... WP:NOTMYSPACE. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete tha sucka. It's the creation of a fevered ego. C1k3 (talk) 03:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Martinez[edit]

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

Article was previously prodded so I am nominating it for deletion discussion. Reason: He is a non-notable rapper. The article does not cite reliable and independent sources to support a claim for notability. Andy14and16 (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Martinez has received a lot of online coverage from e.g. CBC Radio 3, Exclaim! concert review, Spinner interview, Impose interview, Pitch interview, Vision Vancouver noting he won a Western Canada Music Award, AMG album review. Chubbles (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject has received enormous amounts of coverage. Did you even try to find sources for this article prior to nominating like is required by WP:GD? -DJSasso (talk) 17:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 13:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ang Wee Hiong[edit]

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

Principal of an independent school. I just do not see the notability. Using AFD instead of A7 CFD for this, since the page has been around for a while, and I might be missing something here. TexasAndroid (talk) 13:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nope, you didn't miss anything. Looks like a straightforward fail of A7, and wp:bio as well. Ray^Talk 15:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability. MiRroar (talk) 20:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. CSD G12. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Theaters in Birmingham, MI[edit]

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

The page is a direct copy of the "source". Peppage ^tlk 13:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ecch. Cut-and-paste articles make me want to throw up. In any event, this is as non-notable as one can get. Perhaps the article about the Detroit suburb can list "the movie theatre with exclusive high back seats with custom Tempur-Pedic cushions" as one of the tourist attractions in Birmingham, Michigan. Mandsford (talk) 13:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if notable, seems like it should be merged into another article. A separate article for this is just stupid. — Timneu22 · talk 13:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing to go crazy about, just not a worthwhile article.--Milowent (talk) 19:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Why is this even here? It's a perfect candidate for a speedy delete? I mean, who would contest such a pile of crap that the creator calls an article? Who in their right mind would see this article as worthwhile? Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 19:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Let's call this a G3, shall we? Tony Fox (arf!) 18:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mehna Region's Complete Poke'dex (w/ the new pokemons of Mehna)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Mehna Region's Complete Poke'dex (w/ the new pokemons of Mehna)

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

This is something to do with Pokemon but from the lack of ghits I'm pretty sure it was made up by the author. No references. No evidence that this is a notable topic - or even, really, what it is. AFAIK there is no such pokemon region. Fails WP:RS, WP:N andy (talk) 12:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just like Andy, I'm pretty sure this was made up as well. I was initally thinking that it's something to do with the upcoming Pokémon Black and White games, but they haven't announced the name of the region yet, but they have announced the names of two creatures in the game. Neither of them are on that list. So I'm willing to bet that it's something made up one day - I'll have to do some more research later, as I'm not allowed onto Bulbapedia at work :(. (It should also be noted that it was PRODded, but - as usual - was removed by the creater without explanation or improvement.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 15:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 13:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Darnell Garcia[edit]

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

Proposed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Article_Review Week April 15, 2010, User:Jmcw37 as secretary.
Garcia is not notability as a martial artist and the criminal charges (tax evasion) are not enough to make him noteworthy. jmcw (talk) 12:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —jmcw (talk) 12:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 12:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:MANOTE. Lacks notability and independent references. Papaursa (talk) 00:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable martial artist. Astudent0 (talk) 13:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boba_Phat[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not cover a topic notable enough for Wikipedia's standards. Information is better suited for a personal site, or other outlet, such as social networking sites. Biohazard388 (talk) 11:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC) — Biohazard388 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep there is significant coverage from reliable sources, meets general notability guidelines.--kelapstick (talk) 12:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant keep (with possibly merge down the road). Sourcing mostly sucks -- YouTube and whatnot -- but seems like a lot of third-party folks have covered the thing. Whether that qualifies as significant coverage, I dunno. --EEMIV (talk) 12:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 12:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 12:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It was determined six months ago in the prior AfD that this should be kept, and nominator provides no explanation for the new AfD. "Not notable enough" as a nominating justification is a slippery slope; I agree that the the topic is not extremely notable, but sourcing and press coverage does exist, and this was previously determined to be sufficient to keep.--Milowent (talk) 12:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Nominator's first edit was to nominate this for deletion.--Milowent (talk) 12:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've checked through all of the source. Most of them were either YouTube videos, photo galleries, a FaceBook page, or other social media websites; all of which do not qualify for WP:NOTE nor are they reliable sources. The rest are extremely trivial mentions or coming up as 404. The only two reliable sources, the Guardian and Publisher's Weekly, doesn't even mention this cosplayer and are only used to cite attendance figures. This article is borderline self-promotion. —Farix (t | c) 14:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'd say it is blatant self promotion. A passing mention in two news articles doesn't qualify him for anything on Wikipedia. If Wikipedia will host a page about him, then why not an individual charity worker that has been in a local paper several times? By accepting an article on this character, a precedent is set that says anyone with two pictures on a website can be accepted. I believe this to be against the both the rules of the site, as outlined in WP:NOTE. This tell's us that the social networking sites like Facebook, and the Youtube links are invalid for use as citation because of the "Independent of the subject" clause, listed in the first section. Also in that same section, "Significant coverage" is more than a trivial mention..".Biohazard388 (talk) 13:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources were discussed in length at last AFD, and most people said Keep. Google news search for Boba Phat shows an article at Daily Titan[27] speaking of him and showing a picture in the article. http://www.presstelegram.com/news/ci_13476056?source=rss has an article about him as well. Dream Focus 14:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentHaving your picuter appear, and only your picuter, in a newspaper is extreamly trivial and does not ammount to significant coverage as requrired by WP:NOTE. —Farix (t | c) 16:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Picuter"??? - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Talking of a notable event, and choosing a picture of this person to represent it, counts to notability. And the other link I provided talks about him in detail. There is plenty of coverage of this guy out there. Dream Focus 08:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Two tiny paragraphs with less than two hundred words is hardly talking about him "in detail". As to choosing a picture of a person to represent a notable event, there are hundreds, if not thousands of costumers whose pictures haven been chosen at one time or another for use in various blurb articles like that one. Are you suggesting that every single one of these individuals warrants an article here on Wikipedia?Rogueslade (talk) 23:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - This isn't just some random picture, of a random fan, but someone who has created themselves a notable character which keeps getting coverage of many events. Dream Focus 02:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        There are numerous cosplayers that have achieved equal notoriety within their costuming field, including some that have been featured in magazines related to that particular show/movie/cartoon/comic. This does not mean that the characters they created warrant biographical articles. I fail to see how a couple of youtube videos, a single fan-made documentary, a handful of pictures and a couple brief lines in one publication validate this article. Until this article was brought to my attention, I'd never heard a word about 'Boba Phat'. Leaving this would be akin to creating a biography of 'Bubba Fett' a costumer that wears a Boba Fett helmet and overalls with a mini-keg strapped to his back. In fact, there are several 'Bubba Fetts' running around, all taking the Boba Fett archtype and applying stereotypical redneck traits. You'll find similar videos and articles of dozens of costume variants that follow this general trend. Do they also warrant wiki-biographies? This Boba Phat is no different from any other fan-made costume character. Rogueslade (talk) 03:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep! We already determined in the previous AfD that the subject clearly met the notability criteria, and once that happens, notability sticks, even if the subject is no longer "popular". Also suspect SPA user, whose sole contributions are the nomination this article for AfD. Bad faith. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:NOTAGAIN is not a valid reasons to either speedy keep or keep this article. Just because an article survived AfD once doesn't mean it cannot be challanged again in the future. And by my judgement, the last AfD didn't acutally evaluate the reliability of sources or their depth of coverage. —Farix (t | c) 16:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not liking the results doesn't mean someone should do it all again hoping to have things turn out differently. And I believe those who said keep last time thought the depth of coverage was sufficient, there quite a lot of discussion about those sources. Dream Focus 08:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment The original AfD was inappropriately closed anyways and perhaps wrongly given the arguments in the discussion. It was a contested discussion closed by a non-admin. Such contested discussions can only be closed by an administrator. The closer was later banned from Wikipedia for disruption at bot RfA and at AfD. Given those circumstances, it is quite appropriate to reopen a discussion and reevaluate the article. If an administrator had closed that discussion, it would at best resulted in no consensus and more likely in deletion. —Farix (t | c) 00:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources, fails GNG. --TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 19:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable. Ryan4314 (talk) 20:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unfortunately, I don't see any non-trivial RS coverage here. Qrsdogg (talk) 21:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable, trivial creation. Half of the sources are non-existent, and as mentioned, most of the rest are either Youtube videos, facebook pages or other non-official publications. Article is better suited to a personal site. Rogueslade (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC) (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Note: You're correct, under this user name, I haven't made other contributions, however, I have done so anonymously in the past. I felt it only polite to create a new account as I intended to support the decision for this article to be deleted. I can assure you that, now that I've created an account, any further edits or contributions of mine will certainly be attached to this account In the future, I'd appreciate that if you're going to make such an obvious attempt to discredit my views, please at least have the decency to sign your comment. Rogueslade (talk) 03:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability established by substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Electroshoxcure (talk) 03:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is significant coverage from reliable sources, meets general notability guidelines Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : Coverage by reliable sources meets WP:GNG. Notability was discussed at length and established in previous AfD; in the meantime the notability guidelines did not change significantly to justify a new nomination. --Cyclopia ^talk 08:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It wasn't notable the first time, and it isn't now. The sourcing is shallow and consists of mentions, and nothing meaningful appears in those references because there is nothing meaningful here. Drmies (talk) 09:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. See my comment at the previous AfD. ^Bongo_matic 10:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can anyone tell me how the sources are reliable? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 13:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This should be a blurb in star wars conventions, not really worthy of a standalone article. He is consistently mentioned in connection with the conventions, take away the convention and this man is no more. As with before I believe this person doesn't meet the notability guidelines with a sprinkling of one event notability. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the sourcing for this cosplay character is just abysmal. Most are YouTube, blogs, or trivial/passing mentions. I don't see any significant coverage of the actual character himself in reputable publications. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as previously demonstrated both in the first AfD and above, the subject of the article clearly meets the minimum standards for a standalone article per the notability guideline. Once the minimum standards are met, self-published sources are specifically allowed for and often essential for verification of minor details. Outright deletion is still a last resort option when there are other things which can be done with verifiable content.
That said, given this, this, and especially when compared against this I have to concur with Cobaltbluetony that something seems rather strange here. Ordinarily in a case such as this I'd offer up a {{trout}} for the nom, but something already smells rather fishy here... --Tothwolf (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dalejenkins. –MuZemike 17:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd like to point out that the results of the investigation into this alleged Sockpuppet case were that myself and the other users involved are, in fact, not linked in any way. Please take this into account when considering this AfD, as it is a legitimate call from the community that this article may not meet the guidelines set forth by the community.Biohazard388 (talk) 19:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Last time I voted weak keep. This is one of those marginal articles that I usually vote keep on, but what changed my mind is that the creator did nothing on WP all this time except contribute this one article and I even asked her to(I believe the creator had an article on themselves as well, was it "the great vagina" or "clit" or something?). Anyhow, that constitutes SPA, and not accused- proven.Turqoise127 (talk) 18:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a really baffling comment. What on earth has this to do with the suitability of the article, in one sense or the other? --Cyclopia ^talk 19:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry if my comment was "colorful" or offensive, if so I apologize. I did think I was somewhat clear, though; this is in my opinion a borderline article, it can go either way. In such cases I tend to say keep, but the fact the creator of this article contributed only this article and nothing else makes me go the other way. Turqoise127 (talk) 20:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and if my comment above baffled you, the one about great vagina, i found what i meant, the creator of this article also created Miss Clit. Thus, i was wrong, there were two contributions, imaginary Boba Phat and above mentioned.Turqoise127 (talk) 20:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't made myself clear. My point is: who cares who created the article? Since when we judge the merits of the creator instead of those of the article? It's complete nonsense. --Cyclopia ^talk 10:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Stating that there is a substantial amount of "reliable" sources is a stretch, the subject of the article is Facebook fanpage-worthy at best. This kind of article has no place on an informative website.Mandoman89 (talk) 22:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC) — Mandoman89 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment This is a note to all editors that assuming good faith is not just a courtesy, but a requirement. Attacking other editors simply for being single purpose accounts is uncalled for and a violation of Wikipedia's behavior policies, (WP:BITE) —Farix (t | c) 23:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I duly accept admonishment for suggesting anything untoward of Mandoman89, whose first edit ever on wikipedia appears above.--Milowent (talk) 01:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- That isn't an attack. Its standard to mention when someone has their first and only edit in an AFD. They have a template for that after all. They may not be a sockpuppet, but such things do happen often enough for a template to exist, since how often does a new editor decided their first ever activity will be an an AFD? Dream Focus 03:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Non-trivial" implies more than a photo with Stan Lee and a shout-out in the trade press. 100 × trivial does not equal non-trivial. Keeps thus far have failed to identify why the coverage is sufficient; I would hope that the closing admin makes a decision based on the evidence presented rather than how strongly people are presenting it. The speedy keep argument is spurious in that the nomination does not appear to be made in bad faith; it is hardly worth pointing out that editors in good standing would be best nominating articles for deletion anonymously should they not wish to be permanently harrassed in the current WP climate. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Metromix interviewed him at a convention. [28] Does everyone consider that notable coverage? He gets photographed, written up, and even on television interviews time and again. Dream Focus 02:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Buzzfeed mentions him [29] stating he is quite notable, various famous people mentioning him, he in one documentary already, and was interviews for another documentary coming out in the future done by Lucas Films! Dream Focus 02:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is just barely notable though. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep – This is a clear bad-faith nomination by User:Biohazard388. If this isn't sock puppetry by those involved in the SPI, then this is clear meatpuppetry orchestrated by someone on the outside who is recruiting someone to propose deletion on Star Wars-related material on the behalf of Dalejenkins. –MuZemike 07:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The only bad-faith here is the continuous attempt by you and your cohorts to slander and defame the nominator, myself and the other person accused of sock-puppetry. By the comments given by the gentleman that investigated us, I none of us are even in the same state, perhaps not even the same part of the country. And until the false accusation laid against me, I'd never even heard of this Dalejenkins. If anyone is exhibiting meatpuppetry here, it is you and your friends with your constant attempts to discredit myself and the others you're targeting. Instead of continuing to do so, try providing actual concrete evidence as to why the article should be kept. Rogueslade (talk) 18:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I also find the attention directed towards new users a bit misdirected. It seems like a lot of noise to distract from the issue at hand, which is not why new users choose to jump in head first, but why this article may not meet the guidelines set forth by the community. I find it brash and a bit disconcerting that a community with guidelines such as "assume good faith" and "help the newbies" would allow users such as MuZemike to continually bash the character and eligibility of not only myself, but several other users while more important issues are at hand. I feel picked on, and a tad insulted, to be honest. I expected more from a community based on Good Faith.Biohazard388 (talk) 19:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Well, MuZemike really can't be helped, though I myself humbly surrender to our worthy new boba phat AfD commenting crew. I prostrate myself and beg your forgiveness, Biohazard388. Yes, much more important issues are at hand, namely whether we keep an article on Boba Phat which has received some press coverage commensurate with its delicious ridiculousness. Perhaps you'd like to comment on whether Wikipedia is harmed by including Mr. Phat?--Milowent (talk) 20:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Sure. While it isn't harmful to the content hosted on the site, I believe it harms the essence not only the site, but the community. Allow me to explain: As I stated in an earlier comment further up the page, by allowing a cosplay character to have a page, even if one or two passing mentions of this character are in legitmate outlet's for news, the community is saying that anyone with one or two newspaper clippings with their name on it can have their own wikipedia page. This means other cosplays, charity workers, community leaders such as pastors or PTA mom's can have an article on themselves now, too, provided they have been mentioned in a newspaper or online news outlet two times (which is very easy when you are active in your community). I believe we are setting an unusually dangerous precedent with this if we allow this article to remain hosted on the Wikipedia site. If the community at hand cannot find grounds to delete the article outright, I'd suggest an alternative action, such as a stub or merger, or small subsection in another article may suffice. Having an entire article on this one character with very little noteworthery mentionings (most of which are in passing, or in reference to a photo) opens the door for anyone to create their own page on themselves should they have been mentioned in newspaper twice, and have a few youtube videos about themselves. I hope that all made sense. In essence... "Why should this guy get an article based on two news sites passing mentions. If we do say that, as a community, then we open the door for anyone and everyone with mediocre news coverage to create a page for themselves."Biohazard388 (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable, if you ask for my humble opinion. If I would dress as a Borg drone and take a picture with me and Patrick Stewart or so, do I get my own article too? I could call myself HiveFive. Seriously, all the references in the article are not reliable. Hive001 contact 10:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The alleged "coverage" is trivial and superficial. Being photographed with famous people doesn't make you famous. Nor do youtube videos or mentions on websites that take user submitted material with no real editorial oversight. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Niteshift puts it very well. Beyond that, a mass of weak sourcing doesn't add up to strong sourcing. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, while the article may seem non-notable, there are valid references to warrant a weak keep. Toxic Waste Grounds 16:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Suggest we close this afd. This is a no consensus issue as it was the last time. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I disagree. The "Delete" tags are at nearly 60% of the total vote. Also, listed on The Page concerning "No Consensus", Wikipedia guidelines say that "a few vocal dissenters do not create non-consensus." This article was closed early and for no good reason on it's first time up for AfD. I say we wait it out, and let it go by the Admin's to decide the outcome. Closing it early won't help anything.Biohazard388 (talk) 19:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Biohazard, I must compliment you on your command of wikipedia policy. However, I tend to agree with Hell in a Bucket on this one.--Milowent (talk) 20:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment If it counts for anything, I agree with Biohazard on this one. To that end, we clearly have no consensus on whether or not to close this as a "no consensus" ;) ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: I don't think closing it is a good idea - I honestly don't think the character is notable enough for an article, as I mentioned in my reasoning above. Let the process run its course, as long-time established editors have taken both sides in this. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 20:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Also, as Farix pointed out earlier up in this discussion, the previous AfD was closed by a non-admin after a contested discussion. This discussion has also had it's up and downs, and appears to be divided still, therefor an Admin is required to close this AfD and determine whether or not Deletion is necessary, or if a merger with another article should suffice.Biohazard388 (talk) 20:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: No reason to close this early, as many members of the "Delete" camp have very strong arguments for the deletion of this so-called "notable" article. Try as I might, I just can't seem to find a reason to keep the article. It has no real purpose other than to entertain the cosplayer with the fact that he has a useless article about himself on WP. Mandoman89 (talk) 21:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notice: I have started and ANI thread about the continuing assumptions of bad faith, bitting, personal attacks and other nonsense that is occurring in this discussion. The thread is Biting, assumptions of bad faith, and other assorted nonsense at AfD. —Farix (t | c) 21:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not my cup o' Joe, but seems to have been noticed by enough sources to make it kinda notable. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 21:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - FFS, are you kidding? Short mentions in articles covering comic conventions and a bunch of youtube links? I think people need to put their inner Star Ward nerd into a deep dark hole and reevaluate just what threshold WP:N actually has, to see why it most certainly isn't met for some over-the-hill cosplayer. Tarc (talk) 21:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage in the few reliable sources available. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally non-notable, no significant coverage, what's to keep? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I admit, I like it, but the article doesn't merit inclusion here. I see no real coverage in reliable sources, just brief mentions in fluff pieces. -- Atama頭 21:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I refer myself to Bongo's analysis of source in the first AfD. There are no strong sources that actually talk about the subject. There are sources about the conventions, and those sources seem to mention him only as one of the cosplayers in the conventions. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Amusing? Yes. Interesting? Quite possibly. Significant coverage in reliable sources? No. Notable? Not in the slightest. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Simple as that.--Mkativerata (talk) 05:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom and others.. Not notable. Traxs7 (Talk) 06:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lacks independent evidence of significance. A fan-wiki subject, not a Wikipedia subject. Guy (Help!) 12:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP, per my arguments in the prior, failed attempt and MuZemike's remarks above.Someone here is clearly gaming the AFD process. And prolly not for the first time either. Maybe it is about time to have some minimal editorial requirements for contributing to content before being allowed to nominate content for deletion.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 15:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to read this ANI thread and redact your comment. Whether or not you reconsider your !vote is up to you of course. -- Atama頭 16:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This substantially changes nothing as far as I'm concerned. The nom's edit pattern is still very suspicious and motives highly questionable. It only further proves that ANI is a sideshow and the real decisions are made in the Wiki Admins' IRC channel. That and what Theodore Roosevelt once said of William McKinley might apply here as well.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 17:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, your suspicions about the nom have absolutely no substantial effect on the 25+ other delete votes in this AfD. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete you know an article is in big trouble when the first "reference" is to YouTube. Anyway, delete for lack of notability and lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not seeing significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Youtube videos and bloggy websites don't cut it. Reyk _YO! 22:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my arguments at the last AfD. Meets WP:GNG. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hardly notable, most links are from youtube, some from facebook, and a few valid websites. I have a Fett style costume and I was on the news with it, should I get my own page? Definitely not. Appearing at a few large events does not make someone notable. The lack of respectable and reliable references, and the dismal amount of actual information suggests to me that this article should be deleted. --Thaxos (talk) 13:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see a bunch of unreliable sources (YouTube, social networking sites, etc.), and only a handful of passing mentions in sources that might be considered reliable. That indicates a failure to meet notability requirements, since there are no reliable, third-party sources that are actually and primarily about the article subject. *** Crotalus *** 17:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a guy with a costume that goes to sci-fi conventions isn't notable. TomCat4680 (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Press-Telegram seems an adequate source to establish notability. Notice that our article on the Press-Telegram has zero sources of any sort. Repeat nomination of articles which have already been considered is inefficient when we have so many other poor articles to work upon. This seems to be disruption for this reason and per WP:DEL, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome.". Colonel Warden (talk) 20:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was a non consensus the last time and clearly a lot of editors feel it should be deleted, so this accusation of disruption smells like bad faith. This is the second nom, not the 8th like some articles have done. Believe it or not, everyone doesn't share the view that one source makes notability. It can be argued that coverage by only one reliable source is really WP:ILIKEIT once removed. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was extensively discussed last time and the result was Keep. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My error, the NAC was closed as a keep.....which still doesn't change what is happening here. Since you like quoting policies, how about this quote: "While past "extensive discussions" can guide editors on what influenced a past consensus, editors need to re-examine each proposal on its own merits, and determine afresh whether consensus either has or has not changed.". Sort of shoots the whole "it was discussed before" thing in the foot, doesn't it? Niteshift36 (talk) 22:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be some reasonable basis for supposing that consensus has changed before repeating the process in an identical way. This nomination brought nothing new to the table and so seems to be a case of WP:NOTAGAIN in violation of our deletion policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, considering the number of delete !votes I see here, it would appear that the results are leaning towards delete much stronger than last time, so maybe consensus did change. Again I refer to the policy I quoted. Each editor needs to re-examine the proposal. It is proposed that this article be deleted. I'm sure, in keeping with the policy, you gave it serious contemplation on the discussion at hand and didn't just rely on your old !vote. So would others. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not participate in the previous discussion and so have come to this fresh. It is nonetheless tiresome to engage with an issue which has already been gone over in detail before. It is a common complaint about Wikipedia that matters continue to fester in this interminable and inefficient way. We should be more severe in curtailing such repetition as it drives off editors and so is disruptive. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that an AfD decided as "Keep" was a permanent, incontrovertible result. Even if this AfD is "disruptive" (an assessment I find very disagreeable), that has no substantive impact on the thinking behind any of the opinions expressed herein. The only thing I find disruptive is these continued attempts to slander both the nominator and the nomination itself, I presume in the hope that it somehow reduces the weight behind votes for deletion. Why not stick to substantive argument, as you do in the first half of your vote? ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 22:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I quoted the relevant policy which indicates that editors may be blocked for vexatious repeat nominations of this sort. If the nominator is a genuine new user then they may find this guidance helpful. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I quoted the policy that says your "It was extensively discussed last time" "guidance" isn't the only thing that applies here. Since your concern is guidance and education, I'm sure you support making editors aware of applicable policies aside from the just one that supports your keep POV. I also suspect you'd have a difficult time finding reasonable admins that would block for a second nomination. You keep making it sound like this has been nominated an unreasonable number of times. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your concern for the well-being of the AfD initiator is touching, but how about a bit less argumentum ad hominem and more addressing of the actual topic? Tarc (talk) 22:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing ad hominem about my response. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion reigns. :) For avoidance of doubt, I shall restate that it is my definite opinion that the article should be kept in accordance with our editing policy. We have at least one solid source and this is adequate to tell us that deletion is not required here. Further editing and improvement is preferred in accordance with that policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I don't think you know very much about journalistic prose if you think this article is primarily about this "Boba Phat" person. The article simply uses the example of one attendee to give the reader a better understanding about the comic convention itself, which is the primary topic of the article. That is the issue that has been raised by many here, that the sources cover various conventions, and not Mr. Phat himself, who is only used as a colorful aside. Tarc (talk) 23:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's the lead in the story while it's people like Stan Lee who get brief mentions. It's enough to show that deletion is not sensible or appropriate. One might merge to an article like Comic-con, Boba Fett or Cosplay but there's so much choice of topic that it seems simpler to keep the details here so that these other articles can refer to and share them in an efficient way. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, he isn't. No amount of wishing black to be white and up to be down on your part can alter reality. Tarc (talk) 12:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I went through the citations looking for coverage from secondary sources. I did see the one from Long Beach Press (fn 18) that includes him, but footnote 2 is a dead link. Most appear to be uploaded videos or his picture at conventions. The Daily Titan (fn 19) is a free school newspaper for Cal State Fullerton. With so little media coverage, I'm not sure readers will be looking him up. Eudemis (talk) 07:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I had the same feeling when I started reading this article as expressed by Starblind above (Youtube being its first source). Nervetheless, I looked at the other sources, and I concur with the analysis of Eudemis right above: it's hard to call them WP:RS. Of course, in the realm of celebrities, it's rather hard to point out exactly what "reliable" means, but the sources in this article aren't even reputable, unless you count a couple of pictures among dozens a Con (say those from LA Weekly [30]) being being described as "featured" in this article. LOL for NPOV. Can we have an article about Tusken Raver now? There's a picture of shim in this source: [31]. Pcap ping 13:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no significant mainstream independent third party coverage Theserialcomma (talk) 04:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Perfect example of fan cruft and abundance of sources not always being justification for notability. This is not encyclopedia worthy. Sorry. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 13:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Biohazard388. Teenage Martyr (talk) 20:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not that Mr. Phat has a chance in hell of being kept, but I'd note that Teenage Martyr is blocked.--Milowent (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

José Tomás[edit]

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

Poorly written, zero citations. Was this person really a person of note (no pun intended)? Sure, they were a student of some famous people. And probably well-loved as a decent human being and excellent guitarist. But i'm not seeing a lot of original work by this teacher of guitar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.30.130.71 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this is not my AFD, I'm good-faith submitting it for the IP who wanted it. tedder (talk) 11:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 12:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 12:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article was a mess, but this was a very famous guitarist. I have completely re-written the article and referenced it. I would remind the anonymous IP that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. See some poor English? See an article needing references? The answer is do a Google search or head down to your local library and fix it, not delete it. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a good example of an article that should be improved rather than deleted, and AfD is not the best process to make this happen. Good work by Voceditenore in cleaning things up. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit of a paradox, because this article only became improved once it was sent to AfD. However, I discovered it here purely by chance. It could just as easily have been deleted. I would suggest to others that when encountering an article like this, they first let relevant WikiProjects know about the problems, e.g. WikiProject Classical music and WikiProject Spain. You're much more likely to find editors with knowledge of the area and an ability to read foreign language sources who could rescue it. As a general rule, I am not in favour of allowing anonymous IPs with little or no previous contributions to Wikipedia to file AfDs by proxy. Voceditenore (talk) 13:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Hull[edit]

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

Copyright violation, but not sufficiently clear-cut for a speedy delete. The article appears to be a direct translation of tet:Geoffrey Hull, which is a copy-paste copyvio of http://webzoom.freewebs.com/jpesperanca/lusofonia_Parte_3.pdf (p. 40 et seq.). The English article is therefore an unauthorized derivative work of the copyrighted Tetum langage PDF. It is also an unsourced WP:BLP, failing WP:N. Sandstein 11:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please wait just a few days, I have a new version sent me by G.Hull in person, with appropriate references. Thanks.--Padaneis (talk) 12:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that autobiographical material is strongly discouraged in Wikipedia articles (see Wikipedia:Autobiography for details), largely due to neutral point of view concerns. The article will stand a much better chance of survival if it is neutrally written using reliable secondary sources. --Darkwind (talk) 12:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 12:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 12:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I suppose material is not autobiographical, but meanwhile, perhaps the present article could be deleted, unless this prevents recreation. I have to examine the material. Thanks, --Padaneis (talk) 12:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Version[edit]

Hello, a new version, to meet wikipedia standards has been written. Please have a look. Wikifying now. Thanks--Padaneis (talk) 21:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the new version contains only primary sources, specifically, work written by Professor Hull. The article will need to cite reliable sources that are not related to Hull in order to establish notability and to allow other readers to verify its content. Cnilep (talk) 22:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks: I'll try to add more ones. Meanwhile, however, the parliament commision report is one and the above "lusofonia" another (but no longer copyviol). Going to add the latter to the article.--Padaneis (talk) 09:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A few third party references added. Perhaps more on the way. Kind regards, --Padaneis (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The references in the new article seem to establish notability. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 10:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: maybe implicit, since I worked to adapt the article to wikipedia standards. --Padaneis (talk) 18:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but it would better to work the references in as inline citations. Good work! --Nuujinn (talk) 00:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Hull's work is very important for both Romance and Austronesian linguistics. His work on the Tetum dictionary is exceptionally important, like Webster or Dr.Johnson for English. I have no comments to make on Wiki editorial policy and leave this aspect to those who are more expert than I am. --LombardBeige (talk) 07:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article now includes ample sourcing. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 13:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All Japan Koshiki Karate-Do Federation[edit]

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

Proposed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Article_Review Week April 1st, 2010, User:Jmcw37 as secretary.
WP:NRVE Wikipedia:WPMA/N "No English sources found to verify notability" jmcw (talk) 11:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —jmcw (talk) 11:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 12:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; probably qualifies for speedy delete. No third-party coverage. — Timneu22 · talk 17:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability is claimed, nor could I find any. I also found no third party references. Papaursa (talk) 00:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No third-party sources confirming notability. --DAJF (talk) 00:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have not found any sources that strongly support notability. Janggeom (talk) 07:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A clear majority favors deletion, and after reviewing the dissenting voices, I feel that the "delete" side has made more persuasive arguments based on original research by synthesis and (more importantly) biased content forking. After reviewing the article text, I concur that it holds an anti-Tito bias, and the arguments presented on the "keep" side in this AFD argue for why that angle is right, rather than why it is neutral. I am also declining the merge requests, because I cannot see that there is a consensus for including any of this content in other articles (indeed, my impression is that there would be significant objections to that). Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Titoism and Totalitarianism[edit]

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

Do not recruit meatpuppets. It is considered inappropriate to advertise Wikipedia articles to your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side of a debate. If you feel that a debate is ignoring your voice, remain civil, seek comments from other Wikipedians, or pursue dispute resolution. These are well-tested processes, designed to avoid the problem of exchanging bias in one direction for bias in another.

Classic WP:POVFORK. The very title of this is POV. The article was entirely written by a single editor User:Sir Floyd. It does not cite another source which backs up the clear WP:Synthesis essay which this is. In fact the first three sources cited talk about titoism and totalitarianism separately not as clearly the same thing. This article is already longer than the Titoism article itself and so does not even cut it as a standard split, therefore it is basic content forking even when the POV is not taken into account. Polargeo (talk) 10:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Polargeo (talk) 11:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some of this should be merged to Josip Broz Tito. Although we do have an article about Titoism, this seems to be about the tyranny of the Yugoslavian dictator, rather than about a political philosophy. If kept as a separate article, the title should be mentioned in tongue-twister-- try saying "Titoism and totalitarianism" three times and you'll see why. Mandsford (talk) 12:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has already tried and failled to add some POV information to Tito and then even tagged Tito for POV. That is why this article was created. It is classic content forking designed to get this individual editor's POV across rather than by editing and expanding established articles. Moreover they have done this by creating their own POV heading rather than following any particular research thread, hence largely creating an article based around original research by synthesis. Polargeo (talk) 14:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. With a single editor, this article could probably be speedily deleted. Clearly this article is POV pushing and being used solely for the expression of one editor's opinion. Further, the title and all sections use incorrect capitalization; this is pure junk all around. — Timneu22 · talk 13:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur with the above by Polargeo and Timneu22. WP:NOT#ESSAY clearly applies: these are the personal views of a single editor, who has created an article to promulgate them. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 16:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is just all the rubbish that was discussed on Tito talkpage article to be removed collected on one place. Sir Floyd you really have . --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 02:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! Valid topic! Comment: I must too admit that the article has problems. This is my first article of this kind and yes I had problems balancing Political science with the former Yugoslavian political repression after WW2.

I accept some of the criticism as valid. It is possible that the article could be transferred into other related articles. All the information is well referenced and factual. Please check for yourselves. Concerning POV in the Tito article, I don’t recall any such information. The information that I contributed to the article was referenced from Encyclopaedia Britannica and the BBC History which then was removed. Also, Ivan Stambuk can you please not go down the path of insults. You mention I have problem with issues! Very nice indeed. Are these the issues that Tito and his government acted as Stalinist post WW2. Please read European Public Hearing on “Crimes Committed by Totalitarian Regimes". It is a government document. Here is the referenced link: European Commission/Slovenian Presidency of the-EU 2008 . Page 197. Chapter: Joze Dezman-Communist Repression & Transitional Justice in Slovenia (ex.republic of Yugoslavia). Sir Floyd (talk) 04:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep- Valid topic, well written well cited, the tyranny of the Yugoslavian dictator tito is a very valid subject. Off2riorob (talk) 10:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then I suggest you create a "Tito's Tyranny" article (LoL :). You're spending waaay too much time with (one of your closest frinds on Wiki) User:Sir Floyd, Off2riorob. You're deveolping some highly biased and unrealistic views about Cold War Yugoslavia... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, user sir floyd is one of my most respected amigos on wikipedia. There are as history states two sides to Tito and this is the other side, our article could do with at least a merge of some of this content. It is well written and as has been said below, the Tito article could use a bit of balance.
Delete - per Polargeo's arguments above. ◅ PRODUCER _(TALK) 11:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not a wikipedian and usually I don't read wikipedia, google drove me here and I simply couldn't avoid to have a few words to say. In ex-Yu countries, role played by Tito is still not settled properly. It was forbidden to have anything against ex-Yugoslav Communist Party or Tito, it was dangerous even to think about it. That surely was totalitarian regime. If wikipedia is "free" as its nickname proposes, you must have something written about it. However in ex-Yugoslav countries there is still a number of communist agitators and supporters (those whose family members were involved) who are pushed to political margins, their political "option" is dead and belongs to the past, they can no more be "better" than the others, so the only space they can occupy now are only some blogs and... wikipedia. These people above obviously belong to this group, being unwanted elsewhere they are desperately grouping here. Discussion you have here is their desperate "special war" against any negative information about their idol in the past. Don't let them to erase data about crimes committed by the Yugoslav communists and their god - Tito... just because they are quantitively predominant here - in wikipedia and here - in this discussion. Message to the Titoists: start to live in reality and in the present time. Bye 78.0.159.75 (talk) 12:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to say "merge with Titoism" but then I re-read the article and I'm leaning on delete. Just as Titoism is all sweet and sugar, this one is indiscriminate mud-slinging, and basically unsalvageable. It cherry-picks various but completely disconnected crimes commited in (or by) Socialist Yugoslav state during 40 years of its existence; on the way, it mentions a list of Tito's villas, and ends with a EU political declaration proposed by Slovenia. Yes, the article on Titoism (or Tito) should need some re-balancing in favor of not-so-nice aspects of his rule, but this article is not even worth being a starting point for that. Maybe some of the sources are worth reusing, and that's all. No such user (talk) 13:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? I've read it too. Yes, it's poor, but for another reason, in my opinion. It's not even 1% of what can be said. Too bad that articles in one "encyclopedia" depend on honesty and limited knowledge of the editors who are mostly kids. 78.0.159.75 (talk) 13:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The very definition of WP:POV FORK. I can't imagine this article staying on Wiki with the current policy in place. This is quite simply and obviously an attempt by one user, User:Sir Floyd, to vent his frustration and bypass any NPOV standards he would have to follow on the Josip Broz Tito article, where he was more-or-less unable to push most of his nationalist fringe personal views (as can be seen on the article talkpage).
(P.S. Beware of malicious IP sock votes :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hard to conceive of more obvious POV forking than this. POV forking is POV forking, regardless of the extent of sourcing. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am of the opinion that the consensus concerning "Articles for deletion/Titoism and Totalitarianism" is being tainted by the use of Meatpuppetry or Wikipedia:Tag team. I've checked: [32]. The recruitment of editors: User talk:PRODUCER, User talk:AlasdairGreen27 & User talk:Ivan Štambuk was done by User talk:DIREKTOR in order to sway consensus. The history of these editors concerning articles of the former Yugoslavia shows strong bias. They are indeed hard working Wiki editors and have a right to express themselves (of which I am a strong supporter) and probably think that they are the "good guys" which is noble, but ... history should be written as much as possible from a NPOV. Only then can articles be viewed as being more encyclopaedic.

I've taken some time to read up on WP:POV FORK problems in Wiki articles. Titoism and Totalitarianism does have these problems but the information is factual and can be merged into other articles or maybe even re-worked. The former Yugoslavia did have an authoritarian rule and did conduct political repression on a grand scale. It is my belief that these facts should be represented accordingly. It seems in the process of creating the article I ran into WP:POV FORK problems. This was mainly due to my inexperience. Additional: If I have used the meatpuppetry term incorrectly, my apologies! Sir Floyd (talk) 02:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious POV fork. Accusations of meatpuppery do nothing to make your case stronger. AniMate 03:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear AniMate, please, read the header of this vote. It's in English and it's written simpler also for no current speakers "It is considered inappropriate to advertise Wikipedia articles to your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side of a debate". We cannot change rules under our need. --Ilario (talk) 08:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi AniMate! You are a mate of User:DIREKTOR! Please don't take offence, but your contribution here makes my case even more stronger. See Ya! Sir Floyd (talk) 03:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Where did DIREKTOR recruit me? I've made no secret that I follow both his and Alistair's edits, but I don't edit in the area and comment rarely. AniMate 09:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! The current government of Slovenia and Croatia have confirmed all points... do you need some additional informations? I don't understand this deletion in consideration of quality of article and quality of data. Please read in detail WP:POVFORK and in detail: The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion. There are many sources here and I assume that this fork is a consequence of a POV in another article because we cannot create a consensus on the sources, the sources are sources. All content must be merged in the main article to resolve the fork. --Ilario (talk) 07:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay so Sir Floyd couldn't get this stuff into the main article so he creates a new article. I don't think anyone disagrees the title of this new article has to go so therefore a delete is in order. The question then is should some of this stuff be merged. But by Who? Do we now say, "hey there you couldn't get your POV into the main article but now because you have spent so much time creating this POV fork we will stick your information into the main article"? No, it should be up to Sir F and his various IP supporters including User:Luigi 28 (better known as 12.21.16.9 in this discussion) and his Italian friends such as yourself who turn up out of the blue as it were to highlight which bits of information that should be in the main article and get them in there in a balanced way. When we are faced with such a heavy POV article and serious issues of synthesis then just dumping it into the main article helps nobody. Polargeo (talk) 08:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please specify this POV? Sir Floyd (talk) 09:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The POV is exemplified by the attempt to make Titoism and Totalitarianism one and the same thing by the synthesis of sources. It will be much cleaner to add some balanced information on totalitarianism to the article on Tito. Rather than to stuff this article into it as a merge. Polargeo (talk) 09:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Polargeo you didn't specify any references or sources?Sir Floyd (talk) 10:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay do any of the three sources you use individually support your first sentence "Titoism is a Totalitarian political system that was part of the former Yugoslavia"? This is very different from saying Tito was in some asspects totalitarian. You are saying what you want to say about Titosim and throwing in a few sources. Therefore your first sentence appears to be a synthesis of the sources or original research by yourself. The Sourcing for your second sentence is such a mess, including sources to wikipedia itself that it is not worth going into. Your third sentence is sourced to an online dictionary. Your fourth sentence is sourced to a summary of a book and this source does not even back up the statement or even mention Tito. I could go on explaining sentence after sentence why this article is a big pile of rubbish and should never be merged with a properly written article under any circumstances but that would be wasting everyone's time. Polargeo (talk) 10:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I agee with Mandsford. This should be merged with Josip Broz Tito to create a good article.--Grifter72 (talk) 07:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't understand why there is no action taken about the evident recruit of meatpuppets. There are links to personal discussion pages (most of all discharged). This vote is not valid and I would see some action about that. Are there sysops in en.wikipedia? --Ilario (talk) 08:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very funny you are the meatiest of the meaty if that is the case. Popping up from it.wiki, the favourite new haunt of Luigi (who is voting as an IP in this AfD). Do you think the direct call to arms you made on Italian wikipedia [33] to alert people to this AfD on en wiki is the way to do this whilst complaining about meat puppets on en wiki? Polargeo (talk) 09:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read: "communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side of a debate" it's in a public page and open to all point of view and to all comments. It's like to write in the Village pump. I have not posted in personal pages, please understand the difference. --Ilario (talk) 10:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before trying to teach me the rules you should note that putting up a biased notice on it.wiki you are WP:Canvassing. If your notice had mearly notified a wide range of users about the debate, that would be different but in this case you have directly canvassed. Polargeo (talk) 10:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's your point of view. In Italian community there are persons who can be supporters of your point of view (most of all 50%) and persons who cannot be, not all Italians have the same vision. I have not written the information in a page of a project which has got a single point of view or can be my supporters. I am asking to contribute to find the most shared solution for this article. In any case, I hope that you, to be neutral, take a position about what has been done by other users who has written in personal pages against a well-defined rule. If I am suspected, someone is already a killer of freedom. --Ilario (talk) 11:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with History of Yugoslavia. Some sections here and there could be entirely dropped or reduced to paragraphs (i.e. goli otok, franjo tudman and milovan djilas), but the article is generally well-referenced. The article could indeed be considered POV, as a collection of unpleasant facts about something, yet the correct way to resolve the POV is to dissolve the page in its context, not to purge it entirely. Noieraieri (talk) 10:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my response above [34]. Sentence by sentence this article can be ripped apart. It should never be merged. Polargeo (talk) 10:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And don't let all of the references fool you into thinking it is well referenced. A scratch under the skin of a few of these show so many instances of references not backing up statments or synthesis of references or just plain poor references. As the article goes on it also becomes more and more WP:COATRACKy Polargeo (talk) 10:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Am I now responding to another person who is here because of canvassing on it.wiki? Polargeo (talk) 10:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I did (read your comment), I did not propose to merge it with Titoism for exactly that reason. P.S. are you trying to refute my arguments because of my ethnicity? Noieraieri (talk)

I think you have valid points and therefore I have answered them. However, after the IPs, including one of a banned user, several people turning up due to canvassing could turn this AfD into a farce, which is why I asked the question. Polargeo (talk) 11:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't stop laughing after I read the article, although the its topic is very serious. The article is just a heap of rubbish. A dictionary reference (though, I would expect a book which particularly deals with Tito or communism) says that Titosim is the political, economic, and social policies associated with Tito. OK, no problem, but it seems that the author of the article does not understand what it me. Surprisingly or not, you won't find any word that talks about self-management or Non-Aligned Movement. Not single word. Titoism is certainly not what the author is trying to show us in bigger part of the article. Next, Tito residencies. I might understand anger due to nationalized properties that weren't belonged to the royal family, but still do not see what is problem with residences in state ownership. Every president has few. And finally, exaggerated or SF crimes? Ten concentration camps worse than Dachau? Where were they? Oh, dear, that comes from R. J. Rummel, that must be true. :) Few sources estimate that 100.000 POWs are killed (though it is very very big number for Yugoslav circumstances) killed POW, nevertheless, there are Truman's 400,000 to make article comical. I suppose he heard it from "reliable", but unnamed source. 24422 children were not in concentration camps as the author is trying to show! Those were transit camp for German people, they were sent for Germany. -- Bojan Talk 08:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Bojan, in the same time I don't have had the effort to laugh after your comment because I judge you comment very dangerous for the freedom and for the same pilasters of Wikipedia. I don't understand why we must "comment" also the sources. In a complicated situation like this, where there are different points of views, I would apply the Occam's razor and not the Sophist's method. We have some pilasters in Wikipedia Wikipedia:5P, one pilaster is the Neutral point of view. This article put in evidence that there is another point of view different from your point, we cannot judge this point of view, it exists. We cannot judge who is the biggest persecutor in the history, if some important sources state that there is one, we report that there is one. What I see is that this discussion put in evidence that there is a point of view not limited to only one person but there is a group of persons and historians who has a different opinion from them who have written the article of Tito. What this means? That we cannot delete the other point of view (I would not that you accept the other point, but I would that you respect the other point of you like I respect your point) but that all point of view must be present. Read here "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each" (Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view). If the article under deletion is not neutral probably the same article of Tito is not neutral and I assume that when this vote is finished and the content is not merged I can put my request of deletion of article of Tito because this deletion states that there is a POV which can be consequence of other content forking. --Ilario (talk) 14:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not to do with whether the Tito article is neutral. If it is not neutral then make it neutral by adding quality information on Tito's crimes but we should not simply force it to be neutral by merging a poorly constructed POV fork with poor sourcing or sources which don't back up the text into a better written and long established article. That is not the way to do it. Polargeo (talk) 14:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot judge sources. There is an historical current that looks at Tito with a different point of view, it's not poor, it's not limited but it's widespread in a lot of occidental countries. What is happening in this moment is a content fork from Wikipedia and the other sources. I see in the article different sources (not only one source), a lot of these sources are university's studies. What I suggest you is to accept the existence of these studies and to be consciencious that there is the remaining part of the world that read something different from the point of view of the current article of Wikipedia. --Ilario (talk) 09:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ilario, I'm wikipedian for 5 years and administrator for 4 years. I know very well what are 5 pylons of Wikipedia, what is (N)POV and what is POV-pushing. I pointed that there are half-truths, tendency to present Yugoslav prison camps in worse light than Nazi extermination camps (?!). -- Bojan Talk 18:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Bojan, I am wikipedian also for 5 years and administrator for 5 years and wikimedian for some years too. It seems to me a paradox that I have used the same approach in the Italian Wikipedia and I am judged filo-croatian but I have given to the persons with a different point of view the possibility to put in the Italian article their position. In any case I cannot accept that a source like this [35] published by Slovenian Presidency of the Council of the European Union can be judged like a poor and not relevant source. Please be kind that outside Balkans people think different. --Ilario (talk) 09:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I didn't forbid different point of view, but this doesn't change fact that the article has more problems beside pushing someone's POV. It is an essay, with half-truths, logical fallacies, association fallacies (Tito was member or associate of NKVD, NKVD did some terrible things - then Tito is evil, too), it doesn't discuss Titoism as another form of Marxism. The article is beyond repair, some facts are mentioned in various other articles - hence, there is no need for its existence. -- Bojan Talk 19:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Polargeo, Tito's crimes, as you put it, and the crimes done by Communist party of Yugoslavia and the Yugoslav Partisans isn't referenced very well, so the article doesn't work?

I think that "European Commission/Slovenian Presidency of the-EU 2008" backs-up the article very well, has anybody read it? Then their are the others:

International Law Observer
Yalta and The Bleiburg Tragedy by C Michael McAdams/University of San Francisco, California-USA.

Presented at the International Symposium for Investigation of the Bleiburg Tragedy Zagreb, Croatia and Bleiburg, Austria May 17 and 18, 1994.

BBC-History Partisans: War in the Balkans 1941-1945 by By Dr Stephen A Hart (Dr Stephen A Hart is senior lecturer in war studies at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst-England)
Lorraine M. Lees is an associate professor of history at Old Dominion University in Virginia, USA.
Anne R. Pierce Ph. D. Political Science from the University of Chicago. Independent Scholar & Author/USA
Hrcak Portal of Scientific Journals of Croatia by Mr Dizdar's Scientific Journal.
Paul Hollander: Ph.D in Sociology. Princeton University, 1963, B.A. London School of Economics, 1959 Professor Emeritus of Sociology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst Centre Associate, Davis Centre.
Dr. Ph. Michael Portman from the Vienna University
Sabrina P. Ramet/Graduated from Stanford University in 1971 with an AB in Philosophy, earning her MA in International Relations from the University of Arkansas, and her Ph.D. in Political Science from UCLA in 1981.
Joze Dezman: Slovenian Historian-Director of the National Museum of Contemporary History-Ljubljana (Slovenian) National Museum of Contemporary History- Slovenia
Mitja Ferenc: Slovenian Historian-University of Ljubljana
Australia's Four Corners

Testimony-Eye Witness:

Internal Security of Former Yugoslavia - Mitja Ribicic
Physicist, Philosopher, Writer, Playwright, Peace Activist Humanist & former Yugoslav Partizan - Ivan Supek

etc. Sir Floyd (talk) 15:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hi Bojan! You have made some errors in the above statement.

(a) You wrote: "stated 24422 children were not in concentration camps" My sentence is: "their were 24 422 children in the camps in the former Yugoslavia in the late 1940s", but I see your point it's under the heading which is the problem. Thank you for pointing that out.

(b) That statement is sourced and named, please check: Hrcak Portal of Scientific Journals of Croatia by Mr Dizdar's Scientific Journal Page 66/Document page 182:

Note: This paper dedicated to the 60th anniversary of these tragic events represents a small step towards the elaboration of known data and brings a list of yet unknown and unpublished original documents, mostly belonging to the Yugoslavian Military and Political Government 1945-1947. Amongst those documents are those mostly relating to Croatian territory although a majority of concentration camps and execution sites were outside of Croatia, in other parts of Yugoslavia. The author hopes that the readers will receive a complete picture about events related to Bleiburg and the Way of The Cross and the suffering of numerous Croats, which is confirmed directly in many documents and is related to the execution of a person or a whole group of people and sometimes non-stop for days. (Zdravko Dizdar a Croatian Historian/Croatian Institute for History in Zagreb)

Statement in Croatian: "Tako je 18. I. 1946. u jugoslavenskimlogorima bilo 117.485 folksdojcera (58.821 žena, 34.214 muškaraca i 24.422 djece).
Transated: ...... In 18/6/1946 in Yugoslav Camps there were 117.485 folksdojcera (58 821 women, 32 214 men & 24 422 children).
More info on Mr Dizdar's Scientific Journal in English: Hrcak Portal of Scientific Journals of Croatia by Mr Dizdar's.

Commission on Concealed Mass Graves in Slovenia estimated that there are 100 000 victims in 581 mass graves.

Note: The Commission on Concealed Mass Graves in Slovenia (Slovene: Komisija za reševanje vprašanj prikritih grobišč) is an office of the Slovenian Government whose task is to find and document mass grave sites from the Second World War and the period immediately after it. It was established on November 10, 2005.

There is also Commission on Concealed Mass Graves in Serbia (a former republic of Yugoslavia)

Below is information taken from European Commission/Slovenian Presidency of the-EU 2008 Page 154 Milko Mikola/Chapter: Communist Concentration Camps & Labour Camps in Slovenia

It follows thusly:

4. Survey of concentration camps in Slovenia (a former republic of Yugoslavia) in 1945.

4.1. Concentration camps for members of the German national minority

– Strnišče near Ptuj

– Hrastovec near Sv. Lenart in Slovenske gorice

– Studenci near Maribor

– Brestrnica near Maribor

– Kamnica near Maribor

– Tezno near Maribor

– Teharje near Celje

4.2. Concentration camps for members of the Hungarian national minority

– Filovci in Prekmurje

– Hrastovec near Sv. Lenart in Slovenske gorice

– Strnišče near Ptuj

4.3. Concentration camps for members of the Slovenian Home-guard

– Teharje near Celje

– Škofovi zavodi in Št. Vid nad Ljubljano

– Škofja Loka

5. Survey of concentration camps in Slovenia from 1945 to 1951

5.1. Camps for forced labour – penal camps (1945–46)

– Kočevje

– Teharje near Celje

– Studenci near Maribor

– Brestrnica near Maribor

5.2. Camps for correctional labour – working groups (1949–51)

– Strnišče near Ptuj

– Kočevje

– Rogoza near Maribor

– Prestranek near Postojna

– Pšata near Ljubljana

– Inlauf near Borovec in Kočevsko

5.3. Camps for socially beneficial labour – working groups (1949–51)

– Strnišče near Ptuj

– Litostroj, Ljubljana

– Žale, Ljubljana

- Medvode

– Moste near Žirovnica

– Rajndol near Kočevje

– Ferdrenk in Kočevsko

– Škofja Loka

– Rajhenburg

End of Survey

Harry Truman (the President of USA) would have his sourses-CIA.That statement is back by two references, please check with the article.
Frank Waddams was a British Government representative, it's in his statement. If R. J. Rummel got Frank Waddams statement wrong, then it's a problem, but at this point in time it seems genuine (If it's wrong I'll stand corrected).
Finally, Bojan could you please read what I have written below. Also could you not go down the path of insults such as heap of rubbish. I would kindly ask you to remain civil. Thank you! Sir Floyd (talk) 12:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whey you say concentration camp, first association are Nazi extermination camps. Something like that never existed in Yugoslavia. -- Bojan Talk 11:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the above! It's in the European Public Hearing on Crimes Committed by Totalitarian Regimes (European Commission/Slovenian Presidency). It is they who are saying this. Plus, the Scientific Journals of Croatia by Mr Dizdar. Bojan their are many different types of concentration camps. Sir Floyd (talk) 13:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: According to Webster’s Dictionary, the political, economic, and social policies associated with Tito is called Titoism. These political, economic, and social policies were part of Yugoslavia. Here are some of the political, economic, and social policies of this government:

Abuse of national sentiment to carry out racial and class revolutionary projects;
Cult of a great leader, who permits his fanatics to murder, steal and lie;
Dictatorship of one party;
Militarization of society, police state – almighty secret political police;
Collectivism, subjection of the citizen to the totalitarian state;
State terrorism with systematic abuses of basic human rights;
Aggressive assumption of power and struggle for territory.
Mass killings without court trials.

These policies are political repression and are backed up with References. Polargeo are you saying that these references don't back up the above statement. Sir Floyd (talk) 11:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am analysing your article per wikipedia guidelines. I am not analysing the politics. Polargeo (talk) 11:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough!, politics aside (& wikipedia guidelines) for now. Do you think the references back up the above statement? Yes or no, please! Sir Floyd (talk) 11:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they do, so no. Many of the references only mention Tito in passing. Many of them most certainly do not back up the "theme" of this essay. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The whole statement above is taken from: European Public Hearing on “Crimes Committed by Totalitarian Regimes". Here is the link: European Commission/Slovenian Presidency of the-EU 2008 Page 197. Joze Dezman: COMMUNIST REPRESSION AND TRANSITIONAL JUSTICE IN SLOVENIA

Another Example on page 53:

4.2.2. fake trials

In June 1945 group trials began against actual and imaginary opponents of the Communist system, particularly against representatives of cooperatives, banks and the economy. The authorities carried out numerous trials (Božič, Rupnik/Rožman, Bitenc) to compromise representatives of political opposition and the Catholic Church. Following the Soviet example, in summer 1947 the Slovene Party staged a great Stalinist political trial, the so-called Nagode trial (named after the first accused, Črtomir Nagode) in which 15 people were accused of treason and spying for Anglo-Americans. In May 1947, the Slovene secret police, the UDBA, arrested 32 highly educated intellectuals. Among them were Črtomir Nagode, Ljubo Sirc, Leon Kavčnik, Boris Furlan, Zoran Hribar, Angela Vode, Metod Kumelj, Pavla Hočevar, Svatopluk Zupan, Bogdan Stare, Metod Pirc, Vid Lajovic, Franjo Sirc, Elizabeta Hribar.

More examples:

COMMUNIST REPRESSION Of “INTERIOR ENEMIES” IN SLOVENIA

In the greater part of this paper, the author deals with individual repressive measures that Communist rule imposed in Slovenia in the period from the end of the war in 1945 until the beginning of the 1950s. In this period, the Communist authorities in Slovenia implemented all the forms of repression that were typical of states with Stalinist regimes. In Slovenia, it was a time of mass killings without court trials, and of concentration and labour camps. Property was confiscated, inhabitants were expelled from Slovenia/Yugoslavia and their residences, political and show trials were carried out, religion was repressed and the Catholic Church and its clergy were persecuted. At the beginning of the 1950s, Communist rule in Slovenia abandoned these forms of repression but was ready to reapply them if it felt threatened. Thus the regime set up political and show trials against certain more visible opponents later. In the case of an “emergency situation”, even the establishment of concentration camps was planned in Slovenia in 1968, where around 1,000 persons, of whom 10 % were women, would be interned for political reasons. Page 161

Mass killings without court trials:

(a) The Communist repression in Slovenia reached its peak in the first months after the war ended in 1945 with the carrying out of mass killings without court trials of so-called “national enemies”. As already implied in the term “killings without a court trial”, these were killings carried out without any proceedings before a court and without establishing the guilt of the individual victims.

(b) This happened despite the fact that military courts existed in those times in Slovenia that could judge alleged perpetrators of war crimes and other criminal acts in accordance with the provisions of the Regulation on Military Courts of the Supreme Headquarters of the National Liberation Army and POJ (Partisan Detachments of Yugoslavia – PDY) of 24 May 1944. According to this regulation, which was still applicable during those times, only military courts were competent to issue death sentences. By implementing killings without a court trial, the Slovenian Communist authorities also grossly violated their own regulations on criminal justice. page 63

(Note: Commission on Concealed Mass Graves in Slovenia estimated that there are 100 000 victims in 581 mass graves)

Additional:

Cult of personalty: Discontents: Post-modern and Post communist’ by Paul Hollander:

“Virtually every communist system extinct or surviving at one point or another had a supreme leader who was both extraordinarily powerful and surrounded by a bizarre cult, indeed worship. These cults although apparently an intrinsic part of communist dictatorships (at any rate at a stage in their evolution are largely forgotten today.” “Stalin, Mao, Castro, Ho Chi Minh, Kim Sung, Enver Hoxha, Ceascesu, Dimitrov, Ulbricht, Gottwald, Tito and others all were the object of such cults. The prototypical cult was that of Stalin which was duplicated elsewhere with minor variations.” Page 337. (I text bold Tito so it is easier to read)

Paul Hollander: Ph.D in Sociology. Princeton University, 1963, B.A. London School of Economics, 1959 Professor Emeritus of Sociology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst Center Associate, Davis Center

Dictatorship of one party: The League of Communists of Yugoslavia was the only legal party. Other parties were banned. Read the “CONSTITUTION OF THE SOCIALIST FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF YUGOSLAVIA”, adopted by the Federal People's Assembly April 7, 1963, at http://www.worldstatesmen.org/Yugoslavia_1963.doc

Other sources used: Hrcak Portal of Scientific Journals of Croatia by Mr Dizdar's Scientific Journal - An Addition to the Research of the Problem of Bleiburg & Way of the Cross. This paper dedicated to the 60th anniversary of these tragic events represents a small step towards the elaboration of known data and brings a list of yet unknown and unpublished original documents, mostly belonging to the Yugoslavian Military and Political Government 1945-1947.

Keeping Tito Afloat by Lorraine M. Lees: Tito Afloat draws upon newly declassified documents to show the critical role that Yugoslavia played in U.S. foreign policy with the communist world in the early years of the Cold War. The Truman administration sought to "keep Tito afloat" by giving him military and economic aid.

The article is about authoritarian rule & political repression in the former Yugoslavia. Authoritarian rule & political repression are government policies of a Totalitarian State. These are just some of the political, economic, and social policies that were part of the former Yugoslavia, backed up by sources. These policies are often referred to as Titoism (The term was coined during the Tito -Stalin split/check) There are other policies that are associated with Titoism, that are better know, but the article is about political repression in the former Yugoslavia. Sir Floyd (talk) 23:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Personal essay cum rant, beyond even what is considered a WP:POVFORK. Stifle (talk) 08:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 13:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Croatian dream[edit]

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

Unlike American Dream, "Croatian Dream" is not an established term. The article is based on a single published work. GregorB (talk) 09:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. —GregorB (talk) 09:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yeah, this is really pointless and not really encyclopedic on the face of it. It's also clearly {{one source}}. Someone might think it's propaganda for Boris Mikšić :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a notable standalone concept. Glenfarclas (talk) 20:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ietsism[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism. I've searched and failed to find any significant coverage of this term in independent reliable sources (even Dutch ones). I've also checked the corresponding articles on foreign-language Wikipedias; nothing there either. (The best was a one-word mention in this article [36].) On the talk page a merge has been suggested; but with a complete lack of sources and no evidence that this is a notable term, I think the article should simply be deleted as original research. Robofish (talk) 21:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. — --Lambiam 15:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — --Lambiam 15:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In less than one minute of searching I found three references to news sources: [37][38][39], one to a definition taken from an encyclopedia: [40], and one to an apparently serious book with the term in the title: [41]. They are in Dutch, but all appear to be reliable sources to me. --Lambiam 15:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, apparently I'm just rubbish at searching for sources. Thanks for finding them, and consider this AFD withdrawn. Robofish (talk) 22:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Despite a few delete !votes, there is a clear consensus here that the subject passes WP:PROF. If anybody feels that WP:PROF needs to be changed, then the proper venue for that discussion is Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics) . Copyright issues were also raised but those can be dealt with through the normal editing process. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Harvey (biologist)[edit]

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

not notable Spoonkymonkey (talk) 00:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While this researcher has published academic papers, that's not enough reason for a Wikipedia entry Spoonkymonkey (talk) 00:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since my prod was declined. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What does that mean? That he is somehow notable? Spoonkymonkey (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:DGG on removing the prod claimed that it met WP:PROF. Not by number of articles, but on how many others refered these articles. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm pretty sure the top hits in this search are by him and there are four papers with over 100 citations each. That seems like enough for WP:PROF #1 for me. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I noted on the article's talk page that the text in the article closely matches his personal page. If the article is to be kept, it needs some cleanup to alleviate any concerns about copyright violation. Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 07:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Associate editor of Nature is 99% close to enough, and everything else pushes it over the edge. I don't see any concerns about accuracy, so I'm quite comfortable with a keep here. Shadowjams (talk) 11:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He was associate editor more than ten years ago, and for less than a year.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 14:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. --Þadius (talk) 02:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Agree with Shadowjams. Actually according to this Harvey has jointly published at least nine papers, all with over 200 citations and one with over 1600. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm pretty sure many of those are other people with similar names. That's why I provided a more tightly constrained search, above. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oompf... my silly error, you are correct. Still, I support a (somewhat weakened) keep. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To complement what David furnished above, a more targeted search (WoS: Author=(Harvey J*) Refined by: Institutions=(NETHERLANDS INST ECOL) Timespan=All Years. Databases=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI), which probably contains no false positives, but may actually omit papers, if any, that he authored at other institutions, shows 51 papers with an accompanying list of high cites: 139, 130, 67... for an h-index of 16, which I think is an unqualified pass. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 19:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete How can it be a biography without any biographical information. Unless some source takes an interest in him, rather than one of his papers, he won't be a notable enough individual to have a biography here. Weakopedia (talk) 18:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Have a read of WP:PROF – it says differently. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Keep - sufficiently notable, but the article doesn't do a great job of telling me so at present. Thparkth (talk) 22:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What makes someone notable in any field is not the facts of their birth and education, but their achievements, and we judge accordingly--writers , athletes, politicians, performers, even professors. The work is acknowledged in various ways, only one of which is writing a formal article about their life. This is particularly rarely the case for academics, where their work is usually by far the more interesting. In the academic world, the worth of their work is the impact on other scholars--which can be shown in many ways, but usually by citations. It would be very much easier here if other fields had so convenient a statistic. Not that a researcher cannot be notable with fairly low formal references if their are other ways of showing it, but that someone with a high numbers , judged by the standard of the field, is necessarily notable. DGG ( talk ) 22:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well-said indeed. The academics' AfD list seems to be particular rife at the moment with folks who do not understand this reasoning. Hope they have a look at it! Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 15:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]

The article says nothing about the impact of the person's work, there's no analysis of the work's notability, no one has linked to the article, there's nothing on the discussion page, Google News shows nothing about him. Notable? Spoonkymonkey (talk) 16:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're complaining mostly about the article, but we're debating the notability of the subject. Moreover, good Gnews coverage would be sufficient, but is not necessary to demonstrate notability. It's critical not to get these things confused. Please have a look at what DGG wrote above. It is absolutely spot-on with respect to this issue. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Would we say that about carpenters? "No one'e ever heard of the guy but other carpenters like his work?" There's definitel a bias towards academics here. I think notability to the public, and not to a small group, should be the criteria. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're wanting to argue policy – not the place for it. I've been around academics AfD awhile and my sense is that this one will pass. Over and out, Agricola44 (talk) 14:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I'm sure it will. And no one will read the page or link to it. But the policies will all be followed, and that's all that matters to Wikicrats.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 21:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable, but this article must be improved and expanded. MiRroar (talk) 20:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Gardiner (video gamer)[edit]

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

Otherwise non-notable "Semi-professional video gamers" fail WP:N as demonstrated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Mclean. Claritas (talk) 15:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Gardiner won the biggest single prize in UK gaming history and received significant coverage on TV, national newspapers and radio stations. He is well known in his town of Hamilton.

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, has won "the largest single prize in United Kingdom video gaming history." Winning an elite amateur competition with RS coverage seems to me to demonstrate notability. Qrsdogg (talk) 20:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Individuals who win 'amateur competitions aren't considered notable, even if the prize money is large. Claritas (talk) 16:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a guideline that says only full time professional athletes can be notable? I recognize that pro gaming isn't a traditional sport, but I would think that by virtue of his winning the UK's highest video game prize notability is established in this case. Qrsdogg (talk) 01:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's called WP:ATHLETE. Only professional athletes, and international amateur champions (Olympics etc.) meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, unless there are other justifications of notability. Claritas (talk) 16:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I actually don't see the word international in the guideline: "People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships." As video game competitions lack Olympic recognition, I see this victory as "the highest amateur level" of competition. Qrsdogg (talk) 05:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no international tournament for a sport, its athletes are unlikely to meet notability criteria. Claritas (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this is where we disagree, hopefully a clear consensus can be reached on this issue though. Qrsdogg (talk) 17:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is an international tournament, as per his wikipedia page he finished second place in the European Championships.

Wouldn't winning the UK's biggest ever gaming prize come under other justifications of notability?

Keep - though the first reference has no notability and isn't related to him as a gamer (site is even down), the Daily Record, The Scotsman, (both of which are well established news sources) Konami, and Play (pesrankings.com) references establish notability. A pesrankings.com search brings up this user's gamertag, Marko9Gardinic several times as well. I couldn't find any info on the Hamilton Advertiser, but given the other sources it can serve as a supplementary source. Additionally the author of the article discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Mclean blanked the page in an effort to delete. --Teancum (talk) 13:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. My interpretation of WP:ATH is that he's notable enough since he competes at the highest level of his sport. --MrStalker ^(talk) 10:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know next to nothing about computer gaming, but it seems that if a sport does not have a wide enough following to have professional athletes, its athletes are unlikely to meet notability guidelines. Can you provide me with any examples of an amateur athlete in a sport which has no professional athletes or international tournaments who has a wikipedia page ?

It does have international tournaments, as already mentioned Mark Gardiner finished in second place at the sports official European Championships

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with leave to speedy renominate if someone wishes to discuss the subject's notability. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rectifi[edit]

Rectifi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

The website is closed. Following the link we are taken to a webpage informing users that Rectifi no longer exists. It does not seem something which needs to be kept. Any other oppinions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azthral (talk • contribs) 2010/04/24 18:05:20

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Once notable, always notable. And this BBC article establishes that it was once notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Konqistador[edit]

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

Band does not appear to meet WP:NMG; two EPs and no albums so far. Written by COI editor who reverts most changes to it. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No Google news hits. A general Google search yields MySpace, music downloading sites like MP3.com and Napster, Twitter profile, record label page, among other stuff that can't be used to assert notability. The article itself has no references to back up anything it says. Plus the creator of the article Konqistador seems to have made this article for pure promotional reasons and there are COI concerns. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 10:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indications of notability for this band and a worrysome editing pattern on top of it. Shadowjams (talk) 11:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 20:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you notice the registered name of the article creator, it just screams COI and promotion as the creator and the band name are the same. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 22:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep albeit weakly. Hmmm, issues here. First of all, the editing--sure, bands shouldn't write their own articles, nor should they have SPAs removing AfD and other templates (I warned them on their talk page). But that's not a reason for deletion. I found a little bit of coverage which I've added; I've also made some other edits that will hopefully satisfy Stifle who must have run out of maintenance templates after they were done with this one. ;) Seriously, I think we have a moderately notable band here, and I think that not all the matters brought up here warrant deletion--for COI and other problems, we have the WikiPolice, of which I am apparently an honorary member. As for the band's music, I'll ask my little brother, he's hip. Drmies (talk) 18:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There was not consensus to delete this page at this point in time. It was not a particularly strong keep consensus, but it was for keep. Could certainly revisit in a few months' time, with a later AFD at some point. -- Cirt (talk) 00:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Infinite Energy (magazine)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I believe this particular magazine with a very limited circulation and not much in the way of outside notice is not notable. Two years of limbo makes me think this publication is destined for extreme obscurity. Deletion is appropriate until it becomes more famous and encyclopedic. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - It's mentioned in this news article [42] and this one [43] and this one [44] (all about Mallove's murder) and its sold via Amazon [45] as well as in my local bookstore - you may "believe" it is limited, but it's certainly worth noting. (Not sure what you mean by "two years of limbo"?) - DavidWBrooks (talk) 11:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Simple mention in news articles about arresting Mallove's murderer does not make the magazine notable. Neither does its availability on Amazon. I cannot verify that the magazine is available in your local bookstore, but I imagine it may have something to do with the fact that you seem to be in New England where the magazine is based. The onus is on those wanting to keep the article to show it is notable enough to have received independent, third-party coverage which this magazine decidedly lacks. We gave the peanut gallery two years to establish notability, and there isn't a single citation to an independent third-party source to be had. Time to throw this away. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose- I find it hard to take this nomination quite seriously. ScienceApologist is notorious for his/her extreme disdain for everything not embraced by mainstream, institutionalized science. Same nominator nominated this article for deletion last time. I'd like to know upon what the belief that this magazine has a very limited circulation is based. I'd also like to know what the nominator means by asserting that it has been "in limbo" for two years (i.e. since the last AfD nomination). Does ScienceApologist command some paranormal abilities that lead him/her to gain insights on factual matters which for the supernatural origin of these faculties makes it hard to add these facts to the article? __meco (talk) 14:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your personal animus towards me is irrelevant. Your arguments have no real content. The onus is on those wanting to keep the article to show it has a circulation that makes it inherently notable. Good luck finding some independent third-party sources to establish this. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I hold your track record in some esteem, i.e. in most situations I believe you maintain the required focus, however, this nomination is not among them. __meco (talk) 18:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Merits mention in Eugene Mallove, but not enough independent third-party sources for its own article. Qrsdogg (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 2 years and no reliable sources other than primary sources to confirm it exists. sale on amazon does not confer WP notability, and the magazine's mention in the articles on the founders murder are not significant, ie they arent about the magazine itself. anyone who feels this is a notable magazine has had 15 years of publishing history to show it, and 2 years since the articles creation. I have read the previous afd, and the news articles. the only thing i did NOT read until just now was scienceapologists rationale. i wanted to come to my own conclusion, after noting the personal attacks here. well, i concur with scienceapologist, and last time i checked my waist there isnt a huge wrist where my stomach should be, nor am i made of nylon reinforced cotton/poly knit fabric:) I would, of course, welcome any sourced evidence of notability, but im not hopeful. no prejudice to recreation once cold fusion is proven scientifically:)(no, truly, i am open minded)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or (weak) merge with Eugene Mallove^{(see below)}. Although the above sources only contain trivial mentions, sources like [46] and [47]^([48][49]) suggest notability. — Rankiri (talk) 14:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Bart Simon's book is wonderful, but I don't think that it really establishes notability for the magazine, per se. Can we write an entire article based upon a page and a half of writing about Mallove's pet project from Simon's book on cold fusion? The mentions in the Best of the Magazine Market do not seem to contain any information beyond the magazine's existence. Can you explain how you would write the article based on these two sources? ScienceApologist (talk) 15:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, are you seriously dismissing three pages of book coverage as a trivial mention? As for the Best of the Magazine Market, its snippets show that the magazine is discussed on at least three different pages. The fact that the index page doesn't even mention the visible coverage on pages 26 and 27 only suggests that the inaccessible page 525 has more detailed information.

In addition, the magazine gets a good number of hits in Google Books, Google News, and Google Scholar. Most of them are completely trivial, but many are not fully accessible and can possibly contain non-trivial coverage:[50], [51], etc. Considering that I only skimmed the results for "Infinite Energy magazine" and not the hundreds of additional results for "Infinite Energy"+magazine, I have all reasons to believe that additional significant coverage in independent sources can be found. When in doubt, don't delete, remember? — Rankiri (talk)

I find it a bit amusing that you keep referencing all these books I've read about cold fusion. I didn't even remember that the Sun in a Bottle book even mentioned Infinite Energy so I went and looked and realized that it is essentially a two-sentence mention. Non-trivial? Hardly. Evidence that an article can be written that is encyclopedic beyond a simple posit would be nice. How would you incorporate all these "non-trivial sources" into, say, an additional paragraph for our article? ScienceApologist (talk) 17:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please recall WP:NOTCLEANUP. My only point is that the magazine seems to pass the general notability guideline. If you're looking for ways to improve the article, Bart Simon's book is a good start. You can also find bits of useful information among trivial mentions: [52]. — Rankiri (talk) 18:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you're paying attention. Bart Simon's book does not really describe the magazine as anything more than an offshoot of Mallove's idiosyncracies, and the trivial mentions do no more than establish the existence of the magazine. I'm going to assume that the answer to my query is that you are actually unable to write a paragraph for insertion until I see evidence otherwise, WP:NOTCLEANUP does not trump WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, your request is unreasonable and has nothing to do with WP:AFD or WP:DEL. The same goes for your preposterous use of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Considering that I see no reason to believe that your seemingly preconceived opinion represents the consensus of the community, I'm going to go with the book that dedicates almost three full pages of the subject. — Rankiri (talk) 19:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's very sad to learn that the level of editorial discourse here at AfD is at counting pages in a book. I look forward to seeing whether you actually contribute anything. If not, delete by redirect will work fine considering that the AfD lurkers rarely bother doing anything after the debate. "It's notable, but don't make me write anything about it!" Classic. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed the refs in the book by Bart Simon. I dont think they establish this as a notable magazine. the first mention describes it as a "private" magazine, which i believe qualifies it as in the realm of a self published, or vanity, publication, with a single purpose of promoting the subject. While that doesnt automatically negate it as a notable magazine, the lack of other mention, even controversial mentions, such as a mainstream scientist denouncing the magazine publicly, or an investigative journalist covering it extensively, points to it not being notable yet. Unless we have a copy of the book to look at, and can confirm a nontrivial mention on pages blocked on google books, we cant assume the mentions are notable. this book seems to be about the cult of this scientific idea, so multiple mentions of the mag would make sense, but that actually only shows its nonnotability as a minor fringe magazine noted only for its connection to the fringe (not clear if this is the correct use of fringe on wp, just pointing out its "fringy") scientist who created it. if this magazine cant even get a chapter in a book on this subject, i say its not notable by our standards. i still welcome any sourced additions, though.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For crying out loud, it seems that you only look at the selected instances of "Infinite Energy" in the text. I'll try to paste some of the quotes without violating WP:COPYVIO.

In general the magazine defiantly promotes the idea of cold fusion and new energy, while at the same time acting as a conduit for technical information...

Fusion Facts and Infinite Energy publish articles about colf fusion as well as other radical claims related tot he production of energy, but much if their material and readership...

[One issue of Infinite Energy] lists an article . . . by researchers at Osaka University. This appears along with articles on modern methods of transmuting mercury to gold . . .

In addition, each issue also features technical letters from researchers, advertisements . . . book reviews, and comics.

The July 1999 issue of the magazine, for instance, celebrates the tenth anniversary...

The contents of this issue demonstrate the degree to which core-group scientiests have been integrated...

Although the magazine is written for the most part in a popular and accessible style, many of the contributors and readers of Infinite Energy are the same as those...

Infinite Energy provides an important alternative by supplying new technical information...

The magazine is published and edited by Eugene Mallove...

Mallove started Infinite Energy in 1995...

Infinite Energy has the highest production value and the widest circulation amongst the CF newsletters. Mallove routinely prints about five thousand copies of each bimonthly issue, which is anywhere from fifty to a hundred pages. The magazine has several thousand subscribers and sells up to 80% of the additional 2,400 newstand issues in prints.

Like the cold fusion conferences, Infinite Energy becomes a context in which the publicly accountable identities of scientists...

And so on. Saying that the book doesn't provide nontrivial coverage of the subject is disingenuous at best. — Rankiri (talk) 20:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for the rest of the sources, I see numerous citations in the media and academic publications. The Best of the Magazine Markets for Writers already contains some visible coverage on the pages that are not even listed on its index page. As far as I know, WP:RS does not require all potential sources to be fully available online. — Rankiri (talk) 20:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me venture to summarize that for you, Infinite Energy magazine was founded by the late Dr. Eugene Mallove and discusses cold fusion; vacuum energy, or zero point energy; and so-called "environmental energy" which they define as the attempt to violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics, for example with a perpetual motion machine. This is done in pursuit of the founder's commitment to "unearthing new sources of energy and new paradigms in science." Aside from the incredibly interesting details about the number of pages and the circulations, that's the sum total of the "non-trivial notice" you outline. Already in the article, it makes me totally confused how this could be said to be anything we can work with to write an encyclopedic article. WP:NME#Newspapers, magazines and journals. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of media topics in a nutshell: there is significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. When this changes to something like "an AfD participant must write a paragraph about the subject or otherwise satisfy the nominator's every whim" and "significant coverage refers to the type of material that isn't already present in the article", be sure to let me know, ok? — Rankiri (talk) 00:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read the snippets provided by rankiri. while the statement that it has the widest circulation helps towards notability, i still say that mention in this book doesnt establish notability. the way the quotes were cut off (regardless of the respect paid for copyvio, which i get), i cant tell if the author of the book is praising, criticising, or dismissing the magazine as ultimately trivial. it still seems like the mag is a small fish in a small pond, and no one who is not a club member is fishing in it. I would welcome this being listed somewhere so we can get other peoples comments, but i dont know how to do that yet (and of course i wont canvass).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

to show my sincere NPOV towards this subject, here's some possible references i found: [53], good to show here though it doesnt help with notability (does reflect on magazine), [54], minor report on the mags expose of mit blunders (not very notable), and HERE IT IS, [55] new york times mention (in passing) of the mag. I would prefer to see articles on mr malloves books here at WP. i also note that this mag article was not tagged as fringe science or physics, and has links to real science ideas, giving the impression to some that its not fringe science. also, the mallove article has multiple external links to memorial websites. why do i bring this up? i think it shows a tendency in these two articles towards POV promoting this fringe topic and minimizing its relative unimportance compared to mainstream science, thus anyone who is strongly opposed to deletion, who has not fixed up the article even a little to try to give it NPOV, has a likely bias towards promoting the subject.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I could argue that anyone who unprecedentedly dismisses whole pages of book coverage as irrelevant and is quick to jump to the seemingly unconnected policy of disruptive editing and accuse dissenting views of personal bias shows a certain degree of predetermination as well. According to WP:AOBF, making unsupported accusations of bad faith can be seen as a personal attack. As far as I'm concerned, AfD is not cleanup, and if the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. So unless you can support your insinuations with any type of evidence, I suggest you apologize. — Rankiri (talk) 13:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, calm down everyone. I am a fairly active editor in these areas and I've actually read the book in question. Of course, Rankiri doesn't seem to agree with my analysis, but also has no desire to actually edit the article. So if a keep does emerge, a redirect to Mallove might be the best. Would that be okay with you Rankiri? I think it would be okay with me. Then we could close this as a procedural close, redirect and all get back to writing the encyclopedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge? Perhaps. Considering that the independent coverage is fairly borderline and the rest of the sources only cover the magazine in connection with its author, I guess I don't have any strong objections to a merger. But how is "deletion by redirect", as you called it, any different from regular deletion? Wikipedia is not working to a deadline. Just because I refused to follow your request, it doesn't mean that the article will remain in this form forever.

I also want to add to my earlier response to Mercurywoodrose. This is not an article about fringe theories. It's an article about a magazine that publishes or otherwise promotes fringe theories. Valid or invalid, the magazine's views and topics of interest are completely irrelevant to this discussion. If the subject is directly covered by several seemingly reliable secondary sources and additional coverage is likely to be found, WP:N is satisfied. — Rankiri (talk) 17:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by redirect is often the complaint that people who own various articles use when an article is merged soon after surviving AfD, and I was using it somewhat tongue-in-cheek. The biggest difference is the preserved article history which can be useful if, in the future, it is determined to undo the redirect by an enterprising article writer who isn't an administrator. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with some sort of merge of contents. Rankiri, you are correct, there is no evidence of POV on your part, only the lack of willingness to immediately correct POV or undue weight in the article, which of course you are not obliged to do, nor am i (its a volunteer project after all). But, the magazine is exclusively devoted to fringe theories, so it really should be categorized or mentioned in this context. stating the magazines approach to the Second Law, without some sort of sourced comment about how this is commonly understood as the very definition of fringe science, is POV. I do know that AFD is not cleanup, but some editing during afd, esp adding sources, is sometimes appropriate, esp. when rescuing the article, and can help others to see notability better. The only reliable sources (source?) we have are ones severely critical of the magazines fringe views, so that should be here. having said that, i do apologize for the insinuation.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 06:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see enough WP:RS external coverage to justify meeting WP:GNG. Shadowjams (talk) 06:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Eugene Mallove. Shadowjams' succinct analysis is correct:- this obscure publication is not notable. But per WP:BEFORE, there are sometimes better ways to deal with un-notable things than deletion.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 09:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge with Eugene Mallove. Whilst there does seem to be some referance to this mag it also seems to be so minor as to really produce a stub, and nothing more. Seems to me its best served by being part of another article.Slatersteven (talk) 10:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~You're right, you had already !voted - I've lost track of this endless debate, perhaps I've already voted in this AfD. The big argument against merging is that Mallove has been dead for - what, four years? - and the magazine continues, so that merging them would be like merging Amazing Stories and Hugo Gernsback (assuming I've remembered my sci-fi early history correctly). - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I had no difficulty expanding the article from a good source which demonstrates the topic's notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Google news search at the top of the AFD shows that the magazine is notable enough that its editors are often quoted for their expert opinion by various major newspapers. Dream Focus 09:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG per source found by Colonel Warden. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of characters in The Punisher. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finn Cooley[edit]

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

Minor villain from Garth Ennis's Punisher series; only appeared in a few issues, and even there was one of several villains. Ennis introduced over a hundred characters in the series, nothing particularly notable about this one. Should be redirected to List of characters in The Punisher, perhaps. —Chowbok ☠ 06:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to List of characters in The Punisher per above. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete /redirect... Only in two comics.. http://marvel.wikia.com/Category:Finn_Cooley_%28Earth-616%29/Appearances and he is killed in The Punisher (vol. 6) #12... Traxs7 (Talk) 06:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep since the character also appeared in a video game. Edward321 (talk) 01:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deletion (WP:CSD#A7).

Eagle's Nest Bar[edit]

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

Non-notable company that fails WP:CORP. Google turns up nothing but trivial mentions, and the only external link the article has is to a Facebook group. Erpert (let's talk about it) 05:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as dba7 non notable corporation/business. Open 7 months. Shadowjams (talk) 05:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete! Adding speedy tag to article. — Timneu22 · talk 13:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AFA (file format)[edit]

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

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

The astrotite program was speedily deleted (?!), so I doubt its file format is more notable. Pcap ping 17:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 17:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Link to discussion why the astrotite program was speedily deleted is required before the fate of this article can be deemed. --Zarutian (talk) 18:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are no discussion pages for speedy deletes. Claritas (talk) 18:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then it should be restored as the speedy delete apears to be in error. --Zarutian (talk) 18:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The application of WP:CSD#A7 to software should be reserved for "I created this cool program, and posted it on my personal website!!!" situations. More ambiguous cases should receive AFD discussions, so that editors can determine whether the notability guideline is satisfied, or whether a (rare) exception to the guideline is justified by the particular subject matter. Emily Jensen (talk) 18:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And if we want to be pedantic about it, software is ineligible for deletion under CSD A7: "This criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people, organizations, and individual animals themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software, or other creative works." In practice, technical satisfaction of the CSD's subject matter requirements is less important than the simple question of whether the page constitutes a serious attempt to write an encyclopedia article, or whether it's a clearly non-notable autobiography, obvious spam, etc. Emily Jensen (talk) 19:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified the administrator that performed the speedy deletion of this discussion. However, his talk page indicates that he won't be around for another week. Pcap ping 19:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pcap ping 10:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also nominating astrotite. It was speedily deleted. I filed a DRV, where it was determined that the deleted article is unsourced. Although the speedy aspect of the deletion has been disputed above, I can't find any sources for writing that article either. I've relisted this AfD so there are no complaints about the timing; the clock starts ticking on both articles starting now. Pcap ping 10:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not really possible to consider the speedily-deleted astrotite article for deletion here, as we can't see it. However, judging by the DRV, it sounds like it would have made G11 anyway, and the software's file format can't really be notable if the software itself isn't -- Boing! said Zebedee 10:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability is not inherited. From what I see, the format itself has no significant independent coverage. — Rankiri (talk) 16:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both Astrotite and AFA (file format): utterly fails WP:GNG. I'm the one who put the speedy tag on Astrotite originally: it was a website and company with no substantial claim of notability. It was blatant WP:Autobiography in my opinion, and its only major claim was that it existed and it was the only software that could use the AFA format, which of course is circular reasoning and not a claim to notability. The rest of it was talky-talk about the software's creator, Vicente Sanchez-Alarcos Blanco, who openly uses the username "Matabyte" in places other than Wikipedia. User:Emily Jensen is correct above: I only tagged the company for speedy because I couldn't find an easy speedy criteria for AFA (file format) so I WP:PRODed it and added a bunch of maintenance templates instead. Matabyte (talk · contribs) then removed my templates (except PROD) and claimed "I'm not the author of the software.If this fix it's enough, delete WP:COI" in the edit summary. 5 days later, 121.84.90.140 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) from Japan "extended" the time on the prod unilaterally; and 6 days after that, 60.56.145.159 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), from the same ISP in Japan, deleted the PROD with the mysterious summary "deleted unverifiable text". Note that both those IPs have also made updates to Astrotite information, and that Fantiusen.com was registered to Vicente Sanchez-Alarcos Blanco in Japan at the time; he has since taken advantage of "privacy features" at Network Solutions to hide the domain location, but he's definitely in Japan: see his blog; Fantiusen's website: "Please keep in mind that live in another country other than Japan is not a problem applying for a job."; Facebook page that claims "Founded: 2007.02 Japan" on the left but "fundada en el año 1997 por Vicente Sánchez-Alarcos en España" ("founded in the year 1997 by Vicente Sánchez-Alarcos in Spain") on the right; and the license for Astrotite, which says: "By accepting the license agreement, you have the knowledge that all claims and disputes take place within the central courts of Japan." So, yeah: Delete. --Closeapple (talk) 18:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See also User talk:King of Hearts/Archive/2010.01#Discussion about AFA format file delete. --Closeapple (talk) 18:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully this AfD will achieve a more permanent solution to this shameless and not terribly astute self promotion. Pcap ping 22:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The software is non-notable so the file format is also. Joe Chill (talk) 01:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Astrotite has been temp-undeleted now, so you may consult its history in all its glory. Pcap ping 04:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's odd — I'm almost certain I did a speedy tag on Astrotite when I tagged AFA (file format). Maybe it was some earlier incarnation, but I don't see any in the log. Ah well. Maybe I was as sleepy then as I am now. Anyway, you can see even more of the anonymous IPs' edit patterns now. Yay. --Closeapple (talk) 06:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pcap ping 04:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - File format is reliant on program, and thus deletable. Shadowjams (talk) 05:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Having now seen the Astrotite article, I'm happy to stick with my Delete opinion - It should not have been deleted under A7 as it is not web content, but I do think it could be classed under G11 -- Boing! said Zebedee 09:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 13:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle DeFraites[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Fails GNG and ENTERTAINER. ^Bongo_matic 04:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 05:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice toward recreation if or when this youngster's career advances and she gets some coverage in reliable sources. Its just too soon. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree. This is an uncontroversial delete: a few one-episode appearances and a whole boatload of web-page sources (youtube, facebook, myspace, twitter) do not notability make. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 17:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is clear here. Moreover, the fact that such timelines have been published elsewhere has been established, refuting the validity of the sole "delete" argument. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the War on Terror[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Listing here per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 April 18, which was closed as List at AfD. The primary argument for deletion appears to be that the article is original research by synthesis. Procedural nomination, I am neutral. Tim Song (talk) 04:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 05:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 05:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sourced as a whole by reliable published timelines, preventing original research/synthesis. The inline citations seem to help further link the events to the War on Terror, although they are not the primary means of referencing. The timeline and its events are very sourceable without using original research, and it seems sizable enough to merit an article separate from the War on Terror. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: much better than the previous iteration. It is well-referenced, NPOV, and balanced: it merely presents a list of significant events without any conclusion or editorialization. Synth doesn't seem to be an issue since they are all inherently related to the WoT by design. bahamut0013^words _deeds 13:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This list topic appears to be an entirely novel, as it does not have a verifiable definition and contravenes the prohibition on original research as illustrated by WP:MADEUP. As far as I can see, this list, or anything like it, has not be been published anywhere except within Wikipedia, so there is no evidence that it is verifiable, let alone notable. To demonstrate that this topic was not created based on editor's own idea, a verifiable definition is needed to provide external validation that this list complies with content policy. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It would seem that War on Terror Timeline, and Homeland Security War on Terror Timeline explicity contravenes the notion that this list, or anything like it, has not be been published anywhere except within Wikipedia, so there is no evidence that it is verifiable, let alone notable. Do you agree?--Mike Cline (talk) 23:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: also note that the nomination was neutral. Best regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not that none of the sources cited by Mike Cline are in anyway reliable. He should know better. Reliable sources should be cited, not crap. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Having made no claim as to the quality of these sources, I am not sure what I should know better. That said, the idea that a topic entitled Timeline of the War on Terror has never, ever been published before except in WP, isn't consistent with the existence of the above sources and additionally this one: The Terror Timeline. If I am missing something here, I am not sure what it is as almost every book (popular as well as academic press) related to the WOT, contains some timeline or chronology element which is a typical part of most historical treatises. It just seems highly doubtful that the topic: Timeline of the War on Terror is made up. --Mike Cline (talk) 21:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It should not concern us here as to what Mike Cline believes to be the truth or not about the existence of this list topic. What should concern is is whether the existence of this list topic is verifiable, and this list does not provide evidence from a reliable source that it is. If almost every book contains such a timeline, why is that fact not cited here? I think Mike's assumptions about inclusion are his own unless he can provide evidence that this list topic exists in the real world. If there is evidence that it does exist, such as a verifiable definition, then we can throw our weight behind it. But if there is no evidence, then it fails WP:MADEUP, and there is no rationale to support the view that this topic should have its own page in Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not an expert, but I do admit I've done a fair amount of research on the topic. One of my personal favorites, Encyclopedia of Terrorism (ISBN 0-8160-6277-3), for example, offers a nice verifiable definition of the subject (and with a detailed and discriminating 'terror timeline', beginning page 417). Best regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Synthesis applies only to mixing sources to promote a particular point of view, which has not happened here. Stifle (talk) 08:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 13:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exitum[edit]

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

Band started this year, and nothing notable about them. Unless having a MySpace page is all you need these days to pass WP:BAND, this one fails. ~EdGl ★ 03:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable band. No reliable sources found. Goodvac (talk) 04:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 05:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable new garage band that has not released an album. Glenfarclas (talk) 19:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - was created this year but has no notability established, yet. Hekerui (talk) 20:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dominique Girard (ambassador)[edit]

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

Contested prod. Unreferenced sub-stub unimproved since 2005; unclear notability as Google brings up only passing mentions of this man. Decstop (talk) 03:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 05:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 05:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. The Google News archive search which omits the word ambassador will pull up many articles from reliable sources (including a few about other people with the same name, which can be ignored). Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ambassador from one significant country to others. Coverage in reliable sources to verify. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete - was speedy deleted as G1 (patent nonsense) by Snowolf. Gonzonoir (talk) 11:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jejemon[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism E Wing (talk) 03:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - Fails WP:NEO (sounds almost NFT) and has elements of an attack page. --Darkwind (talk) 05:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 05:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. No notability, and this page has been repeatedly deleted and recreated. Gonzonoir (talk) 07:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's a neologism that doesn't seem to have support. Shadowjams (talk) 08:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete and salt. There's no need to waste any more time on this.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 09:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICTIONARY and WP:NEO. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - appears to be a waste of time. VMS Mosaic (talk) 09:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 09:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Shree Mukundananda[edit]

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

Not clear how this person might meet WP:BIO, lacks significant coverage in 3rd party reliable sources (Google news, scholar, and book searches bring up zero hits). References provided in the article are primary ones. RadioFan (talk) 02:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 05:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 05:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete -- Non-notable guru and a follower of a non-notable guru. Someone keeps recreating those articles under slightly different spelling of the names. Wikid ^as© 05:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per wikidas. Rabbabodrool (talk) 22:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks coverage in RS.--Sodabottle (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Srinivas raghav[edit]

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

This smells very fishy. There are no corroborating details given for this supposed physicist's work. The originating editor is User:Theonlyoneraghav, who has only contributed to this page and Raghav. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 02:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 02:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A notable physicist born in 1994 (16 years old) would be very notable indeed, but I can find nothing to back this up. There is a Srinivas Raghav Kashyap, who wrote this paper: [56] (corresponding patent application here: [57]), but this does not appear to be the same person, and Kashyap doesn't seem to be involved in the sphere of magnetic levitation. There is this: [58] at LinkedIn, but it certainly doesn't establish notability. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 03:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable, fails WP:RS ... Shyamal (talk) 04:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nomination. MiRroar (talk) 20:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete - looks like a duck, quacks like a duck... - UtherSRG (talk) 08:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unreferenced BLP, apparently an autobiography by a teenager. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 03:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Fogel Jazz Organist[edit]

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

I declined an A7 on this article, but can't convince myself the article needs to be around. The claims made don't seem to meet the requirements in WP:MUSICBIO, and the tone is unrelentingly fannish and promotional. —Kww(talk) 02:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 02:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 02:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There is a possibility to verify and fix the article using reliable and independent sources. I found following: a collection of press coverage at his official website, articles in Jazz Times, Glide Magazine, Christian Jazz Artists. Of course, the article needs clean up. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article definitely needs a rewrite- and probably a retitle - but he does have an Allmusic biography article. A spot of categorisation can bring the article into WP:JAZZ and assist in obtaining improvement. AllyD (talk) 07:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've moved the article to Dan Fogel (musician). --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have done some major editing to the article (removed fluff, added refs, formatted...) so perhaps it now can be kept. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 19:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the list lacks well-defined criteria. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of hard rock bands and artists[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of hard rock bands and artists (3rd nomination)

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

Completely biased list, not including most of non-English speaking countries, based on not determined criteria, not cleared since previous nominations and at current state and shape completely useless Lukasz Lukomski (talk) 01:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First of all, no obvious and legible criteria seem to have been applied when creating this list. So, eg. we can find Garry Moore (why with the flag of the Republic of Ireland?) along with Quos and definetely a hard rock band AC/DC. Moreover, no sources are provided, which would state certain bands as recogniced hard rock artists. Furthermore, the list is lacking any limitation criteria, which would justify a presence of any band suspected only of playing this genre. Last but not least, some aditional mess has been created by ornamenting the groups with the flags: Why English bands are marked with the St George's Cross, whereass the Welsh ones (like Budgie) carry the British Flag? Kicior99 (talk) 01:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 02:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 02:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not a very strong reason on why the article should be deleted, plus to question about it's usefulness, Wikipedia's main goal is being an encyclopedia, feeding information into other people's heads which they don't already know about. The list of hard rock bands, or for any band list for that matter (if you are considering to delete this article, than you really have to delete all of the other list of band articles, and considering hard rock is one of the most historical and notable rock subgenres, it's pretty absurd) can definitely provide information the user doesn't already know about, such as looking for new bands to give a try. I myself get some band information through Wikipedia, especially through lists of bands.

Secondly, to comment about the flag thing, it can easily be fixed, not sure what the big deal is about there. Third, sources that come from the band's article itself works fine rather including them here, as including the sources here directly can end up making the article large enough that splitting would become inevitable.

Also, there are not that many non-English bands on the list because people aren't including them. I have no problem with non-English bands, and I'd include them. One reason is why Wikipedia is user-contributed is to allow somebody with outside knowledge to contribute to the list and add a band. Do you know of any foreign hard rock bands? Add them in.--F-22 Raptör^{Aces High♠} 03:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With all the due respect, saying if you want to delete this one, delete others is definetly not the level of discussion I should like to maintain. The charge for this very article (and not for others) is obvious and simple: unsourced list of bands associated with the genre according to ambiguous criteria and there should be no beating about the bush: either this article is brought to any acceptable level and supplied with reliable sources, or should be immediately deleted. Yes, I am fully aware that we are writing encyclopaedia, wnich in its basis constitutes reliable and professional source of intormation. This article does not comply with these requirements. Regards. Kicior99 (talk) 04:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What makes April Wine and Alias hard rock? Two known Canadian bands which if you listen to them are not really hard rock. While the list is subjective, if we can come to a consensus on merit that all bands and artists need to go by, then we can par down this list and source all of the entries just so it is no longer subjective. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 05:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV, and in some cases, an odd POV. Janis Joplin? Seriously? REO? Styx? It's basically a category with flags, and room for anyone to throw in their opinion about what band belongs on the list. Since it is designed to have names added indiscriminately, it's not much of a stretch for this to start accumulating the names of the next editor's favorite artist. Every day, Wikipedia gets new articles about (and in many cases by) aspiring artists, so this one is potentially endless. Mandsford (talk) 13:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This may actually be a case where a 7-year old article has outgrown its usefulness, because of the demand for sourcing and the proliferation of not-really-notable entries.--Milowent (talk) 19:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But require citations for all bands on the list. A WP:RS must refer to the band or artist in question specifically as hard rock in order for them to remain on the list. This is how it is done on List of nu metal bands, and it's relatively successful, though there are still occasional disputes. However, disputed bands are required to have additional sources to back up the claim to being a part of the genre, up to four for highly disputed bands. This would eliminate a large number of incorrectly classified bands, as well as non-notable and "me too" bands looking to promote themselves. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 21:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: By looking at the article I can see that almost all of the bands about which I know something (which are most of the bands on the list) are primarily hard rock bands. The only band that might be in question are the glam metal ones, but that is an old dilemma: is glam metal heavy metal or hard rock. I believe the article should be kept; as someone said the main task of this encyclopedia is giving information, and that is exactly what this article does, although, I believe that more band from non-English speaking countries should be included. Ostalocutanje (talk)
Delete as the creation entirely novel list topics without a verifiable definition contravenes the prohibition on original research as illustrated by WP:MADEUP. As far as I can see, this list, or anything like it, has not be been published anywhere except within Wikipedia, so there is no evidence that it is verifiable, let alone notable. To demonstrate that this topic was not created based on editor's own idea, a verifiable definition is needed to provide external validation that this list complies with content policy. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LC items 4, 7, and 10. Stifle (talk) 08:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Chaser (talk) 01:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Tylman[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is about a Canadian poet/artist. However not a single article or mention has been made about him in any Canadian newspaper, either major newspapers, such as the Globe, the Star or the Vancouver Sun or local free newspapers. TFD (talk) 01:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified the participants of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (3rd nomination), and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 January 18#Richard Tylman about this AfD. Cunard (talk) 02:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 02:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 02:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I think there is insufficient coverage of him for a Wikipedia article, per WP:AUTHOR. Some fairly obscure sources have been milked of all they had to get article where it is now. I realize this is a judgment call to some extent, and others will disagree, as they had in the past. His wiki-relationships inevitably color who !votes which way in the various AfDs and DRVs on this matter. Pcap ping 02:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 02:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Here are the results of some google searches:

As mentioned in the nom, he does not appear in any news articles.
His official page is not linked to from any site on the web.
The publisher, Aspidistra Press, for almost all of his works is not anywhere on the web. Perhaps these works are only Self-published.
It appears that Tylman may be the only person to ever publish with Aspidistra Press.
The last book listed, Koty marcowe, was published by a real(?) publisher. However, it can only be found at three libraries in the world(?), one of which being the U.S. Library of Congress. Anyone care to pick up a copy for review? ;-)
I only found one location where a poem of his was published. (It was apparently in a free newspaper, Carnegie, published in Vancouver.)

Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 02:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete I think Justin's comments above are incredibly strong proof that there is no notability. His works are self published or not published by notable publishers, there are no Gnews hits, and the existing sources are minimal. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Delete - I did my own check on all of the references used in the article. Many of them are duplicates. One narrative from the subject is used as a reference several times. News references to his art exhibit are also used a few times (not enough to established notability in my opinion). I used Google Translate to translate 3 (1 2 3 of the 4 articles not in English (Polish, I think) to get as much of an idea as I could to their contents. The articles seem to only mention the subject if mentioning him at all. The only reason I say this is a "weak delete" instead of a "delete" is because of the Grand Owl award. The reference given is a scan of an article which I cannot translate to verify the award (although I can see that his name is used in the first sentence). Even so, I don't feel, from my research, that the award is significant enough to establish notability. If someone could prove that the award is significant to establish notability, I may change my mind (give me proof, not your opinion unless you're an expert on such awards). The award of excellence is most certainly not significant enough for inclusion, in my opinion. OlYeller^Talktome 03:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note - The Grand Owl, being a student award, is presumably given to students. As he hasn't been a student since at least the early 80s, I find it odd that an article wasn't written about it until 2009. This leads me to believe that the award is not significant enough to establish notability. OlYeller^Talktome 03:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note From what I can tell, the Grand Owl Award is an award offered at the Fantasy Worldwide Film Festival. Since this festival's website appears to no longer exist, it's difficult to determine what it may be awarded for. Ok, this must be a different "Grand Owl" award. (03:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC))Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 03:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes. So apparently their official website is a MySpace page now. I retract my "weak delete" !vote and replace it with "Delete". I don't see the Grand Owl award could possibly be significant enough to establish notability. OlYeller^Talktome 03:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~From the myspace page, it appears that 2007 was the last year the festival was active. The page mentions awards from 2005 and 2006, but nothing about a "Grand Owl".~~ Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 03:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was a "student poetry award sponsored by the Jagiellonian University", according to the article. TFD (talk) 03:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This search makes doesn't help the cause of substantiality either. I'm still searching but finding nothing but mentions of the Grand Owl with Tylman. Mostly self published or uses Tylman as a reference for the award. I retract my last comment but keep the Delete !vote. I'm still searching and finding nothing. OlYeller^Talktome 04:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of coverage in any major sources indicates he probably isn't notable per WP:N regardless of any claims to awards. --Jayron32 03:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - last time I "voted" delete based on a quick glance. The information above seems to confirm what I saw: insufficient Wikipedia-level notability. (John User:Jwy talk) 04:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I checked the Proquest newspaper archive and the only two mentions were announcements of readings. Google Books doesn't bring up anything significant either. Will Beback talk 07:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I went for keep last time to avoid the distraction from the Arbitration case, but it's clear that he doesn't meet our notability requirements. Stifle (talk) 08:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Justin W Smith. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note left on the talk page - in a nutshell, this AfD would benefit if only editors not involved in the AfD case or with the subject and main author of the article will comment here, to avoid the battles of the last AfD and to allow for a consensus. Pantherskin (talk) 10:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Permit me to quote what Anti-Nationalist said at the deletion review [59]

Quote from Anti-Nationalist on a previous AfD/Deletion Review (Click Show ->)

We can rule out notability for Tylman as a painter. True, he was selected to represent his hometown in 1981 at a competition of promising young Polish artists. But there is nothing to tell us that Tylman was recognized as the best artist of those selected for being represented at the exhibition. Nor did he win any award. Outside the brief news notice for the exhibition as a whole (and the existence of its catalogue), there is no evidence of any individual notability.
We can easily see the absence of notability for Tylman as an airbrush illustrator: the "sources" for his works are the commercial works that have appeared in magazines. This does not meet notability, since airbrush illustrators who work on ads in magazines are not therefore inherently Wikipedia-notable. A team of illustrators that he was part of did win a Graphex Award in Canada (1991), but this is not evidence of individual notability, since Tylman himself was not named as an individual artist. The source for this is Tylman's own site.
As regards Tylman's crative endeavors as a poet, it's already been explained in the AFD nominations that these works of poetry are entirely self-published. Significantly, there are no critical reviews or commentary, so notability as an author/poet is non-existent. Tylman's Grand Owl award – the only individual prize mentioned for any endeavor at all – is a student-level prize given by Jagellonian University.
As was already explained previously in the nominations, the Anglophone Tylman poetry collections published by "Aspidistra Press" are in fact works produced by a vanity press (Tylman is the only published author for Aspidistra).
The Polish-language poetry also appears to be as non-notable: the only interesting thing from Koty marcowe was the poem "O próbie wysadzenia pomnika Lenina" (An Attempt at Blowing Up the Statue of Lenin), which was included amidst the photographs in photo anthology Nowa Huta: Okruchy zycia I Meandry Historii by photographer Jerzy Aleksander Karnasiewicz. The work is published by a non-commerical printer – the little "Wydawnictwo Towarzystwo Słowaków w Polsce" ("The Association of Slovaks in Poland"). There are no critical reviews.
Tylman's article gives us two interviews connected to "O próbie wysadzenia pomnika Lenina". The first is an interview with Jerzy Karnasiewicz (not Richard Tylman) in a local Nowa Huta] supplement to the Krakow-based Gazeta Krakowska (there, Karnasiewicz simply mention's Tylman's identity as the author of the poem in the book).
The other is an interview with Richard Tylman in Głos – Tygodnik Nowohucki by Małgorzata Szymczyk-Karnasiewicz. Given that Małgorzata's last name is Szymczyk-Karnasiewicz and the author of the photo anthology in which Tylman's poem is to be found is Jerzy Karnasiewicz, this seem to have a deep WP:COI... Even if we are to assume no COI, though, Głos – Tygodnik Nowohucki, where Tylman's interview appears, is just a small local publication in Nowa Huta (its English-language Wikipedia article was made by Richard Tylman (Poeticbent) after the third time that Richard Tylman was nominated for deletion; its Polish-language Wiki article was created by Tylman's WP:EEML buddy Piotrus. ([60] [61])

Well, then – my rationale – and so far so good. What, then, do the Wikipedia biographical guidelines tell us?

For WP:ANYBIO (or Any biography):
1. The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for one.
2. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.
No notability per WP:ANYBIO, it seems to me. The only individual award won by Tylman was the Grand Owl, a student-level award from Jagellonian University.
For WP:ARTIST/WP:AUTHOR (or any "creative professional"):
1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
4. The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries.
5. See Wikipedia:Notability (academics) for guidelines on academics - not applicable to Tylman
There is no evidence (or even suggestion) to be found that Tylman either
1) is an "important figure" or is widely cited by his peers;

2) is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique;
3) has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or review;
or
4) has created work that (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or is to be found in many significant libraries.
Accordingly, I do not see the basis for anything other than a deletion. Tylman is simply non-notable. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 11:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)"[reply]

I agree entirely with all of this. Varsovian (talk) 11:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can't believe the article is nominated - yet again, it's starting to get a bit ridiculous. Also if somebody could please tell Varsovian to avoid copying walls of text from previous discussions, he can simply link to it. Otherwise we can all start copying lots of text from previous AfDs... Dr. Loosmark 11:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure "it was nominated before" is a terribly strong arguement for keeping the article around now. Do you have any evidence that the person has received indepth coverage from reliable sources, which would directly refute the concerns of most of the editors that have voted "delete"? --Jayron32 11:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although he's not technically part of WP:EEML, Loosmark has in the past been subjected to a topic ban for nationalistic edit warring on Poland-related stuff: User talk:Loosmark#Topic ban. Expecting rational arguments here is a waste of time. (I expect another editor of the same lot to complain on my talk about bringing up EEML anytime time now, as it has happened in the past; don't bother this time, I'll just rollback.) Pcap ping 12:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed, I was not "technically part of the WP:EEML, same as you for example have also not been "technically part" of the WP:EEML. I was also not topic banned for "nationalistic edit warring" on Poland-related stuff but of course like usual in these discussions any personal attack goes. Dr. Loosmark 12:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected: you were topic banned for misrepresenting the position of another editor and falsely accusing him. Quite unlike what's gonging on here. Pcap ping 14:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dr. Loosmark, as Jayron32 above, I'd like to know: where are your arguments, where is your evidence, your reliable sources? You have provided nothing that meets Wikipedia:List_of_policies_and_guidelines_to_cite_in_deletion_debates#Favoring_keeping_or_merging, and you are the only one asking to keep this article. Also, in case you have not noticed it yet, may I point out to you the suggestion made by Pantherskin on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination)? -- Matthead Discuß 15:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I participated in the previous AfD, where I also !voted "delete". I have been asked to participated in this one by Cunard (although his note above indicates that he notified all the participants of the previous AfD). Too little specific and detailed coverage of him for passing WP:ANYBIO and not enough to show notability under WP:CREATIVE. The only individual award mentioned in the article is Grand Owl which seems to be a student level award. No significant published reviews of his work are mentioned in the article. I looked up the library holdings for some of his books in Worldcat and they appear to be rather minimal[62][63][64]. Also, this is a WP:AUTO case, and, per WP:AUTO, autobiographies on Wikipedia are "strongly discouraged", which gives an additional impetus towards deletion. Nsk92 (talk) 12:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (after looking at the AfDs and at the article's talk page) Sorry, but, I can't see any source that makes me say "yes, this source shows that he is notable by wikipedia standards". I don't see clear proof that he had significant impact in literature or in painting/illustration. Some sources looked good but, when looking at the sources in detail, all of them had some problem that invalidated them for notability purposes. Just as an example, Matthead commented on the second AfD that the Graphex award looked more like one of the secondary prizes handed out to the non-winners[65] and it was also awarded to a team and not personally to Tylman. I see a huge problem in the lack of third-party reviews of his work in notable literature journals. User:Anti-Nationalist analysis of WP:ANYBIO and WP:ARTIST looks correct. I agree with Ethicoaestheticist's comment in the original AfD: "Living in Canada since 1982, I would expect a notable artist/writer to have received some English-language press.".

P.D.: I am not involved in none of the EEML mess, I spotted this in my watchlist, when someone posted notices at the talk pages of Fut.Perf., Hipocrite and JoshuaZ. Personally, I don't care about any COI held any editor, and I have only looked at the arguments about sources. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete In 2nd AfD I was a keep, but statements by Enric and Nsk92 above pushe me in the other direction. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am unable to assess the Polish-language cites so I will defer to opinions above. However, I live in Vancouver and can say that the event broadcast by "Shaw Cable" possibly had fewer viewers than have contributed to this page; public-access television is not a citation that evokes the kind of editorial control that I would expect from a reliable source. I haven't found anything in local sources that indicates this individual has any notability at all. Accounting4Taste:talk 14:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me put your mind at ease, Accounting4Taste. Not a single editor who voted in this AfD, with the exception of Loosmark (please correct me if I'm wrong), is fluent in Polish. None, has any interest in Polish culture inside or outside Poland. Not a single one has any familiarity with the Polish society in North-America, or the world poetry circles anywhere. None of them have any interest in the contemporary Polish-Canadian artists and authors, or, in the WP Project Poland (with the exception of foreign nationalists). The threshold of inclusion in this AfD is set against an imaginary benchmark of mainstream America, usually reserved for socialites, film stars, business leaders and politicians. Many references have been thrown out on that premise, over the past several months, including reviews. Some hyperlinks (such as the one above to atspace.com) won't read an actual name.[66] So please, take it for what it is. Don't look around for coverage in the Canadian news-media, because this is not an "immigrant success story", but a bio of a living poet. Many senior editors who care, have been prohibited by ArbCom from coming anywhere near this article, even though on April 26 it has been viewed 242 times.[67] That's why, I worry more about the User:Cunard's campaign of canvassing among the EEML warriors and their hidden motives, than about Shaw Cable viewers. -- Poeticbent talk 23:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Polish press in Canada.[68] TFD (talk) 23:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A factual correction to Poeticbent's edit: I !voted in this AfD before that edit, am fluent in Polish and have an interest in Polish culture, and have no connection to America, mainstream or otherwise. I would advise Mr Tylman to get a realistic view of his own unimportance and to stop making himself look ridiculous by defending this indefensible vanity article. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please stop with the polite equivocating and say what you really think? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joe, are you making that comment to Poeticbent, TFD, or to Phil Bridger? Dr. Dan (talk) 02:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The indentation of Joe's comment clearly indicates that it was directed at me, and I will take the criticism on board in the spirit in which it was intended :) Phil Bridger (talk) 22:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another factual correction to Poeticbent's edit: I have been living in Poland for very nearly 15 years (14 years and 8 months to be exact), have a working knowledge of Polish, regularly post on the Project Poland page, have written (professionally) about cultural matters in Poland for the best part of a decade and have no connection at all to North America. I would also advise Mr Tylman to take a more realistic view of his unimportance and urge all editors to recognise that Wikipedia is no place for vanity articles, especially ones as indefensible as this. Varsovian (talk) 13:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I do not believe this individual has been the primary focus of coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 15:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as I said in one of the previous ones (the 2nd, I think). I wasn't convinced of the quality of the sourcing for the notability claims then, I see the evidence adduced here as further confirmation of the same, and I'm less than thrilled with the editing that has been going on at the article in the meantime and which has certainly not improved it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - To me the killer for this article is its use of self published sources, unreliable sources and "movie credits". Its just bad sourcing. -Marcusmax(speak) 21:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as totally lacking anything approaching substantial coverage in independent reliable sources, and yes, I do understand Polish, and the claimed sources in Polish show nothing beyond a name check in an interview with someone else, not even a sentence, in article in a magazine distributed in a suburb of Kraków, not even the whole city. I've taken issue in the past with editors who accuse article subjects of creating "vanity" articles, but I must say that I can't think of any better description than that for this article. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above-cited doubts over notability. This is an egregiously autobiographical article, and would have long since been deleted by normal Wikipedia process if previous AFDs hadn't been skewed by nepotistic voting as raised at WP:EEML. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As for the nomination: I am not sure Wikipedia policies prescribes a person has to be notable in country of residence. For fairness' sake, I have added "find sources" link for Ryszard Tylman. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 20:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, being fairly familiar with the subject from when I closed the last AFD (and I won't be doing that again!), and upon re-reviewing, I have to say that I find the arguments for Tylman's notability to be unconvincing. I don't see how he meets WP:ARTIST at the current time. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 21:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete vanity article... SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 02:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Justin_W_Smith. Traxs7 (Talk) 04:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete poet who appears to be primarily or entirely self-published. Not even remotely close to passing WP:BIO, WP:ARTIST, or any other relevant guideline. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Phil Bridger's explanation of the Polish language sources and rationale to delete are convincing. Fails WP:BIO. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Justin W Smith and Phil. Not notable after a closer examination. • ɔ ʃ → 22:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fortunately, we do not have to debate the actual importance of his work, or debate personalities, for he meets one of the key criteria: he won an international award. I would not be saying keep otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 22:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You must be seeing something I am not, DGG. The "Grand Owl" appears to be a non-notable award in a Polish Universitie's art department. I can't find much to indicate it even exists. -Marcusmax(speak) 22:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DGG probably refers to the Graphex Award, although if that is true I am not sure where he got from that the award is an international award. There are several problems though. Even within the Graphex competion the award is secondary, per this evaluation at the last Afd, [69] Not Tylman won the award, but the team Tylman was part of. There is zero third-party coverage, all we have is a scan of the award diploma on Tylmans diploma. That alone shows how notable this win was.

The Graphex competition is borderline notable at best, and there is a good chance that an AfD of the Graphex article would result in a delete. I tried to find any third party coverage for the Graphex competition itself, but all I found were press releases. Globe & Mail, the Vancouver Sun and other major Canadian newspaper never even mentioned the Graphex competition. Surely more most be found in an English-speaking country with widespread internet usage for a competition that took place as recently as this year. Except of course if the competition is not notable. Pantherskin (talk) 06:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you mean the subject is most notable for being a member of a team which once won an award which is so notable that there is zero coverage of it and the victory was so notable that there was zero coverage of it? ~~Sounds like~~ There is an [removed by Enric Naval, see below]. Shall I ask the school to send me a list of the past winners so we can write up articles for all of them? Although there is one difference: the school newspaper always publishes the names of the winners, so there’s more coverage of this event than there is of Graphex. Varsovian (talk) 08:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also have the option of not degrading WP by writing a vanity article about myself. I made full use of that option. The subject of the article wrote himself into WP, nobody else did. But now he (and his friends) still have the gall to claim that he in any way satisfies any of the criteria for inclusion at WP! Which part of ‘Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for advertising or promoting yourself, or a vanity press.’ do you not understand? Varsovian (talk) 11:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Varsovian, please avoid making silly comparisons that may sound very derogatory to the subject of the article. I unsderstand that you might be pissed off, but we are not here to make fun of the people we are writing about. I have removed your description of the egg & spoon race. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to venture into parody here but some years back I won the Group IT Laureate award, against competition from all the continents of the globe. I can put a scan on my website, along with the citation that proves it to be an international award, and by DGG's reasoning I get an article. And if nobody creates it for me, I get to writ eit myself and ask my twitter followers and Facebook friends to come along and vote for it to be kept, if necessary. Hell, I can probably even ask for support at the conference I speaking at in a couple of weeks. In order to establish notability sources should be significant, credible, independent and primarily about the subject. In my judgment all the sources for this article fail one or more of these criteria. And yes, my distaste for vanity articles also plays a small part. Guy (Help!) 08:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~ per DGG, although I'm not entirely convinced about the award's notablity. Although I don't see any major notablity established, I don't see any good arguments that convince me that deleting this article will improve the project. This is on the line, but I would prefer to keep the page - it does get a fair number of hits over time. Outback the koala (talk) 01:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google News shows little of anything on the award he won, my message is that a non-notable award should not help save a non-notable article. A similar case of this occurred a few days for this afd. -Marcusmax(speak) 01:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral changing my vote because although I still don't see any good arguments that convince me that deleting this article will improve the project, I can now find no argument that is valid to keep it, as the award really does appear to totally non-notable per the above link shown to me. Outback the koala (talk) 18:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of significant coverage in reliable independent sources to show notability of subject. Quantpole (talk) 08:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity article, all self published works, awards don't qualify, etc. Yilloslime ^T_C 15:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

Which one of you did (removed link to blog post making severe criminal charges), you sick little bastard. I'm going to the police and I promise you, Crime Stoppers and the courts will find out who you are. It's just a matter of time, but you're going to pay for your dreadful lies, like all Internet criminals blinded by hate. -- Poeticbent talk 23:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I moved my comments to ANI and to the user's talk page. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reported this on: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Legal threats from User:Poeticbent Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 23:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete COI vehicle and now a drama magnet too. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 01:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Guidelines stop me being able to honestly say what I think about this. I hope they catch whoever has been orchestrating the campaign against a decent person. Off2riorob (talk) 05:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I should note that being a "decent person" is not the baseline for inclusion in Wikipedia. I personally know lots of decent people, and I am not sure that many of them merit a Wikipedia article solely on their decency. If you could provide some reliable sources which indicate that he is notable, it would go a long way towards encouraging the people that voted "delete" here to change their mind. --Jayron32 06:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Easily passes the WP:GNG. My comment is not designed to imagine that anyone here will change their mind. How about all Poets are notable. Off2riorob (talk) 06:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:GNG says a topic is notable if it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Could you please provide evidence that it meets these criteria. TFD (talk) 07:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - (I commented earlier but did not vote.) I'm certain Tylman is a very talented artist, and otherwise a good human being. However, without sufficient coverage in reliable sources the content of this article cannot be independently verified. I could not find enough evidence to support notability, in general, or as an artist. (I also want to wish Mr. Tylman the best in this recent legal issue; he was the victim of a libelous defamation of character. This should not be tolerated, and should certainly be pursued legally.) Best wishes, Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 19:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find it is very difficult to assess the notability of a subject much of whose notability is derived from his work in a foreign language. I try to ask myself in these deletion discussions will readers be interested enough in the subject to look him/her/it up in wikipedia. Here the subject was publishing in Polish as recently as 2002. When I do a news search of Koty marcowe (The Felines of March), I get hits in Polish not English. He's in print apparently (translation by google) [70]. In English, he appears in videos doing poetry readings, [71] but I find very little else. Given the language barrier, I hate trumping a bunch of bilingual Poles who may see him as notable. Eudemis (talk) 23:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable to me.--Ms.Mamalala 23:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If don't mind, would you expand on this? What evidence did you find for notability? If I could find sufficient evidence that Tylman is notable (in a verifiable way), I'd be willing to change my vote. Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 00:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whole bunch of cited sources, no question about it. What harm to keep this article? Tell me, because I don't see any reason to delete it. NONE. This campaign of hatred against that person is very out of place. 4th Nomination! Come on!--Ms.Mamalala 01:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This specific argument is discussed here. I'll quote what it says:

"As for articles about subjects that do not hold to our basic tenets (verifiability, notability, and using reliable sources), keeping them actually can do more harm than one realizes – it sets a precedent that dictates that literally anything can go here. (See below for that.)"

As for your first statement ("Whole bunch of cited sources..."), source may be cited but that does not make them reliable, nor their content "verifiable". This argument is also addressed in here. (Both links are to the article: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.) Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 01:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, your concern about multiple nominations (i.e, "4th Nomination! Come on!") is also addressed. Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 02:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments do not appeal to me almost at all. I am of the opinion that this article should be kept because the sources are convincing and the person is notable.--Ms.Mamalala 04:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think to some extent there is a failure to recognize our limitations in evaluating works done in Polish. Contrary to what's been mentioned here, I believe Tylman's work has been published as part of poetry compilations in Poland and in the Polish language [72]. I'm uncomfortable saying he's not notable in Poland. Of course, when viewed solely through the narrow portal of English secondary sources he may not be. Eudemis (talk) 05:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The editor name translates as "Krakow: Advertising Agency NOVUM"? Is it this? A graphical printing shop? Is this backed by some editorial that normally publishes literary compilations? What other books has this shop produced? Who decides what gets published and what doesn't? In other words: is this a self-published book or is there some editorial board behind it? --Enric Naval (talk) 11:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Something is fishy about User:Mamalala. Account registered two days after the closure of the EEML arbitration case which resulted in the bans and topic bans for several users. Mamalala right away ventured with bold edits into the most contentious articles, and only three days after registering knew already how to correctly file a 3RR report.

Regarding the compilation, the editor of the compilation is apparently the same person who interviewed Tylman in the neighborhood magazine. But I think the real question is not whether a book is self-published or not, the real question is rather whether the book has received any reviews or coverage in third-party sources. Publishing a book or even many books does not in itself imply notability. Pantherskin (talk) 13:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User User:Pantherskin could you please refrain from making outrageous and off-topic comments about my persona which in my view are made to contest my opinion about validity of this article. Please immediately cross out the smear you wrote about me. Thank you.--Ms.Mamalala 15:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak Polish, but the book appears in numerous libraries across Poland: Uniwersytecka we Wrocławiu, Uniwersytecka w Toruniu, Główna UMCS w Lublinie, Uniwersytecka KUL, Jagiellońska i Biblioteka, Medyczna Collegium Medicum, Biblioteka Publiczna m. st. Warszawy, Biblioteki Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, Biblioteka Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego, Biblioteka Uniwersytecka w Poznaniu, Książnica Pomorska w Szczecinie. Just looking at the article's own bibliography, it includes an anthology - I'm guessing that it is here, [73] published by Wydawn. Tow. S±owakâow w Polsce. Again contrary to what's been mentioned, his book, Koty marcowe, appears to be available in many libraries across Poland. [74] and appears to be widely available for sale there [75] Of course it is possible that it was never reviewed. Eudemis (talk) 13:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having a book held in any number of libraries is not sufficient for a biographical inclusion in Wikipedia. Look at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_Mertz_(3rd_nomination). Pcap ping 19:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your search. That the book is in these libraries is actually not very surprising. If a book is published in Poland, legal deposit requires that copies have to be submitted to all major Polish libraries. Compare that to most other countries where a copy has to be submitted only to the national library. As far as I can see all libraries in the list are legal deposit libraries, so there is not too much we can read into this - one way or another. The problem of course is more the lack of reviews or media coverage about the book(s) itself. As the article has largely been written by the subject himself, we can probably assume that no major third-party sources have been overlooked and that what is in the article is actually it. Pantherskin (talk) 14:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I Consider all of this as obvious and blatant example of a bad faith nomination. (4th!) The internet is full of articles about Mr.Tylman and his work. Mr. Tylman is the author of books, received awards and I think nobody has doubts about this. He is notable enough to have article on English Wikipedia. Personally, I don’t know Mr. Tylman or his work but very recently I came across the defamatory article on the internet most likely written by someone who is active here as well. Mr.Tylman is hunted, slandered and he is a victim of incomprehensible to me hate campaign. It seems that a large proportion of voters are not aware of this. Article failed all three previous nominations, and now also should never be erased. This is not not just my opinion but all those who voted against now and previously. --Ms.Mamalala 17:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is a personal attack and I kindly request that you redact it. TFD (talk) 18:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn and Merge. Joe Chill (talk) 13:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IanniX[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 00:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 02:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This very brief article suggests that this may be a version of --- or open source alternative to --- UPIC, a software tool for composers developed in connection with Iannis Xenakis, and as such probably genuinely notable. Were the article clearer on that relationship, merger might be an alternative. This may be a reliable source, but the string "Iannix" apparently names other people and places. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comment. I'll have to come back to this, but based on a quick look the French sources, this project is not developed by Xenakis, but rather by a group called "La kitchen". Apparently, it attempts to continue Xenakis' UPIC. Since this is a one-line article, a merge/redirect to UPIC should work, but I haven't determined if the new project is notable or not. The French sources include some interviews with the developers of IanniX. It's unclear to me right now how independent those are of the subject. Apparently, the venue in which the interview was published, the French CeCN magazine, was speedily deleted from the FR wiki [76] as spam. Pcap ping 19:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect to UPIC. There are a few books/scholar non-false-positive independent coverage hits, e.g. this, which briefly says that IanniX is an attempt to recreate UPIC using commodity hardware. And it's not the only such attempt. A few more citations can be found [77], but not enough for a separate article, I think. (This is a conference paper by the authors of Iannix, which has more details.) Pcap ping 19:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 19:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rough consensus is that reliable sources on the subject have not been generated, at least as of now. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sabrina Man[edit]

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

No evidence that this person passes WP:ENT. The references do not provide substantial enough depth of coverage to pass WP:GNG either. Kevin (talk) 22:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability for GMA Network stars in the Phillippines is notable enough for en.Wikipedia. As the article is less than one month old, it can be expanded through regular editing over time. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable for en.wikipedia. - Gabby 14:51, 24 April 2010 (PST)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 19 April 2010 (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) 00:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP so a few more opinions are needed before this is closed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - References (even not numerous) prove that this person is notable (Signed:) Rirunmot 01:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC) — [Unsigned comment added by Rirunmot (talk • contribs).]
Delete, sources are not WP:RS, fails WP:BIO. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 03:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm with Jezhotwells... I don't see it quite yet. Shadowjams (talk) 09:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I couldn't find enough reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jezhotwells. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Young Adult Therapeutic Transition Program[edit]

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

no assertion of notability; the fact that the article admits such programs are "called by many names" is evidence that the term itself may not be notable. I can find a couple of things mentioning the term, but nothing giving in-depth, significant coverage as required by WP:GNG Ironholds (talk) 12:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Part Of

This article is part of a work-in-progress project on the troubled teen industry. It is essential in terms of defining all aspects of that project. Some of the other names for this type of program are Young Adult Program, Young Adult Transition Program and step down program. Young Adult Therapeutic Transition Program is the catch all name, the revised article will make this clear. Components of the TT industry are as follows:

Outpatient Treatment

Military School
Traditional Boarding School
Religious Boarding School
Young Adult Therapeutic Transition Program
Therapeutic Boarding School
Wilderness Therapy
Adventure therapy
Wilderness Boot Camp
Residential treatment center (RTC)
Psychiatric hospital

Granted it needs work, I will address the notability issue, please be patient.I ♥ ♪♫ (talk) 17:48, 19 April 2010 (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) 00:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Userify. Delete. Maybe Cdw1952 can turn this into something acceptable. Right now it's not. The suggested mashup of military academies and psychiatric hospitals is not a good sign (well at least it does not list impalement and defenestration) but I'd give them the benefit of doubt. NVO (talk) 09:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- p.s. A copy is already in userspace, thus delete. NVO (talk) 09:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see significant coverage of the subject. Jujutacular ^T · C 15:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Redick[edit]

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

There seems to be some notability to this guy, but it's not enough for me to get past the second section. He worked in several major radio markets (it seems to be his only claims to notability), but very few radio DJs, even in huge markets, end up getting articles just for working there. Additionally, a Google News search for his name turns up with nothing but basketball. If the article is kept, this article definitely needs to be copywritten for style and capitalization. 7OA chat 02:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It also appears there are no reliable sources on the article. There is one reference, but it is a commercial site for the radio station at which Darren works. 7OA chat 02:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I got my information from Darren's bio on the website as well as some directly from himself..he is a reliable source of himself don't you think? I think he is notable as he is probably one of the world's only (if not THE only) Ballet Dancer turned Rock DJ. Nicky Horne from the same station has an article on himself.. so why shouldn't Darren? He has had a varied career and his Dance career was very accomplished. when I searched on Google News I found mention of him in the New York Times (1990) relating to a Ballet he was in. I will be looking for more solid resources and information, but I do feel this is a valid entry. He is an interesting Radio Personality. Thank you.. AlliKissAlliKiss (talk) 10:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have been working more on the article today, I have found more sources, from Google and have added links to the pages. I have also added wiki links to make the article more interesting. I do feel Darren is a notable person and therefore warrants a wiki page. Thank You, again, AlliKiss AlliKissAlliKiss (talk) 11:59, 19 April 2010 (UTCe

Reply to both comments Just because you feel he is notable doesn't mean Wikipedia policies find him to be as such. Sources saying that he was in a certain dance school may be reliable, but we need reliable sources giving us definitive information stating that he did something notable, like that he changed dance or radio somehow. Just being a dancer turned DJ is not notable. Slowly, as I dig deeper into the article and its information, I'm beginning to find I should have speedied it. 7OA chat 00:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well I have found alot of useless information on Wikipedia.. I feel my article is just as warranted as one on nicky Horne or any other radio or Tv personality. I mean you have articles on reality tv show ppl for God's sake! they havent changed television.. except maybe brought it to gutter level. Darren is an interesting radio personality, he has also danced with some of the greats of the Dance world, like Rudolf Nuryev. My sources are reliable as Darren himself has told me all about his career etc.. How much more reliable can one get? I will continue to tweak the article and if you delete it I will re submit. I am passionate about this. This article is valid and warranted. I shall be looking at some of the other articles on wiki to cite them as banal or unnecessary..shouldn't take me long to find some. Thank YOU. AlliKiss (talk) 11:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - could not find independent reliable sources to establish notability.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 01:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Darkwind (talk) 00:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 05:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. AlliKiss, you've missed the point of reliable sources, at least as far as establishing notability goes. As there are 5 billion people on the planet, Wikipedia does not have the resources to maintain pages from every single person who wants a page written about them, therefore we need some way of deciding who is notable. Since anyone can create a Facebook page about themselves, appear in a directory of school alumni or tell their friends about themselves, none of those things can count towards notability. We normally looks for things written about them in things like newspapers or web pages with some sort of editorial control. Were any articles written about him as a radio presenter (preferably whole articles, not just a mention in an article about something else)? That might count towards notability. Oh, and if you are thinking of re-submitting a deleted page, I'd read WP:CSD#G4 first. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 06:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn per perennial relisting and sources found by MichaelQSchmidt. Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Tenderloins[edit]

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

Declined speedy. A notability assertion is present (won the $100,000 grand prize in the NBC “It’s Your Show” competition), but cannot be referenced by anything other than the show's own website. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep - The contest's page (It's Your Show) proves that the user JamesSMurray submitted a video called Time Thugs and that the video won the $100000 prize. I believe the page is reliable and James Murray is a member of the comedy group. A blog post on Carson Daly's official blog (at least at the time) on a website owned by NBC states that The Tenderloins created the movie. It's sort of convoluted but I think that's enough info to show that The Tenderloins made the video and won the contest. I also think that the award is incredibly notable but I feel that the amount at least warrants a weak keep. I could probably be easily convinced otherwise. OlYeller^Talktome 17:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After MQS's edits, I've changed my !vote to a keep. Good work MQS. OlYeller^Talktome 16:31, 26 April 2010 (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) 00:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Darkwind (talk) 00:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relist rationale - No additional discussion took place during first relist. --Darkwind (talk) 00:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Think we should ask an involved projects? As someone who !voted, I don't want to be accused of canvassing. OlYeller^Talktome 00:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed it in a few additional WP:DELSORT categories, let's see if that helps. --Darkwind (talk) 05:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 05:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 05:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 05:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the article's assertions of a $1000,000 award and of a pilot for Spike TV have now been sourced in Staten Island Advance. I have had some success in searching for sources, but have been incredibly handicapped by the group's choice of name being such a common term... being an area in San Francisco and a cut of meat. Yikes. But I did have some luck. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The primary source is fine if there is no reason to doubt it. Does the nominator feel that a major network station would lie about someone winning $100,000 and publish false information? Other sources add to proof of notability. Dream Focus 14:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn Sources are thin but it's close enough for me now. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Hayslip[edit]

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

Asserts notability with several co-writing credits, but he seems to be the third wheel for most of the songs he's written. Google turns up nothing other than "Rhett Akins and Dallas Davidson wrote song X with Ben Hayslip," which is trivial at best. Although he does meet one criterion of WP:MUSIC as having written notable works of music, he himself fails WP:GNG, as his notability is not inherited from the songs he wrote and none of the sources found dedicates more than a sentence to him. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep At some point enough media mentions should make you notable. [78][79][80][81][82][83] The article appears to be poorly sourced, i.e. high school and college information is sourced to an alumni page in the article when a media source is available. "...Ben Hayslip, of Evans High Class of 1988. Mr. Hayslip, like Mr. Bryan, also a graduate of Georgia Southern University in Statesboro."[84]Eudemis (talk) 01:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me how any of those sources is substantial. A bunch of one sentence mentions ≠ notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure they are all single mentions. [85] Also his 2009 ASCAP award for most performed songs wasn't as a third wheel; it was solo. [86] Eudemis (talk) 22:05, 22 April 2010 (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) 00:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correspondence of the 18th Century Naturalists[edit]

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

Pure WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Everything in this article is essentially an essayist commenting on correspondence between noted naturalists. The sourcing supplies some of the quotes from this correspondence, but literally 100% of the other content is the essayist's commenting on these quotes and what they mean. See also the following related AfD. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 03:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think we should keep this - I think the OR guidelines are way too strict. However, given the guidelines, I regretfully !vote delete. Sigh! Could we userfy it or something? the author has done some interesting work, and while it doesn't fit Wiki, he should be able to take it elsewhere. David V Houston (talk) 15:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userification seems good, as an essay of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH with possibly usable content. —innotata 17:02, 23 April 2010 (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) 00:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it has to go, but some of material could possibly be used on the articles on Darwin and the others mentioned. If it is to be deleted the material from each section should be copied to the talk pages of the people involved, asking editors there whether they can make use of the material. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not agree that the rules on OR are too strict, they are there to ensure that we so not have 25,000 articles about Correspondence of the 18th Century Naturalists. This reads like (and most likely is) a term paper. Everyone who writes one would upload thiers if we allowed this. Besides which its not even a good one (Charles Darwin an 18thC natuaralist?). Also the language needs a lot of work, given that none of this is sourced re-wording it will also be OR (and will it reflect the authors intent?).Slatersteven (talk) 09:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Morrison (character)[edit]

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

Nothing but in-universe plot summary. Character too new to have much traction out-of-universe. No suitable sources from which to rewrite article dramatic (talk) 05:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.
Delete per nom. feydey (talk) 09:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is vital to the Shortland Street 2010 storyline and is featuring heavily currently and for the next few weeks. In a few months time, people interested in the show will need to read this article to catch up with a detailed account of one of the major storylines covered in 2010.

"Catching up with storylines" is not the role of Wikipedia with respect to soap operas. "The main purpose of Wikipedia articles is to provide encyclopedic information about a subject, such as its cultural impact, and not to provide a detailed and lengthy description of story events. The Wikipedia articles can then provide links to other websites which have more detailed storyline information." (Wikipedia:WikiProject_Soap_Operas#Style_guidelines)

"Notability of fictional elements should be based on their impact in the real world as opposed to what occurs with them within the work(s) of fiction. Even if a character plays a highly significant and "notable" role within the work does not infer notability of the character for the purposes of Wikipedia. Note that if a character is determined by critics or experts in the fields to be a pivotal character within the work of fiction, this is an aspect of the real-world influence of the character - the critical review of it - and thus likely can be shown to be notable through secondary sources." (Wikipedia:Notability_(fiction)). Your desire to document New Zealand's most significant TV series is commendable. Please join the Wikiproject for Soap Operas and learn how to do it in a manner suitable for Wikipedia. dramatic (talk) 08:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have now edited the article to make it suitable for a soap opera character article and I would like its deletion reviewed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.106.240 (talk) 07:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at your additions to the article and I see unsourced in-universe analysis of the character's relationships which appear to be Original research. I don't see anything along the lines described above. dramatic (talk) 00:39, 27 April 2010 (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) 00:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Undue weight for a barely established character. The above comment that the character "is featuring heavily currently and for the next few weeks" suggests a COI. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PowerFolder[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Insufficiently notable software program. Previously nominated for AfD over three years ago, which barely resulted in "keep", but no significant improvements since and article still does not meet the requirements of WP:VERIFY and WP:GNG. Specifically, this program has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. — Satori Son 14:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable product; Google News seems to find only press releases and announcements of newly released versions. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I'm sorry, but the sources that saved the article in 2006 are insufficient. However, I found this. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a three sentence review --- generally favorable, but mentioning an ugly interface --- in a general column about synching files. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Needs some work, but not unlike 60 percent or more of most Wiki tech articles. = // = Proxy User (talk) 17:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Striking comment of an indefinitely blocked sockpuppet of User:WiccaWeb. jæs (talk) 13:16, 24 April 2010 (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) 00:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, passing references and press releases do not establish notability. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Quaile[edit]

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

A search turned up several credits for book illustration and some other works, but there doesn't seem to be anything beyond mentions of him as "Designed by Christopher Quaile". In fact some of those sites link to this article as a source of information.

Compare this with the article for illustrator Brett Helquist, whose article cites third party sources where information is readily available about him, and the difference is clear. HarlandQPitt (talk) 05:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see any great distinction between this article nominated and Brett Helquist with its meagre two references (one to the subject's web site). Ty 03:26, 20 April 2010 (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) 00:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ "Former GOP chairman backs long-shot Ehrlich rival". Washington Post. 2010-04-06. Retrieved 2010-04-28.
^ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/16/AR2010041604518.html
^ http://voices.washingtonpost.com/annapolis/2010/03/political_newcomers_says_hes_i.html
^ http://voices.washingtonpost.com/annapolis/2010/04/former_gop_chairman_backs_long.html
^ Ann Miller, "Candidate profile: Meet Brian Murphy for Maryland Governor," Baltimore County Republican Examiner, March 28, 2010
^ http://redmaryland.blogspot.com/2010/02/ten-questions-brian-murphy.html

[1] "Former GOP chairman backs long-shot Ehrlich rival". Washington Post. 2010-04-06. Retrieved 2010-04-28.

[2] ttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/16/AR2010041604518.html

[3] ttp://voices.washingtonpost.com/annapolis/2010/03/political_newcomers_says_hes_i.html

[4] ttp://voices.washingtonpost.com/annapolis/2010/04/former_gop_chairman_backs_long.html

[5] Ann Miller, "Candidate profile: Meet Brian Murphy for Maryland Governor," Baltimore County Republican Examiner, March 28, 2010

[6] ttp://redmaryland.blogspot.com/2010/02/ten-questions-brian-murphy.html

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]