Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 February 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 5 February 7 February >

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) 03:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Israel–Palestine[edit]

Israel–Palestine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems like a perpetual stub, unless the term itself is going to merit an entire article, which seems unlikely. It should probably be a redirect, but I don't know to where. Thoughts? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOTDIC. The article is nothing but a definition of the term, and while it has some informal usage in the media, it's not notable on its own. Maybe redirect to Holy Land, which covers the geographical region "Israel-Palestine" would fall under. Swarm(Talk) 00:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm going to agree with Swarm on this one, since it does seem more like a definition. I think if not deleted a discussion on where to redirect it would be necessary. Plus I'm not sure of the relevance of the article. -petiatil »user»speak 04:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nominator says that "it should probably be a redirect". Sure, but only as a redirect to a page that says "There were no results matching the query. You may create the page '.Israel-.Palestine', but consider checking the search results below to see whether it is already covered." As the history shows [1], this was a bad idea when the nominator thought there should be a redirect to "Palestine (region)". Predictably, other people thought it should be a redirect to "Israel" or to "Palestine" or not a redirect at all but an article with content. There have even been fights over whether it should have an Israel or a Palestine flag to describe it with the words "This is a [take your pick, Israel or Palestine]-related stub." Remove both this and the redirect to it ("Israel/Palestine"). Nobody ever needed this in the first place. Mandsford (talk) 15:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to wiktionary. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:47, 9 February 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#G6. — ξxplicit 00:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Red Vines (disambiguation)[edit]

Red Vines (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnecessary disambiguation between the main topic and one other article. Accomplished with {{for}} in the main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Einstein Academy Charter School[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Albert Einstein Academy Charter School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable K-8 school; no outside references. MelanieN (talk) 21:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • BTW don't be misled by all the Google News hits about controversy over a proposed charter school named Albert Einstein Academy; those are for a different school in the Santa Clarita Valley. The school I am nominating for deletion is in San Diego. --MelanieN (talk) 21:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


You can delete it if you want, but I just thought it would be notable because it was the first IB-authorized school in San Diego. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legokid (talk • contribs) 23:19, 6 February 2010

  • Keep, per rare/unique dual-language teaching method [2], IB status, and first IB school in locality. I'll improve the article in the coming days. See also articles mentioned here. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per davidwr. Tan | 39 17:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by nominator: davidwr has come up with some outside sources that may establish notability. Please do not close this discussion until he has had a chance to add that information into the article. I will work with him to see if he can bring the article up to Wikipedia standards. If he succeeds I will withdraw the nomination. --MelanieN (talk) 17:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do not have time to improve the article before the AFD ends. If this isn't a clear "keep" or clear "delete" please consider erring on the side of caution and marking it as "keep, for now" or sending it to WP:INCUBATOR for improvement. All editors are encouraged to improve the article, please don't wait up for me. Personally, I still believe the article is worth keeping as-is, but it definitely could use expansion and clarification. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 12:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per davidwr, this is possibly a good example of WP:BEFORE and how it can be applied. RFerreira (talk) 23:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - clear claim to notability. TerriersFan (talk) 03:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Generally you want to avoid maintaining a elementary or middle school unless they are truly notable. All schools in this range are targets of the students vandalism and at that age, vandalism is about all they can "contribute." I watch a lot of middle schools. They are pain. Those of you who define them, then walk away, are the lucky ones. Student7 (talk) 14:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, that is merely your opinion. Wikipedia has zero policies or guidelines against maintaining articles that are high vandalism targets, and I'm extremely confident that an article would never be deleted based on its potential to attract vandalism. The solution for such articles is page protection, not deletion. Tan | 39 14:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt if that is the reasoning - since all high schools have articles, and they are even bigger targets for vandalism. I think the general feeling here (unofficial but generally accepted) is that high schools are automatically considered notable, whereas lower schools have to establish their notability (or else the encyclopedia would be overwhelmed with articles about every school in the world). Usually the coverage is all local, as it is in this case. But having stories in a major regional newspaper (again, like this one) is probably good enough for a lower school. --MelanieN (talk) 15:59, 12 February 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. Clearly fails WP:ENT (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Al Chaek[edit]

Al Chaek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet WP:BLP, WP:N, WP:V, WP:ENT. Previously tagged with speedy deletion, but an admin said the BLP article itself claims its notability regardless of the unsourced status quo, so I instead take the matter to the venue. No news can be found on the subject. The only thing I can find his notability is an IMDb entry, but which is not a reliable source. Caspian blue 21:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no outside sources except IMDB, and his single role (in a defunct soap) does not make him notable. I have a bit of a problem, however, with the way this article was treated. After speedy deletion was declined, an editor went through the article and stripped out almost all of its content, leaving only a single sentence. I know that editing is permitted during deletion discussion, but this almost amounted to blanking the page. --MelanieN (talk) 22:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Yes. If you look at the removed information, you will see that some of it is biased, and some of it makes some controversial claims about the subject. Since all of it was unsourced, I removed it per WP:BLP. This should not affect the outcome of the deletion discussion. After all, the subject's notability should be evaluated based on his acting career and whether significant coverage exists in reliable sources, not on unsourced contentious claims. Note that the removal happened before the article was nominated for deletion. decltype (talk) 00:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, The IMDB data is relevant, some more references had to bo inserted--Rirunmot 23:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The IMDB data is relevant and reliable, but it is not nontrivial coverage pr. WP:N. Taemyr (talk) 17:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMDb data is relevant, but unreliable since it can be edited by anybody. I've also seen many incorrect info from the website.--Caspian blue 17:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • While anyone can submit information that information is vetted by paid staff, and as such does pass our bar for fact checking required for a reliable source. Taemyr (talk) 08:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I've been working on film related articles, but IMDB is never considered a reliable source by the WP:WikiProject Film. Linking the entry as an external link would be useful though.--Caspian blue 09:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:ENT. A voice role in a soap opera isn't notable. Being in 75 episodes might sound like a recurring role until you consider that there were 414 episodes. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not meet any of the three notability criteria of WP:ENT. Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:11, 10 February 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 To be transwiki'd. Article to be transwiki'd to Wikiversity (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History Essay Format & Thesis Statement[edit]

History Essay Format & Thesis Statement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article constitutes a guide or a how-to, but no encyclopedic content. noisy jinx huh? 22:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I have rewritten the article. Please unmark for deletion. Kind regards.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mister.mansour (talk • contribs) 17:49, 6 February 2010
  • Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO, not an encyclopedic article. There also seems to be some original research issues, though those could probably be corrected. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 23:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I can agree with transwiki as well. It just doesn't belong here. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 23:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's actually quite a good essay. I'm afraid it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is not a place for how-to guides, but is there some related Wiki area that it could be moved to? --MelanieN (talk) 01:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Agree, it's well-written and undoubtedly helpful. Just not in the right place, unfortunately. noisy jinx huh? 02:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikibooks. Jll (talk) 10:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. Transwiki to Wikibooks and/or Wikiversity. -- The Anome (talk) 14:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki as above. I agree that this is among the best HOWTO essays I have seen, but unfortunately it is simply not encyclopedic material.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 05:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Let's remember that "An encyclopedia is a comprehensive written compendium holding information from either all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge... and transmit it to those who will come after us". This article is excellent and seems to follow the guidelines and appears to be in encyclopedic format. As for research, consider the fact that the author seems to have experience in his field. There are no "how-to" explanations or steps. The material is presented as information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.182.148 (talk) 11:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC) — 76.66.182.148 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • KEEP - this article now seems to be in encyclopedic format and will benefit the general public, including students of high school, pre-U and unversity levels. Kind regards to all.— Mister.mansour (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep As it stands, the article is written in a similar encyclopedia format such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_paragraph_essay.— Mister.mansour (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment: As there is already a (somewhat short) article on Thesis statement, and the content on that topic covered here is indeed very good, may I suggest incorporating the relevant part into that article? It would make a useful addition and keep that part on WP (and make it easier to find as well). As for the rest, there are several articles out there on topics covered in this one (Footnote, Quote or Essay) that could probably do with some good and well-written additional content. After that the existing article could be transwikied. Just a thought... noisy jinx huh? 14:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A thesis is one thing and a history essay (thesis essay) is something else altogether. This is a unique entry as it defines the thesis statement, the history essay format and does a wonderful job in highlighting the formatting features of such an essay. The thesis statement is a single sentence which becomes an integral part of the essay. This is a great article to keep as is; a must keep.— Mister.mansour (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment: I think the quality of the article is essentially unquestioned. If it was, it would be a more or less unanimous delete. The fact that it is an excellent good guide (and I stress my opinion on both sides of this statement) makes it difficult. It is worth keeping, both its contents and its current form, but, and this is my highly subjective opinion, it is not encyclopedic. An article like this would not be in any printed encyclopedia (you are welcome to put me right on this one), so where's the reason to keep it on WP? There are, as stated above, tons of information worth preserving. It's not the "what", just the "how" that makes it difficult. How about splitting it, merging the Thesis part into the existing Thesis statement and creating and "History Essay" article from the part covering that? Or are they interdependent no matter what? noisy jinx huh? 17:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Transwiki Should be preserved somehow. Remember Wikipedia's rules are not all carved in stone to be enforced by the Inquisition.... Peridon (talk) 20:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: But it's pretty much all opinion and original research. WP:OR actually is written in stone, as much as a Wikipedia policy could be. And I'm sorry, but this is grossly unencyclopedic. It's like one history teacher's class guidelines; it has absolutely no universality. Consider the requirement to use "Letter-sized 8.5”x11” plain white paper." Well, in Europe are they allowed to use A4? Pretty please? And "Neatly presented text that shows pride in one's work"? "Tone: in a history or thesis essay, the writer does not nag, preach or give advice"? Spare me. If people's "moral support" !votes above somehow wind up in this being closed as a no consensus, it will be a joke.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I just realized that three of these votes were from the article's author, User:Mister.mansour, and another one from an IP which has edited nothing but the article and this AfD. Guess there isn't as much support as I thought. *whew*  Glenfarclas  (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I disagree with using comments such as “spare me” since this is a little mocking in nature and not appropriate in this type of forum. Rather, that individual could have edited the entry if he disagreed with “the writer does not nag, preach or give advice”. In the meantime, I have verified this statement with an English Language Arts post-graduate student (now a professor) and this is apparently accurate. However, although there is no consensus to delete this page as specified by Wikipedia deletion policy, I suggest the article be deleted anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.165.14 (talk) 01:04, 9 February 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. This is clearly where the consensus is in the discussion, though there seems to be some hope that the article could be improved and perhaps be ready for inclusion at a later date. For anyone, particularly Dskwiki, I would be happy to userfy this article after I delete it, which would allow it to be worked on outside of Wikipedia article space. There is no prejudice against recreation if a better sourced, less advertorial version of this article can be written in the future. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ReadyTalk[edit]

ReadyTalk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotion for non-notable company; article by company's marketing department. I have been unable to find any significant third-party coverage, only press releases. Haakon (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"ReadyTalk is a "notable company" and here are a few reasons: 1. 10 years in business and $20M/year in 2009 revenue 2. Survived the Dotcom bust and bootstrapped the business in difficult economic times 3. One of the fastest growing technology companies (both in Colorado and US - cited by Deloitte) 4. One of the best companies to work for (last 3 years top 3 in small business category - cited by jobbing.com) 5. Dan and Scott recognized by Ernst and Young for Entrepreneurship (winner in Rocky Mountain Region, finalist at National level)" Posted by Dskwiki

  • This is fine, but it is not clear that the subject passes WP:GNG. By the way, am I right to assume that you are Dan King? Haakon (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Errr, no I'm not. I'm Peridon. I just copied this over for fairness. (I also put hangon tags on for people whose articles I've SD tagged if they can't get them in the right place.) dskwiki might well be Dan King. Peridon (talk) 21:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my reply was intended at Dskwiki :-) Haakon (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not Dan, but closely related :) I will provide additional references for the GNG requirement tomorrow. The article needs some work. Do you have an example of a well written corporate page that follows the wikipedia guidelines? (Dskwiki (talk) 03:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]


  • ReadyTalk has received significant media attention during the past five years as well as been the recipient of numerous awards, which should deem the company ‘notable’ according to Wikipedia’s GNG. Media coverage includes articles in the following publications:

The Denver Business Journal

ReadyTalk develops niche in Web-conferencing world:http://denver.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2007/04/30/story9.html
ReadyTalk bumps up hiring plans: http://denver.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2009/02/16/story3.html
‘Agile’ Rally doubles up on revenue, staff, clients: http://denver.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2009/02/02/story2.html
ReadyTalk cultivates revenue in rocky 2009: http://denver.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2010/02/08/focus6.html

InfoWorld

The new tech interviews: http://www.infoworld.com/d/data-management/new-tech-interviews-811

KUSA/9News

Ritter targets tax exemptions to fill budget gap: http://www.9news.com/rss/article.aspx?storyid=131539

CBS4

Denver Business Journal On Videoconferencing Company: http://cbs4denver.com/video/[email protected]

FOX Business

ReadyTalk Launches Platinum Web Event, a Cost-Effective Technology and Professional Services Package for High Profile Web Events: http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/readytalk-launches-platinum-web-event-cost-effective-technology-professional/

Industry publication Webinar Success

ReadyTalk upgrades web conferencing: http://wsuccess.typepad.com/webinarblog/2009/10/readytalk-upgrades-web-conferencing.html
ReadyTalk adds event management: http://wsuccess.typepad.com/webinarblog/2008/04/readytalk-adds.html

In addition to some of the media coverage mentioned above, ReadyTalk has received the following awards:

- Deloitte Fast 500 as one of the fastest growing technology companies, 2007, 2008 & 2009 (http://www.alphatecspine.com/PDFs/Fast500List_1113082.pdf, http:/www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-UnitedStates/Local%20Assets/Documents/TMT_us_tmt/us_tmt_Fast500winnersbyrank_101509.pdf)
- Best small/medium sized company to work for in Colorado, 2007, 2008 & 2009 (http://denver.jobing.com/blog_post.asp?post=5709, http://www.cobizmag.com/articles/best-companies-to-work-for-in-colorado-2008/, http://www.cobizmag.com/articles/best-companies-to-work-for-in-colorado-09/page-9/)
- Founders, Dan King and Scott King, received the Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year 2008 Award in the Software Services category for the Rocky Mountain Region (http://www.ey.com/US/en/Newsroom/News-releases/Media-Release-20-06-08ADC)
- Colorado Technology Association Apex Awards nominee 2009 (http://coloradotechnology.org/Events/Apex-Awards.aspx)
- Colorado Biz Magazine Top Company finalist 2009 (http://www.cobizmag.com/articles/2008-top-company-finalists/)
- Fastest-Growing Denver-Area Private Companies, Denver Business Journal 2009
- CSIA DEMOgala Showcase Company People’s Choice Award Winner (2009)

While I’m sure all companies believe that their company is notable, I think ReadyTalk meets Wikipedia’s requirements for notability as we’ve received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. As an employee of ReadyTalk, I recognize that there are also concerns about our current entry's neutral point of view. If you agree that we meet the notability requirements, we will take immediate steps to correct the entry with contributions from reliable and independent sources. I look forward to your comments. (Dskwiki (talk) 02:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

  • Delete I've given it a bit, but it doesn't look notable to me yet. The refs look a bit on the 'press release' or 'taken from company handout' style to me, rather than independent coverage. I do like the style of the company, and wish them luck. As to altering the article after we decide it notable, that's cart and horse. Put the refs in and adopt NPOV and you're more likely to get a keep. No rain checks here.... Peridon (talk) 19:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've also watched this article for some time and it still appears to be a promotional item written by an insider, not a neutral and unbiased editor. Notability comes with time or exceptional coverage, neither of which has been achieved. It would also be best written by someone from the outside that does not have a vested interest in the content. IMHO. Calltech (talk) 14:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs Peer Review Again with full disclosure, I am a ReadyTalk employee, and as such have better insight into the company, but do not come from an unbiased point of view. While I think ReadyTalk has passed the Wikipedia Notability Guidelines (here is another example from today’s edition of the Denver Post: http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_14388065), I don’t think the article is well written or from enough independent sources. Without waging a PR campaign to introduce new and independent editors to the article, which I don’t think is in the interest of Wikipedia, I can see why Wikipedians would want to take the article down. At this point, I am not convinced that it is in the best interest of ReadyTalk to have the article posted without strong peer review or reliable sources of independent content and varying points of view. (Dskwiki (talk) 16:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Los Angeles, California (The Bold and the Beautiful)[edit]

Unlike the other cities listed in {{FictionalSoapOperaCities}}, Los Angeles really exists. The series is notable, the real-world location is notable, some of the series' characters may be notable, but the article's subject, a fictional version of a real place, does not appear to be notable. I checked several books on TV series, and nothing about the fictionalized version of this place is noted in those books. Some content may be merge-able into other articles, but this article is unsourced and does not appear to be sourceable. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Judging by these blank sections, the original author(s) planned to expand this article, but later abandoned the effort. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete When I think of all the filmed-in-Hollywood TV shows set in and around Los Angeles, I suppose that we could make an entire atlas of fictitious streets and restaurants that have been created by scriptwriters. I'm afraid that an alternate universe L.A. isn't a major part of the storyline of The Bold and the Beautiful. Besides, everyone knows that the Forresters live in Beverly Hills. Mandsford (talk) 22:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete God help us if this were to catch on. As Mandsford noted, there could be hundreds of articles: Los Angeles, California (Sunset Bouleverd); Los Angeles, California (LA Story); Los Angeles, California (Dragnet); the mind reels. --MelanieN (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most of what is content are character details, already adequately covered in other articles. Otherwise, the fictional elements added to the real Los Angeles do not appear to have any encyclopedic significance. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 02:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Facel Vega (band)[edit]

Facel Vega (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable band fronted by a non-notable actress. Has received some airplay, but no indication that any of their songs has been "placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network". Similarly, no indication of any media coverage of substance. Fails WP:BAND. TheJazzDalek (talk) 19:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. JForget 02:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ProjectSCIM[edit]

ProjectSCIM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 19:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete concur, nothing on Google News and no reliable secondary sources on Google web search. CTJF83 chat 20:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no sources no article. 16x9 (talk) 04:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Only one in-depth article here on InstantMessagingPlanet.com. Passing mentions [3] rediff, [4] a book. I wasn't able to find a source to verify the claim that it was the first IM to encrypt traffic. Pcap ping 06:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Notability seems to hang on whether it was the first IM to encrypt traffic. I haven't found a source verifying that. Pcap's notes (above) seem to establish its existence as of 2002. Potential starting points for further research on enterprise IM (in case someone wants to try harder to source the "first" claim):
On enterprise IM:
J. Rittinghouse and J. Ransome, Instant Messaging Security, Elsevier Digital Press, 2005. paywall, online copy from Elsevier book description
This is available for limited preview on google books. It makes no mention of SCIM, but it discusses only open standards, and no proprietary products. Pcap ping 21:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On public IM:
M. Mannan and P. C. van Oorschot. Secure public Instant Messaging: A survey. In Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Conference on Privacy, Security and Trust (PST’04), pages 69–77, Fredericton, NB, Canada, Oct. 2004. [5].
No mention here either, and this paper does cover some more obscure products like IMSecure and iGo Incognito. Pcap ping 21:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe the folks who write Off-the-Record Messaging would know more about the history. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 17:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment being the 'first' shouldn't be the hinge in many cases to say it is notable. Next thing will have first this first that articles. 16x9 (talk) 20:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on what the "first" is about. Encrypting network traffic was not at all novel when this product came about. SSL libraries, like SSLeay, the precursor to OpenSSL, were already available, so it wasn't even a lot coding. So, even if this was the first encrypting IM, it doesn't add a lot to notability in my view. Pcap ping 21:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this article is only a couple of sentences, so if someone can come up with more convincing sources, it's not much work to recreate it. Pcap ping 21:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 02:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Durlacher[edit]

James Durlacher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I see two possible claims of meeting WP:BIO here. First, the ACEP award. A google search only comes up with this award on Wikipedia, Durlacher's own site, and three bios probably posted by him. The other claim would be the book. Google news search comes up with only a single mention, despite the claims of being featured numerous times; web search also doesn't turn up notability. The publisher is owned by James Durlacher[6], and the book is in exactly 3 libraries in the US. Previous prod contested by article creator without comment. Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:19, 6 February 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's a legitimate debate about whether the available sources on NH are significant enough to establish his notability. As such I do not see a consensus for deletion, thus the article is kept by default. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nipsey Hussle[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Nipsey Hussle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable musician with only mixtapes to his credit. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, but there was a profile in MTV.com's Mixtape Daily. Fails WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO. Yappy2bhere (talk) 19:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe SixShot, AmericanSuperstarMag, Urban Network, and HipHopDX are reliable sources, since they don't appear to be notable as either publications or websites. It's absurd to think that The Village Voice would identify a staff writer or editor as "Village Voice contributor" instead of giving him or her a by-line. The Source and AllHipHop merely name Nipsey Hussle in describing the "We Are The World" remake, and Nymag mocks him. The subject of the first XXL story is Dr. Dre, not Hustle, with Hussle eulogizing Dr. Dre. The subject of the second story (which produced the quote that amused NY Mag) is the "We Are The World" remake, again not Hussle. Nipsey Hussle isn't the subject of any of these stories. He's the reporter. Yappy2bhere (talk) 22:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The 2 XXL articles are significant coverage of Nipsey Hussle. HipHopDX is a reliable source, as I believe is SixShot.com. Add these to the MTV article and we have WP:BAND criterion 1 satisfied.--Michig (talk) 07:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Alan - talk 04:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per Michig. Coverage by numerous MTV articles, headlining significant events and Billboard has a dedicated (albeit anemic) page about him alone. Toddst1 (talk) 16:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Headlining significant events? Or appearing at them? The Billboard page isn't anemic, it's pretty much empty. Release an album and no matter how non-notable it is, they'll probably put one up for you too on the off chance that you might become notable one day. Considering that Billboard accepts bio entries from the artist/label, the fact that they haven't even bothered to fill that out is telling. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, simply telling us he's going to be in a concert doesn't sound all that significant. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:48, 11 February 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. 15:38, 6 February 2010 Firsfron (talk | contribs) deleted "Ordilyo" ‎ (A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ordilyo) (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ordilyo[edit]

Ordilyo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NFT. PROD contested. Electrified Fooling Machine (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Silentlambs[edit]

Silentlambs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Issue: Proposed Deletion of Silentlambs Article.
Reason: Article is Biased, slanted, POV in favor of SL

This article has been since I first saw it biased, POV and Anti-JW and has not been updated with any other info to balance it out. 2 citations are from the SL site itself(biased, anti-JW) and one AP article(which I believe leans toward SL even though it tried[weakly] to appear neutral). Andy5421 (talk) 09:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Andy5421 (talk) 09:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Per reason above and previous comments at article's Talk page. The handling of JW child sex abuse cases is dealt with at Jehovah's Witnesses and child sex abuse; that article could briefly mention the SilentLambs organization.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - See last response to Yappy2bhere below.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Natural (talk) 15:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am in agreement with the above statements by Jeffro77--Natural (talk) 14:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. (WP:V). So your job as editors is not to claim the article has 'false claims', but to ensure there are published references supporting the statements. In addition, the article is not "about a web site", but about an organization that protects children. The article is not claiming that child abuse is "more prevalent than in other religions", so don't create false charges. Finally, i want to bring to your attention that user "Naturalpsychology" is a single-purpose user, who openly states that he is dedicated counteract articles critical of Jehovah's Witnesses. --BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So find a "reliable source".--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This organization also seems to fail Wikipedia's guidelines for notability.--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I already added 10 additional references. Besides, Silentlambs was featured in several TV programs around the world, such as:
  • USA/ NBC Dateline
  • CNN/Connie Chung
  • UK BBC/Panorama-Suffer The Little Children
  • Australia/Sunday Program-Silent Witnesses
  • German Program/WDR-The End of Silence
  • Denmark Program/DTV2-Silent Children
  • German Program-Protecting the Perpetrator Comes First
  • Slovenia Program-POPTV,
  • plus several TV news stories/reports. You can access all of the above documentaries here. BatteryIncluded --BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some of those references are from the SilentLambs site itself - these are not reliable secondary sources. Some of the references don't even mention SilentLambs or make passing mention of it, but are not about the SilentLambs organization. The point here is not whether the JW handling of sex abuse cases is a notable issue (which is covered elsewhere as stated above), but whether SilentLambs is notable enough to warrant its own article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disingenuous. Two of eleven references are from the SilentLambs site. The three BBC articles don't discuss the organization but link to it as a resource. Evidently SilentLambs is as notable as the scandal, and as you point out, the scandal satisfies WP:Notability guidelines. Yappy2bhere (talk) 19:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the scandal does satisfy notability guidelines. That is why it has its own article Jehovah's Witnesses and child sex abuse. The Notability guideline states that "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". It is the scandal that is the subject of media attention. SilentLambs being credited as a resource in those articles does not satisfy notability of the organisation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Google news reveals dozens of reliable sources for this subject[10], for example this 2002 article in Wired: [11] and this one in The New York Times[12]. Pburka (talk) 20:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The searching by Pburka is convincing. The organization has received widespread, national coverage. If someone were to add all those additional links to the page, it would become instantly, obviously verified and notable. If some people (like the nominator) feel the article is not neutral in its tone, that can be fixed by editing, but we can't suppress all mention of a verified, notable organization just because we don't like its viewpoint. And "being biased" is not one of the reasons for deletion. Per WP:DEL, "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." BTW any editing which is introduced for balance has to be properly sourced. Argument, personal opinion, blog comments, etc. are not adequate sourcing and not acceptable as content. --MelanieN (talk) 22:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SilentLambs received a spate of media attention from late 2002 to early 2003 as the story was distributed between media outlets. The scandal of JW handling of abuse is indeed important, and it has its own article - Jehovah's Witnesses and child sex abuse.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The organization had a spate of media attention in 2002-2003- Jeffro
Now you changed your argument that that it was notable, but it is no more? You have failed repeatedly to substanciate your oposition and you keep changing your arguments when proven wrong ...your swings are giving me wiplash. Just be proactive and say what is your real motive against this article. --BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My argument has not changed. The issue of JW handling of abuse cases is notable, and SilentLambs was mentioned in relation to those cases, with a flurry of media attention in 2002-3. I have already indicated other issues with disingenuous reporting on the SilentLambs website, with links for examples provided below.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No valid reason to delete. Subject is notable. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 22:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article is not biased. Article is objective. The purpose of the article is to discuss clergy's attempts to silence abuse victims. As we would expect, the person who propses this article be deleted is attempting to silence abuse victims. • rebel8 (talk) 20:51, 6 February 2010
The claim that "the person who propses this article be deleted is attempting to silence abuse victims" is a plain violation of WP:AGF and a disingenuous appeal to sentiment. The subject of JW handling of abuse is indeed notable, and is covered at Jehovah's Witnesses and child sex abuse. A summary of SilentLambs there would be sufficient.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't understand the argument that this page should be deleted and merged into the other page. This page is not about Jehovah's Witnesses and child sex abuse; it's about a notable, verified ORGANIZATION - one which has JWs and sex abuse as its mission. Would you suggest deleting the Cancer Society article because there is already an article about cancer? Would you propose merging the ACLU page into an article about civil liberties? Should all church articles be merged into the general topic Christianity? The organization itself is what is notable, and it's what the page is about. It's not just a second page about the same subject. --MelanieN (talk) 03:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The organization had a spate of media attention in 2002-2003, and brief mentions in the media since, which have achieved some good in drawing attention to the JW's policies. However the primary activities of the organization appear to be sensationalist in nature, such as implying that the number of pedophiles among JWs is a higher proportion to the rest of society, or reporting stories of abusers as JWs, sometimes with no evidence that the offenders were even JWs other than anonymous hearsay (e.g. http://www.silentlambs.org/cancino.htm), inappropriately comparing the number of JW abusers generally with abusers among clergy in other religions (http://www.silentlambs.org/answers/23720.cfm), or implying that abuse and murder is particularly common among JWs (e.g. Link on site's home page: "Another JW Father Murders Children?"). Wikipedia should not encourage sensationalism. When the sensationalism is removed, there is not a great deal of actual content to present about the organization, and for that reason the important information should be merged into the other article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The analogy about the Cancer Society is poor. A more accurate analogy would be an article about a website that makes sensationalist claims about some specific organization causing cancer.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't really matter for purposes of this discussion whether the organization's activities are sensationalistic, or whether it has done any good or continues to do so, or whether it has misrepresented the facts in the past or continues to do so, or whether it has implied what it cannot prove. Those are all important aspects of the organization which should be included in the article so far as they can be supported with reliable sources, but they are irrelevant to deciding whether an article on the organization is a significant addition to WP. The standard for inclusion is significant coverage in reliable sources. It is not the moral or ethical fiber of the subject, nor its utility to its cause, nor the potential good to society of shunning the subject. Yappy2bhere (talk) 23:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can accept that, and since there is fairly broad consensus to Keep, it hardly matters. The article has improved since the AfD was raised, and I will keep watch on it to prevent sensationalism from taking over the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MelanieN, merging a small group into a larger one is an established policy tactic for managing dissent. The smaller group is easily marginalized once it's been absorbed by equating the importance of its interests relative to those of the overall group with its relatively small membership within the group. In this instance, merging this article with the other would permit additional detail about the organization to be excluded on the grounds that it contributes little to the overall merged article. By preventing the topic from expanding while paring away, say, biased content, the topic can be reduced to an offhand remark within the larger article. (Public policy 101 - in my town we play politics without pads, Bubba.) Yappy2bhere (talk) 01:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Yappy, I realize that would be the effect of "merging" the article: to minimize or blunt the message. But aside from suppressing the viewpoint, the "merge" suggestion makes no sense from a Wikipedia standpoint. The organization is notable in itself, as established by normal Wikipedia criteria. It is not simply synonymous with its cause. --MelanieN (talk) 15:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article has been rewritten since AfD nomination, a rebuttal from the Watch Tower Society added and sufficient citations of sources to confirm notability also supplied. LTSally (talk) 11:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are now enough secondary sources to show notability. --NeilN talk to me 16:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge/redirect to List of people from Akron, Ohio. This seems to me the best interpretation of the consensus of the discussion, given that strong arguments are made by a number of editors for either outright deletion (i.e. this list should not exist, which will now eventually be the case) or merging, and at least one of those supporting keeping the list are okay with merging as a second option. It's unclear to me if there is actually information in this list that needs to be merged into List of people from Akron, Ohio, but if so that should happen soon and then List of Akron politicians should redirected to that page (because we need to retain the edit history of the page if anything is to be merged, not because its a useful redirect per say). If no merging has happened in a week or so I'll probably pop back and simply re-direct the page—the edit history would still be preserved if someone wanted to merge any pertinent info later. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Akron politicians[edit]

List of Akron politicians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The list is simply duplicate information as a sub-list of List of people from Akron, Ohio. JonRidinger (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT I'd recommend you read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It states and I'll quote "That other similar articles exist is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions and will typically be dismissed while still assuming good faith. " each issue needs to be debated on its own merits. Nefariousski (talk) 23:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT I dont mean to use it as an example that way, i was just bringing lite to the fact that it is commonly used with good reasons. Also this data isnt on the List of people from Akron, Ohio article, thus isnt a duplicate as stated above.--Threeblur0 (talk) 23:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So can you explain exactly why it's a good idea to split one type of "people from Akron" out of the "people from Akron" article to form a new article? What's the benefit? Nefariousski (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As I stated at the article's talk page, the table at List of people from Akron, Ohio is sortable, so a column with a specific category could be included as a way to group them together (if someone really is looking for notable politicians from Akron) or it can simply be broken into subsections. No need for a separate list, especially in looking at the length of this list; hardly that long. Simply using other city article groups (particularly of cities that are older and larger) doesn't work. Additionally, the Akron list itself needs edited as it includes people from the Akron metro area and not just those from the city of Akron, so even less reason to spin off a separate list. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As I stated, the List of people from Akron, Ohio would not properly fit under the section. Also as you just stated, the Akron list has problems, so a seperate list with no problems seems good, plus the list is unfinished as i found roughly six more politicans, also some are listed on the people from Akron list. Im not simply stating the fact, im giving good reason.--Threeblur0 (talk) 14:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are already problems with this list as it is. No one on the list is notable for people outside of the Akron area, and many of them are not even notable for Akronites. Creating a second list with issues does not improve Wikipedia. --Beirne (talk) 14:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment First, if something or someone has an article, that has been present over a long length of time and no reason has been found to delete it, it is notable regaurdless of what you say/think. Second, United States House of Representatives, U.S. Senate, United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, U.S. Ambassador, etc., are notable for people outside of the Akron area.--Threeblur0 (talk) 15:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The only editor not in favor of deletion is the creator of the list. If the additional names you have found are indeed notable, place them in in the List of people from Akron, Ohio in a subsection for politicians. Akron's list is hardly anything abnormally large. Also, the presence of a Wikipedia article is no guarantee of notability, especially if the article has few or no sources. In many cases, it may have just been overlooked because it has few articles that link to it. That seems to be another case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --JonRidinger (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The only editors in favor are two editors(one of which who started the deletion attempt) who have past "problems" with my edits, and another editor who may have changed his mind. I will place them on the politician page, where they belong, when i finish fully searching and typing the information. Nor are others', so it corresponds. Well since you have time to participate in this, could you mark which(if any) are non-notable? No it is a case of that it is common and makes senses to have.--Threeblur0 (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OK. None of them are notable outside of Akron, and in Akron John Seiberling and maybe Tom Sawyer. Both of whom fit fine on the list of people from Akron. And four people voted to delete, not three, and I don't see anyone switching their vote. --Beirne (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And just because someone is a judge, congressman, etc. from Akron does not make them notable. Someone has to fill those positions and it just happens to be them. The number of notable ones will fit fine in the list of people from Akron. In fact, having a separate list can make it more difficult for someone to find the people, as they may not know to go to the politicians list, whereas the list of people from Akron is something to be expected. --Beirne (talk) 18:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OK. It's ridiculous to say an Ambassador and etc. is not notable outside of Akron, and to take you seriously anymore. My mis-count came from only looking at the number of 'deletes' which two are from editors who havent commented much to see if there perspective changed. I will add a "save" tag to the page. Wow. As of now, all are deemed notable. In fact, having a separate list can make it more easy to for someone to find the people, as they are completely seperate from all others, whereas the politician list is something to be expected.--Threeblur0 (talk) 19:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you're right about the ambassador, but thousands of people have been ambassadors and most have sunk into obscurity, so they aren't notable just because they held the job. If you think the ambassador on the list is noteworthy then make a case for him rather than insulting me. --Beirne (talk) 20:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 02:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 02:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 02:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: First, I want to note that we do have a policy on Wikipedia which says "Comment on the Content, not the contributor. Any personal attacks need to stop here and now. Also by violating that, you are violating the orange pillar of the 5 pillars of Wikipedia. As for my vote, do not assume it is has changed. I don't see anything that isn't already in the articles by those people. As above, Wikipedia is not a directory. This supports a directory of politicians in a certain area. Also, are we to have a list of one politician who does meet the notability requirement? I think the answer is Black & White here. My vote is still in support of deletion. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 02:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, then delete - All the people on this list are (or should be) on List of people from Akron, Ohio. I don't see why another list is necessary. Merge any useful information from here into there, and then delete. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 02:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think its easier to find what you are looking for this way. If someone wants to know who all the notable politicians are from there, this is easier to find than on that other list. Additional information could be added, listing the years they were in office. And there is no reason information can be found in two places, if someone believes any of these politicians should be put in the other list as well. Dream Focus 09:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The poor organization of one list or article shouldn't be the reason for creating a separate list or article. It should only be because the new list would overwhelm the main list, just like including the main list in the original article is too much. List of people from Akron, Ohio is by no means an unusually large list and could easily be organized in such a way to have categories either with subheadings or a column in a sortable chart. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have been trying to get that way of reasoning across. I apologize if my "state of disbelief over the seemingly false statements i read lead me to make a 'personal attack'", it's just that when statements like those come into play, it makes disscussions like this harder. Neither did i assume you changed your mind, i believed it was possible but never used words to confirm you did. Also, the list is longer than the Cleveland politician's article, which contains people who does/did similar roles as people on the Akron list. Since the Cleveland list seems to some how pass as notable/needed, maybe we should base it off that list.
  • Comment Again, the presence of the Cleveland politicians list is largely irrelevant unless it has survived its own deletion debate. Its existence does not mean it should exist or that this list should exist. No one but you has mentioned it as an example or standard and it is not a featured list like Cleveland was a featured article. Bear in mind, however, that List of people from Cleveland is a significantly longer list than Akron and has organizational and other problems of its own. In all honesty, I think the Cleveland politicians list could be integrated into the main list better and really isn't needed, but that is for a different debate. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a list of addtional politicians i found. List among them are, ambassadors, delegates, persons who played important roles is forming states (Monatana) etc. (people notable far past just the Akron area) Ellsworth Raymond Bathrick Sidney Edgerton Charles Landon Knight William Hanes Ayres Sandi Jackson Gilbert De La Matyr John Dean Walter B. Huber M. Herbert Hoover Dow W. Harter Henry Augustus Buchtel Mike Massie Thomas E. Martin Frances McGovern Ray C. Bliss Chuck Blasdel Robert Lucas (candidate) Leonard Firestone Kim Zurz William H. Upson Wilbur F. Sanders Francis Seiberling --Threeblur0 (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really the debate isn't whether there are notable politicians from Akron, it's whether we need a separate list from List of people from Akron, Ohio. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because just like Cleveland's (a well done featured article) and other city articles, it helps bring a knowledge of a certain topic (Government and politics) together, oppose to a not so specific or even fitting list (List of people from Akron, Ohio) to the topic, being put.--Threeblur0 (talk) 19:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Only the article Cleveland is currently classified as a featured article. Lists and articles attached to it should never be assumed to be "featured" or even "good" just because the parent article is featured. Every article is classified and evaluated on an individual basis, not as a group. The main Akron list can easily be organized to bring more specific information and divide it up, just like the Cleveland list can. And no, not all city article groups have separate main and sub lists; most have one main list if they have a separate list from the main article at all. --JonRidinger (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment... Again My thoughts on this matter still stand as Delete. There is absolutely no reason to have a seperate article for politicians apart from the standard List of notable people from Akron. Firstly, Akron isn't a large enough city to warrant seperate articles on the basis of one single article being too massive to be readable. The "Well Cleveland has one" point is totally moot per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Comparing Clevelands featured article to the Politicians of Akron spinoff article is apples and oranges. There's absolutely no justifiable reason to not include the information in the People from Akron article aside from the personal preference of the editors. Nefariousski (talk) 17:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If all the people Threeblur0 found are added to the list, it won't fit in a merge. If it was that full already, it'd be split out to a side article here. Dream Focus 18:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but many of the people in the list of politicians aren't notable. Not every judge or state rep are worth putting in the list. That shrinks it a lot. Part of my concern with this list is that it will become a big unfiltered list of politicians. --Beirne (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Both articles are pretty small and completely unorganized into sections. There's no reasonable "The article would be too big" argument to be made here. If you categorized all list type articles by length even the merged version containing all the politicians would be well into the bottom half of that list. Nefariousski (talk) 18:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Scott Mac (Doc) 17:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The list is clearly of value in navigating to our numerous articles of the relevant type. The organisation of this with respect to other similar lists is not a matter for deletion as that can and should be resolved by ordinary editing. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but reference. As a valid fork of List of people from Akron, Ohio, I see no way that this list violates any of our poilicies or guidelines. It needs references for every listing that show that these people were born in or lived in Akron, but that it a matter of editing, not notability. As was stated above in a Delete comment, there are 200 years worth of politicians from Akron. Most likely every mayor is notable, as is every member of the state legislature, US House, and US Senate, as well as stste and federal cabinet officials, plus others. Each of those people would qualify for their own articles, as well as in this list. If it is not kept, then it should be merged back into List of people from Akron, Ohio. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 22:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My position hasn't changed in regards to deletion or at least merging any info that isn't already at the List of people from Akron, Ohio (much of it already is there, which is what prompted my original nomination). My understanding of list articles is that they should be created when a list within an article (or another list) becomes excessively long and this list is nowhere near being too long for the main list. The List of people from Akron, Ohio is what needs additional editing and categorization, not spinning off another list, at least yet. And speculating that there may be a need for the list in the future does not mean a separate list is needed now. Again, the question isn't whether there are notable politicians from Akron or not, but if a separate list is needed. --JonRidinger (talk) 01:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete wp:OCAT - in particular, see Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Intersection_by_location. Why should this afd turn out differently than Roman Catholic Bishops from Ohio? Keep it merged with List of people from Akron, Ohio. ErikHaugen (talk) 19:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into List of people from Akron, Ohio. There is no need for separate list of Akron politicians at this stage.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gidonb (talk • contribs)
  • Merge into List of people from Akron, Ohio. We don't need separate articles for every subcategory of notability, particularly for small and medium-sized cities. PDCook (talk) 02:44, 15 February 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. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 23:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kinuyo Yamashita[edit]

Kinuyo Yamashita (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. There are zero matches on Google News Archives by this name. It is completely possible that sources might be available in another language, which is fine if they can be found. I have been unsuccessful in my attempts to locate non-trivial coverage of this individual from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 05:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No indication of notability other than the subject's own website. --DAJF (talk) 10:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep DAJF, various interviews and other sources have been provided. None of them makes just a "passing reference" as you claim, feel free to read them before commenting on notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.64.161 (talk) 12:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC) — 77.49.64.161 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep and expand. Yamashita is notable as the original composer responsible for the musical style of the Castlevania series. She has composed music for several very popular games and is one of the most well-known composers in the video game music scene, in fact the whole scene growth and popularity owes a lot to her work in the first Castlevania game. There are numerous interviews of her in english, some included as links in the article, and loads of videos of her in performances of her music, as a performer or an honored guest. Even NME.com has a page for her. "No indication of notability"? I'll take that as ignorance in good faith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.103.110.76 (talk) 18:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As per IP address; the composer is notable and has been interviewed several times. The article is easily sourceable. The Prince (talk) 11:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would hate to delete an article that can be confirmed by Reliable Sources, and considering no one has offered up any that I can see, I would ask you to provide some in evidence that it should be kept. Joshua Scott (talk) 00:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have received permission from Kinuyo Yamashita herself to keep this article up. There are sources in place, and every interview with her is credible. She is the composer for the Castlevania series (known as Akumajou Dracula in Japan). She has even confirmed to me that what is in the article is entirely true. You can't get more proof than that! DJ15Nario (talk) 21:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've "received permission"? How do you expect to influence this process with such a comment? Dandy Sephy (talk) 23:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kinuyo Yamashita has a Facebook account (I know she's for real too because two personal friends of mine met her in real life and she said she'd send them friend requests) and she informed me of this situation through a status update. She was confused as to why this article would be deleted, considering how all the information on the page is true, and she has been thankful in my attempts to keep this article from being deleted. I don't know if the "fiance" below me is for real, but I do know that OSV is a reliable source (one of the personal friends mentioned above is the one who interviewed Yamashita; in fact, it's AkumuHau below) and that I'm telling the truth. That's your proof.DJ17Nario (talk) 11:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's irrelevant if thats true or if the subject of the article has a personal interest in it (and if anything might harm the discussion). You've certainly brought to the table reasons why this discussion has issues of conflict of interest.
Interest has nothing to do with this. The fact of the matter is that Kinuyo Yamashita is an influential composer and she has credible sources to back her up on Wikipedia, and yet people want to bring her down in claiming that the sources aren't credible, that she isn't important, and that she shouldn't be remembered on Wikipedia. It's unreal, and she deserves better.DJ17Nario (talk) 13:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am Kinuyo's fiance and I translated the bio from Japanese to English with her help. The information is all sourced from her personal page and to a variety of interviews in English that verify this information. OSV is an independent website that has interviewed her with the link at the bottom of the page. Her credibility can be found on numerous websites including Myspace, Youtube and LinkedIn. NJDolphin —Preceding undated comment added 18:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC). — NJDolphin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Well thats a conflict of interest even if true (somehow I'm not convinced). Dandy Sephy (talk) 23:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NRVE. Article has existed for four years and no verifiable third-party sources have ever been added. Recommend that someone copy it to their userspace and improve it before attempting to add it again. -armagebedar (talk) 00:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kinuyo Yamashita is one of the most famous video game composers of her day and you can find countless interviews to back that up. Tommy Tallarico's Video Games Live concert recently had her appear as a special guest at their Tokyo event to do a speech for the crowd, as can be seen on Youtube.--AkumuHau (talk) 03:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out the YouTube videos of Video Games Live, Akumu. I forgot about mentioning those, but it's proof that she is an influential composer if she was brought up by Tommy Tallarico himself. The crowd treated her with a healthy applause and she also gave an inspirational speech too.DJ17Nario (talk) 11:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I came here to say keep, but this interview is the only thing I can find that comes close to a secondary source on this. This is not a reliable source in my opinion, and so this article cannot be notable, given the lack of reliabile sources. Joshua Scott (talk) 04:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OSV is definitely a reliable source. In fact, AkumuHau--the user above your post--is the one who interviewed Kinuyo Yamashita.DJ17Nario (talk) 11:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That someone who interviewed the subject of the article is claiming the article should be kept based on his own interview isn't helping as much as you think.

Comment I have to say, there are some suspect replies here. Dandy Sephy (talk) 23:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Skomorokh  16:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can understand why this was relisted, because there were a lot of !votes for both Keep and Delete. However, per Wikipedia:NOTVOTE#Deletion.2C_moving_and_featuring, consensus should be used to determine the outcome, rather than numbers of votes. None of the 5 keep comments gave any links, or ways to find WP:RS. This seems to be a pretty straightforward delete, IMHO, especially considering that it is a BLP. Joshua Scott (talk) 19:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two credible sources have been added since the threatening of this article's deletion. Those who wanted the article deleted wanted more sources, and there they are. DJ17Nario (talk) 15:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ15Nario (talk • contribs) [reply]
Could you please point those out here? If credible sources have been added, I'm happy to change my position. Here's the breakdown of the current references:
  • subject's website - the subject's own words can't be used to establish notability.
  • mobygames.com - passing mention, doesn't establish notability. This site is similar to IMDB, in that it doesn't have strict oversight on editors, so it cannot be used as a reliable source anyway.
  • ready-up.net - this is a blog, so it cannot be used as a reliable source.
  • 1up.com - this is also a blog.
Please let me know if I am wrong on these, but I don't see anything establishing notability. Thanks, Joshua Scott (talk) 21:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1UP.com is actually on the WikiProject Video games list of reliable sources, I believe because of their editorial control and use of established vg journalists. Can't speak for the other sources, however. Wyatt Riot (talk) 09:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, MobyGames is on the list for "production credits" only, which is how it's used. Wyatt Riot (talk) 09:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out. I'm still not sure if the notability standard is being met here, but I'm striking my comment about 1up.com. Joshua Scott (talk) 05:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Josh, these websites aren't blogs, they are long standing and well recognised game journalism websites using a blog format. I agree that the subject's website can't be used as source for an article, except maybe a few personal info tidbits. One question though, how can a musical score be notable enough to have multiple entries and mentions in wikipedia, and yet the composer is deemed not notable? Yamashita is even listed under "notable composers" - which she should, since she started the whole thing, and sources to verify that have already been provided.
    • You can't just arbitrarily claim that a source doesn't establish notability nor say that it is a "passing mention"; that's how works are attributed to their creators, by name only. For example, if i tell you that "Avatar is directed by James Cameron", you can't say that i made only a passing reference to Cameron, therefore he is insignificant; that is simply the way creators are cited. For more information you need to seek an article on the creator. In this case, Kinuyo Yamashita is the creator of a an extremely well known and important body of work in the genre, already established beyond any doubt as significant by wikipedia itself, the music of Castlevania. Therefore the article needs expansion, not deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.64.161 (talk) 01:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that you feel strongly about this, but Wikipedia's guidelines for notability and reliable sources are fairly clear. See WP:BLP, especially Wikipedia:BLPSPS and Wikipedia:ONEEVENT. James Cameron has articles written largely about him, see for example [13], whereas I don't see those sorts of writeups about Kinuyo Yamashita. Again, I am happy to reverse my stance, just point out where those articles are that I'm missing. Joshua Scott (talk) 02:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I also do not understand the discounting of the 1up.com source due to the fact that it chooses to attach the name "blog" to that one particular set of news items. The Retronauts section of 1up is host to tons of news pertaining to classic gaming, but may not necessarily fit in with the standard "news" section of 1up.com, as it is more of a special interest topic. The entry is not a personal blog, has a few designated contributors, and I feel that the particular 1up retronauts post in question being written by one of the top ranking staff members of 1up.com should help validate the entry. Regarding your comment about not seeing large articles pertaining to Kinuyo Yamashita (in the james cameron comparison), I think this relates to the comments I've made further down in debate page about pseudonyms. Until recently, many classic video game composers have only been known by their pseudonyms, which are often brushed off and assumed to mean a team of people, or the pseudonyms are so obtuse (i.e. james banana), that people only remember the musical works and not the names behind them. For this reason, the names of these classic gaming composers are just as of recently starting to be recognized, even though their music has always been appreciated. Because of this, I may not be able to show you many articles about yamashita, herself, but I could easily show you a tons of articles on the music she has written. Kinuyo Yamashita, and other classic composers just like her, are just now finally being recognized for their work, so sources that explicitly mention them by name are just now starting the pop up. The most notable of sources pertaining to yamashita have basically all been pointed out in this discussion, but I'm sure more are soon to follow. --NickTheNewbie (talk) 19:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I did reverse my position on the 1up.com article (see above). Joshua Scott (talk) 05:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As a music composer, we should be looking to WP:MUSICBIO for guidance. Someone who writes for video games doesn't fall easily into any of the criteria, but I looked through the whole guideline to see if there are any criteria which she may meet, and it's just not there. The lack of WP:RS and significant coverage in secondary sources doesn't help her cause either. Wine Guy~Talk 10:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I am sorry, but did you really look at them? At least on the the criteria must apply, and for Kinuyo Yamashita we have more than one:
      • Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition (Castlevania and dozens of scores after that).
      • Has had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer or lyricist who meets the above criteria (her style defined the music of the Castlevania series for years).
      • Has been listed as a major influence or teacher of a composer, songwriter or lyricist that meets the above criteria (either this or the criterion above, works by composers influenced by Yamashita became popular and significant within the genre in their own right).
      • Appears at reasonable length in standard reference books on his or her genre of music (there are still few "standard reference" works for video game music, but the music of Castlevania is almost always referenced).
    • I understand that video game music is a really obscure genre and many people just refuse to take it seriously, but it is notable on its own right, in full compliance with wikipedia criteria for notability, and Kinuyo Yamashita is one of the most influential composers within that genre, and within that genre she satisfies the criteria posted above. No, you won't ever see her on MTV.
    • What we have here is a notable music composer, but with few (more than adequate IMHO) sources to cite in the article. This does not negate a person's notability; it means that the biographical article should be expande, not deleted. I fully agree that in its current state it is lacking. Maybe what we need here is someone who speaks japanese and can provide references from sources published in Japan.
    • I am writing this in good faith, and under the understandment that the subject's notability in general has been established beyond any doubt. Notability in accordance to wikipedia criteria, has also been established, as above. It has also been established in other wikipedia articles, such as Castlevania, Castlevania (video game), and Music in the Castlevania series, with references, and linked to in many more. Michiru Yamane's entry (she is the composer who defined Castlevania's musical style from Symphony of the Night onwards) is no more informative, less cited, and yet doing fine.
    • For all the reasons mentioned above, and according to wikipedia's policies, i strongly support rewriting and expanding the article and not deleting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.64.161 (talk) 12:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As stated above the relisting, the article has more than enough credible sources to be kept, although it would be best to expand it for safe measure.—Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ15Nario (talk • contribs) 15:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC) — Duplicate !vote: DJ15Nario (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.[reply]
    • Kinuyo Yamashita defined the environment of Castlevania, for her music within the series is very memorable and makes up a good portion of memories of gamers when the Nintendo Entertainment System Castlevania titles are brought up. In short: bringing up Castlevania for the NES cannot be done without bringing up the music in the titles as well, for the music in the series is so good and go hand in hand with the series. If this article is deleted, then every Castlevania article on Wikipedia might as well be deleted too, for Castlevania wouldn't be what it is today without Kinuyo Yamashita, for she is an important and influential factor in the series. DJ15Nario (talk) 15:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Edit conflict, replying to comment by 77.49.64.161)Thanks for your comment. I don't question your good faith, and I am familiar with some extraordinary, notable work in the VG music genre; I just don't see that Yamashita is "one of the most influential composers within that genre". Having looked through the links you provided, and their sources, it appears quite clear to me that Michiru Yamane is the composer of note for the Castlevania series, not Kinuyo Yamashita. I see no evidence anywhere which would support the assertion that Yamashita's work on the score of the original game influenced the music created by Yamane, which has become notable. The sources for the Yamashita article also bring her notability into question; like this one "Yamashita, composer of the original Castlevania... as well as the odd classic (Parodius, anyone?)", and this blog, used as a source for Yamashita, mentions that she is present with Yamane, but goes on to say "Yamane is pretty well known at this point;" no such assertion is made about Yamashita. Not exactly ringing endorsements. Wine Guy~Talk 20:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it puzzling how you can assert that Yamane is the composer of note in the Castlevania series, yet Yamashita, whose work the whole series was based upon - a sufficient criterion for notability according to the list that you yourself linked above - isn't. You also didn't debunk this or the other criteria that i commented upon, so where do we stand? Lack of evidence suitable for use in wikipedia does not mean lack of evidence at all - wikipedia is not the real world! Once again i am trying to explain, there is no question of notability "in real life" here. Everyone familiar with the genre is aware of her notability. So the article has a place in wikipedia - that much we have established. The issue is making it a proper entry. The information in Yamane's entry is actually less backed up by citations and references than the current version of this article, yet in her case her IRL established notability seems enough to back that article up. Lack of sources seems to have become a problem for Yamashita's entry, so clearly expansion is needed. If every article that failed to satisfy everyone's evaluation of the provided references was deleted on the spot, wikipedia would be left with a thousand articles give or take a few :).
  • I have to point out some flawed reasoning as well; her work in lesser-known games does not negate her work on Castlevania, nor does the article's mentioning that Yamane is pretty well known negate the fact that Yamashita is well known too. If anything, her reputation is not commented upon because it is taken for granted - again i must stress, within the genre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.207.35 (talk) 03:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Though michiru yamane has picked up doing the majority of castlevania composition since castlevania bloodlines, yamashita was solely responsible for establishing most of the main themes in the series through her work on the first game. Her use of a pseudonym (like many other composers of the nintendo era) makes it hard to track down her work based on her name alone, but looking around, I can find some more sources that support this "James Banana" handle she was credited with in castlevania 1.

The problem is that none of those sources would be considered as Reliable sources, and most of them can be edited by fans. I am still waiting to see even one reference source that provides more than trivial coverage of the subject of this article. --DAJF (talk) 15:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, like I had mentioned before, the use of pseudonyms makes things blurry, and puts several other composers into question. I mean when you look at composers such as Yuukichan's Papa and Bun Bun, it becomes apparent that this kind of situation is not uncommon, and that extensive research done by (very dedicated) fan sites is sometimes the only way to get the information needed. OCReMix is listed as a source for both yuukichan's papa and bun bun, and a similar article exists for Kinuyo Yamashita. The validity of Original Sound Version as a reliable source has been debated in this page, but it is probably one of the better sources of information on video game music around. The video game music community isn't exactly an exploding industry, so even the most in depth sites may appear to be fan sites at first glance. If it helps OSV's case for reliability any, the executive editor of the site is Dale North, who helps run the major news sites http://www.destructoid.com and http://www.japanator.com/ --NickTheNewbie (talk) 15:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The video game music community and industry is a very recent, still emerging phenomenon compared to music in general, and video game music as a subculture is extremely community-driven, almost exclusively by means of the internet. This creates the problem that nearly every available resource can be considered either Unreliable or Original Research. It also makes it virtually impossible to use Google to locate more traditional resources, if any, due to the ratio of scientific resources to fansited being practically zero. Things might be better when it comes to japanese websites, but unfortunately most of us in the west can't read japanese.
Maybe there should be a specific policy for video game music and other cultural niches in a similar situation. Compare for example the number of reliable source articles dedicated to Super Mario Bros versus the number of reliable resource articles dedicated to the - well popular and instantly recognizable - music from that game. When it comes to composers the problem becomes even worse, and even for the most popular superstar composers such as Nobuo Uematsu the vast majority of resources are fan-driven, original research, or in some other way unreliable. 79.103.102.249 (talk) 12:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nihonjoe

Apparently some people here try to deal with disagreements by banning users. I am pretty sure that you know what Dynamic IP is and how it works. Just because some of my comments come from a different IP address, that makes me a sock puppet? How exactly did you arrive to the conclusion that i am DJ15Nario? I guess because he edits from the same country as me? Or maybe you just don't like an unregistered user voicing an opinion? More importantly, if you disagree with my opinion then maybe you should try discussing instead of banning me - just a suggestion really, i obviously can't enforce this. I guess wikipedia's behavioral guidelines can bend easily if you have admin powers though. Good job encouraging debates and contributions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.219.17.235 (talk) 23:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC) — 194.219.17.235 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Not sure where you're coming from, but I have no disagreement with you other than you abusively posting under multiple real and fake accounts (as the DJ17Nario "account" is not even registered), as well as logging in under IPs to try to influence the discussion and appear to be more than one person. That's what you were block for, and that's why you've been blocked again (as you are obviously evading a block). Also, I have no idea which country DJ15Nario is posting from. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This all looks like an extremely under-handed way to pull favor for an article's deletion. I can't prove that Nario wasn't posting under multiple accounts before he used the DJ17 one (though I was under the impression that assuming multiple people who are of the same opinion to be sockpuppets was considered bad faith) - but banning AkumuHau as a sockpuppet of Nario's strikes me as particularly silly. Akumu is a Norwegian VG columnist (who writes for http://kngi.org/, good-evil.net, bossies.org and vgmdb.com), and Nario is an American musician and college student (ex. http://gamemusic4all.com/wordpress/2009/12/nario-most-of-me-debut-album/). This information is freely available online and took me no more than five minutes to research. Conversely, where is the proof that Nario was indulging in sockpuppetry before his first banning? People disagreed with Sephy (I see he considered some of the comments to be "suspect"), so they got flagged and banned without a second glance, and now every non-account IP address is assumed to be one of Nario's? This is either a misinformed witch hunt or a gross abuse of power. - Kirby (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
And your posting is somewhat suspicious, too. It's been almost five years since you did anything here, and your first action is to come to a deletion discussion and defend someone? It makes me think this is an old account belonging to Nario... ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Before we continue you need to read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_IP#Static_and_dynamic_IP_addresses Now, you are either paranoid or just an admin on a power trip. I am not a registered user and certainly not any of the ones mentioned above. DJ15 and DJ17, yes that looks suspicious, but what the hell does that have to do with me? Where exactly did i post "abusively"? I am trying to have a discussion, all i did is provide proper arguements and references for the article. I only cast ONE vote (which obviously doesn't matter anyway since "the merits of the arguements" is going to be judged by you) and contributed several comments. As for "evading a block" a) i am not doing it on purpose (read the article i linked), and b) it was a malicious block given without any reason, warning or discussion, so i might as well.
A bit of a rant while we are at it, this kind of treatment of unregistered users is exactly why i don't want to register despite having contributed to several articles and made countless minor corrections and improvements. Presumed guilty before even being talked to, and sure, because another random guy comes to my defense, that proves that i am a malicious user, lying in wait for five years just to ruin wikipedia by trying to keep this article. Get a fucking grip on reality. You want to be an admin, then maybe read and learn how IPs work, when and how they change. One of the many reasons why i might want to reset my router (when the ISP doesn't reset the line itself) is because someone who has a grudge against me knows my IP and posts it online for everyone to see. So go ahead, delete this article to get it over with. In full compliance with wikipedia regulations (well maybe except that good faith thing but this is pretty much FUBAR by now), you have the power to judge anything against your view to hold no value and everyone who disagrees to be one single evil person. Guess what, i did 9/11 too - and then vandalized the article by posting governemt coverups! Yes that's right, see you again in 2012...
PS:if you have anything to contribute instead of banning users who disagree, i am always open to further discussion, if not with you, with wineguy and everyone else. That is of course i am not EVERY person in this discussion! Hahahahaha... seriously, get a grip.
Awesome, threaten me instead of responding to anything I said. You're right, I haven't used Wiki in a long time, and because of admins like you, it's unlikely I will again any time soon. I was directed here from a message board dedicated to video game music, and saw your furiously paranoid banning spree. It was really easy to disprove one user of being a sockpuppet of Nario's, so you'll forgive me if I assume that everybody banned for their involvement in this discussion also has nothing to do with him. (Here's me: http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=kirby+pufocia&aq=f&aqi=&oq=&fp=c26c79a56c95bda8 - unless you're trying to say that I have been a sockpuppet for Nario across 20 different message boards since 2002) What exactly, has been your criteria? Because again, the only thing I see in common with everybody banned is that they disagree with the deletion of this article. I'm open to being proven wrong, but I'm not taking your word for anything. Kirby (talk) 15:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And as for not being able to determine people's countries of origin, I assume you have access to registered users' IP addresses, so you can in fact figure out where anybody is posting from. For example: http://ip-address-lookup-v4.com/lookup.php?ip=77.49.64.161 - you can see that this user (who I believe is the guy posting right above me) is from Greece. In fact, most of the unregistered comments were from him, not Nario (again, who lives in the US) - so there you have a double dose of assuming bad faith because he has a dynamic IP address and assuming he's a sockpuppet of Nario's because you have an inexplicable grudge against Nario. Anyway, all I'm asking is that you use this tool, see your mistake, and we can all put this behind us. Thank you. Kirby (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To add to my previous comments (and to reiterate what I stated above), at least two sources (1UP.com and MobyGames) are on the WikiProject Video games list of reliable sources. Wyatt Riot (talk) 09:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand based on Wyatt Riot's comments above me. Seems enough for further expansion rather than deletion. Preacher Bob (talk) 16:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. i dont really care what any of you self-righteous editing wiki-nazis say or think, this composer is as credible as a baroque composer like mozart. you guys are RUINING WIKIPEDIA with your pointless editing. cut it out. -Shawn Phase (who had his account banned by a wiki-editing mongo months ago)141.157.81.77 (talk) 03:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC) (I struck the !vote by Shawnphase - a self-admitted banned user.) Joshua Scott (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep This is Jayson Napolitano, the Editor-in-Chief of OSV. I don't see how OSV's validity as a source is in question. OSV is, in fact, an industry resource for numerous composers, audio professionals, and consumers. We have several link ins from verified game composers' websites claiming that OSV is their primary source of game music information, and our articles have been linked by major blogs including Destructoid, Kotaku, and Joystiq along with industry websites like 1UP. We work through company PR teams whenever possible, ensuring that the information presented is accurate and true, and develop relationships with composers directly, as in the case of the Kinuyo Yamashita interview, if employees are no longer accessible through official PR departments. It's pretty closed-minded to have a blanket policy that doesn't distinguish between personal and professional blogs.- Jayson Napolitano--Arcubalis (talk) 04:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I've been chewing over this debate on-and-off all day and my standpoint's gone back and forth. My opinion is that the reliability and depth of the cumulative sources don't quite cut the mustard for a biography of a living person, particularly seeing as the lady's claim to fame is for composing the Castlevania soundtrack (or part of it, Jeremy Parish's 1up piece refers to her being "one of the composers on the original Castlevania"). There is nothing stopping Kinuyo being referred to in the development section of Castlevania and in the KONAMI KuKeiHa CLUB article, based on the 1up piece and OSV interview. I'm not satisfied that the Ready Up piece goes beyond being a self-published source written by Joe Bloggs, looking at the site's about page, which doesn't tell me much. The OSV interview certainly looks a lot more reliable in WP terms, but again I wouldn't hang a BLP on it, the 1up piece is about a concert not just this composer, useful as a source but not a piece that demonstrates much notability. Someoneanother 20:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We have to avoid "I do/don't like it arguments" on both sides and try to reconcile these cases to consensus policy. In this case the sources are not significant enough to establish general notability or notability as a creative professional. I agree with Someone that contribution to the composition of Castlevania can be included in the main article. The sources are weak and the notability requirements relatively high. By the way...the "she told me she wants to keep it" argument is completely invalid and should be dismissed in determining the outcome of this debate! Wikipeterproject (talk) 02:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is Justin Pfeiffer, contributing editor and translator for Original Sound Version. Here is some hard evidence of Kinuyo's Yamashita's involvement in the Castlevania soundtrack. It is a scan of the booklet included with the Video Games Live concert CD release, and she is clearly credited as composer for Castlevania, one of the pieces performed at the concert. Here is another official reference on Amazon Japan of her latest work on the soundtrack for a Japanese PC game called Gunhound. It is written in Japanese, but the first thing listed in the Product Description is her being the the game's composer. Feel free to run a translator program if need be. The reason it has been so hard to find reliable sources on Kinuyo Yamashita is because she has only come into the public light in the last year or so. With the ever increasing wide-spreading of the internet, more and more Japanese game composers are starting to reach out to their fans worldwide and make themselves known. It is also very hard to isolate her older references because she was part of a unit named "Konami Kukeiha Club" at the time of Castlevania. But as you can see here from these official sources, she is in fact for real. The page should stay. Justin Pfeiffer (talk) 02:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - There's no doubt that she is verifiable (The 1UP article is perfectly fine), she strictly speaking doesn't pass WP:COMPOSER. But it depends on how we can interpret this for video game music (what do we make of "Appears at reasonable length in standard reference books on his or her genre of music."? Do we even have standard reference books on video game music?). I feel that there's room for this information somewhere on Wikipedia, although I'm currently not convinced that she requires a seperate article. What Someone says makes sense - to incorporate this information into the relevant video game articles. Marasmusine (talk) 13:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am just pasting a comment i posted above, but it got lost in all the mess. It is very relevent to the new votes, so here it is in case you missed:
The video game music community and industry is a very recent, still emerging phenomenon compared to music in general, and video game music as a subculture is extremely community-driven, almost exclusively by means of the internet. This creates the problem that nearly every available resource can be considered either Unreliable or Original Research. It also makes it virtually impossible to use Google to locate more traditional resources, if any, due to the ratio of scientific resources to fansited being practically zero. Things might be better when it comes to japanese websites, but unfortunately most of us in the west can't read japanese.
Maybe there should be a specific policy for video game music and other cultural niches in a similar situation. Compare for example the number of reliable source articles dedicated to Super Mario Bros versus the number of reliable resource articles dedicated to the - well popular and instantly recognizable - music from that game. When it comes to composers the problem becomes even worse, and even for the most popular superstar composers such as Nobuo Uematsu the vast majority of resources are fan-driven, original research, or in some other way unreliable.
  • I'd also like to emphasize that it seems pointless to ask for sources to verify the reliability of other sources, due to the facts i cite above. It's a vicious circle, and even scientific articles can be claimed to be unreliable, because they are based on peer (=community) reviewed sources and original research. In this case, the resources provided are considered universally reliable within the community. To raise doubt about them would be to investigate the VGM cultural phenomenon as a whole, and that, no matter the outcome, is original research and beyond the scope (and regulations) of Wikipedia. As long as the facts themselves are not doubted, the VGM community should be credible enough for a source. I also must point out that lots of other articles that deal with particular subcultures are supported with sources coming purely or primarily from within the respective communities.194.219.45.249 (talk) 15:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Lingam. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sivalinga as phallus[edit]

Sivalinga as phallus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a WP:POVFORK of Linga being a phallus theory. The text in the article itself contests the theory. It starts with Vivekananda questioning the theory. Redtigerxyz Talk 16:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I created this during a cleanup effort by moving material unduly impacting the Lingam article. Currently, it consists of a predictably biased quote-farm; proper editing can fix this, as the issue is indeed a real one, philologically. Unfortunately, the issue is also a radioactive one, and therefore a cruft magnet, which is why I think an article on this separate from Lingam is needed anyway. Delete this one and in the fullness of time another one will appear for sure. The correct approach is to make a proper article of it so that the WP-ecological niche remains occupied. (I'm not partial to the current title; a better one would do nicely) rudra (talk) 23:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A cleanup should not result in giving undue importance to a single aspect thereby neglecting NPOV --NotedGrant Talk 14:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I think instead of overloading the main article, its better to have a article which discusses both the views in detail. I agree that the current version of the article is in bad shape, a does not mention all the POVs, but this can be improved. I have added a couple of them. We can improve this article with different views—for and against—and then we can summarize the issues in the main article. I think we can also decide upon a better title.--TheMandarin (talk) 13:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main article is really short and the addition of more Info (referenced) can improve the quality of the article--NotedGrant Talk 14:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Lingam A new article on the same topic gives undue importance to a non significant pov (at least not as significant as the main article) The article should be cleaned up of the quote farm and merged with the original article in a new section.--NotedGrant Talk 15:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Lingam. Simply does not seem to be enough here to justify new article. If main article gets too big, then we can fork.TheRingess (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Lingam. A textbook example of a content fork. Unlike the academic study of Hinduism, Wikipedia is not censored in line with Victorian sensibilities. Actually it is becoming so, but according to Wikipedia policy and basic ethical standards, it shouldn't be. — goethean ॐ 14:27, 12 February 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. JForget 02:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Misogyny in hip hop culture[edit]

Misogyny in hip hop culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Though this is sourced, it is still an essay-like piece (see WP:NOT.) Also, this piece isn't objective or balanced; it would require a fundamental rewrite in order to be encyclopedic. WordyGirl90 16:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I need to admit that I, too, believe this is a very worthy topic, but that one of the reasons I brought it to AfD was to bring a bad article to community attention. I'm a little daunted at the task of taking on a re-write myself. WordyGirl90 22:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is certainly a valid topic for an encyclopaedia article – much has been written about it in reputable sources, some of which we have included. Although I take the nominators point that the article may require a fundamental rewrite, I do not agree with the premise that the encyclopedia would benefit from the removal of the problematic material. At the extreme, stubbing to a line or two with the references would still be a better outcome than deletion.  Skomorokh  17:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article as it stands reads like an essay and not as a valid encyclopedia article. Remove from mainspace and rewrite.--WaltCip (talk) 17:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why not do the rewriting in mainspace, isn't that the whole point of Wikipedia? It's not so outrageously offensive that it needs to be removed, like if it was an advert or something. --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Needs some vigorous editing, but that's no reason to delete.--Pontificalibus (talk) 17:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. It is well documented, but it uses relatively few sources. I'd be much more comfortable with a wider variety of sources for a topic like this. It has a WP:SYNTH feel to it, but I can't really get to the point of calling it synth. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Skomorokh, as this is a suitable topic for any encyclopedia. RFerreira (talk) 23:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, good topic, the subject of much discussion in the media over the years. Everyking (talk) 08:18, 12 February 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) 12:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AmIRC[edit]

AmIRC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Non notable software which fails GNG. JBsupreme (talk) 22:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is this GNG you speak of? Edward Vielmetti (talk) 23:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG. Joe Chill (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 02:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sources presented for notability. Miami33139 (talk) 02:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Given the scarcity of sources about Amiga software, I'm inclined to think that having a page in this book should be enough. Also included in a guide on Amiga software here OSNews. Pcap ping 04:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clicking on Google book search at the top of the AFD, I find 628 results. Its mentioned in that many books, so surely it must be notable. Otherwise they wouldn't talk about it, or use it in comparison to others that came afterward. Dream Focus 10:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong You are including the results for "Antibody-Mediated Induction of Resistance to Cytotoxicity (AMIRC)", genes for AMIde ResistanCe, Amirc Palace and the person's name "Amirc" amongst other uses of AMIRC. A more realistic search on google books yields 2 results --Pontificalibus (talk) 19:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is X-chat even notable itself? --Pontificalibus (talk) 11:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Skomorokh  16:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no real source to establish notability 16x9 (talk) 04:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable as no significant coverage, none of the "keep" arguments are convincing.--Pontificalibus (talk) 11:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 02:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Woodlock family[edit]

Woodlock family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Extremely long article with one reference that is offline (a book). —  Cargoking  talk  15:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete because it is just a collection of data about people who happen to be related to each other. The family itself, unlike a few others in history, does not seem to be notable. Steve Dufour (talk) 21:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but it needs tidying. I see lots of links on google just for the bould Torsten utlag. It reminds me of Durrus and District History Modern, which has had similar issues for years but is not slated for deletion.Red Hurley (talk) 14:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What links? I can't see anything significant. I also can't find anything to suggest the family itself is notable (as this are the subject of the article, they should be notable as an entity). Regardless of that, how do you propose addressing the copyright concerns raised above other than by deleting all the content? --Pontificalibus (talk) 14:44, 9 February 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 snowball keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Gambetta[edit]

Diego Gambetta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability reasons previously raised several months ago, yet not addressed, or even edited, since SausageLady (talk) 15:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did make a mistake. The top two cites I gave referred to somebody else's publications and h index comes to 24. But the case still stands. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. I too would take it for granted that anyone who is a full professor at Oxford has to be a notable scholar. I am getting slightly smaller citation numbers in GScholar than those mentioned by Xxanthippe (1372, 1367, 586,...), but these are still very high numbers, especially for a scholar in humanities. Also, he is an elected Fellow of the British Academy. So clearly passes citeria 1 and 3 of WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 00:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, pretty significant coverage in traditional newsmedia, 126 hits in GoogleNews[14]. The article could use the attention of an expert, though, and some clean-up for neutrality of language and tone. Nsk92 (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per Nsk92 (Speedy would be fine too). LotLE×talk 19:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and beg the closing admin to admonish the good nominator to familiarize with WP:BEFORE. RayTalk 05:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely keep. No question of notability. MiRroar (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nsk92, looks fine. JBsupreme (talk) 06:38, 10 February 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, technically speaking. Actually there does appear to be a consensus here (albeit not of the standard keep/delete/merge variety) which breaks down as follows: 1) The article, and therefore the info within, should not be deleted at this time; 2) Clearly there are problems with the article, e.g. pertaining to the title, NPOV, reliability of information, etc.; 3) With respect to number two, "the issue should be resolved through the normal editing process," as Black Falcon put it. There are multiple (conflicting) ideas about how to go about number three, so that should be discussed on the article talk page. A couple days of effort there from most of the people here will probably take care of most of the concerns. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of YouTube[edit]

Criticism of YouTube (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article devoted solely to the bad things about YouTube, which runs counter to our NPOV policies, as all articles must not be solely devoted to one viewpoint. This is the crux here: a valid summary style article would contain both criticism and praise of YouTube; neither is really in short supply. Unlike Social impact of YouTube, which at least tries to be neutral, this article is not, will not be, and fundamentally can not be because, as YouTube is not an artistic work in itself, the default definition of "criticism" implicitly restricts the content of the article to be negative. Additionally, the criticism itself is not notable; this is just a laundry list of poorly sourced criticisms that aren't really about YouTube, but about What People Do On The Internet That's Actually Against The Terms Of Service But News Services Be Damned To Make The Distinction (which is a problem with most "Criticism of Web 2.0 sites" article). The only section of the article that I can see containing merit is about copyright: both infringement and false claims thereof; which should be preferably split out to something like Copyright on YouTube or Copyright on the Internet. Sceptre (talk) 14:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Then why isn't Criticism of Wikipedia, Criticism of Wal-Mart, and the Criticism of the War on Terrorism deleted? This is just the strangest nomination... smithers - talk 16:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"What about article X?" is not a good argument. It's not even an argument. The odds are, they haven't been nominated for deletion. And, the truth is, even if they were nominated, they'd probably get kept because "omggz itz notabul!" And there's nothing strange about enforcing NPOV. Sceptre (talk) 16:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Article devoted solely to the bad things about YouTube..." I would never of guessed that an article titled Criticism of YouTube would only focus on the negative side of things. Lugnuts (talk) 17:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See, that's the point. Your statement only strengthens the rationale for deletion, as no article subject will be looked on entirely negatively. I mean, Mussolini made the trains run on time. That's one good thing about Mussolini, you see? Sceptre (talk) 17:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Except he didn't make them run on time... ;-) Lugnuts (talk) 18:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually wondering which episode it was from while I was typing it. The point is, even the most evil men in history have done something good. Hitler helped create the autobahns and the Volkswagen. Saddam Hussein had one of the most LGBT-friendly governments in the Middle East (after Israel). Hell, Mussolini did improve Italy's infrastructure. It's practically impossible for anything that exists to be viewed negatively, so criticism articles should therefore not exist for the most part. Sceptre (talk) 18:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of a 'Criticism' article doestn' not oligical state that there are no positive aspects to the entity being criticised. Your rationale for deleetion of this article is completely flawed. Vexorg (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But by making an article about solely negative aspects, you're implying that the negative aspects are more important than the positive aspects. We are therefore not "representing all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias". Sceptre (talk) 18:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Smithers7 - Meta-arguing by the nominator presents no policy-based reasons for deletion, apart from citing an essay.--WaltCip (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, NPOV isn't a policy? When did this happen? Sceptre (talk) 17:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV doesn't apply here. This is a content fork to keep the main article from being too large.--WaltCip (talk) 17:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. NPOV applies to every article. From Wikipedia:Content forking:

Any daughter article that deals with opinions about the subject of parent article must include suitably-weighted positive and negative opinions, and/or rebuttals, if available, and the original article should contain a neutral summary of the split article.

This article contains no positive opinions about YouTube; therefore it is not a legitimate content fork. Sceptre (talk) 17:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you expect an article called Criticism of YouTube to contain positive opinions on Youtube? That's absurd :) :) Vexorg (talk) 18:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's an article. If an article cannot be neutral, it should not exist. Sceptre (talk) 18:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article is neutral. It's neutral in portraying the criticisms of Youtube. Vexorg (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please show that criticism of YouTube is notable, then. Sceptre (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inherently non-neutral, the same as most of the other Criticism of.... articles. CIreland (talk) 18:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - The nominator is not understanding the NPOV policies. The NPOV policy is about the article itself and not the content of the article. If criticisms of a body or person is notable then as long as those criticisms are not portrayed in a biased way then it doesn't contravene NPOV. I agree with WaltCip Vexorg (talk) 18:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's the point: "criticism of YouTube" is not notable. This is a list of criticisms, yes, but the concept of criticism of YouTube is not notable in itself. Imagine if we listed an article called Criticism of Barack Obama (we did, briefly for about thirteen hours, last March), in a "neutral voice", all of the criticism of him for being a socialist communist fascist Muslim Kenyan who hasn't shown his birth certificate. Would that contravene NPOV? Yes. Because there's just as much praise for Obama for being a good orator, for being more down to earth, for compassion, but that wouldn't get in said article. The subject of our "Criticism of Barack Obama" article isn't the criticism itself; the subject is Obama. Now, think about YouTube: sure people are cocks on YouTube, but the website at the same time has allowed many people to get their fifteen minutes of fame, makes watching videos on the internet much easier, so where is this praise? It isn't there. Sceptre (talk) 18:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "Critiques of YouTube". Then add positive critique as well. Kate (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well sourced article, notable. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 22:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please show that the concept of criticism of YouTube is notable. Sceptre (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[15], [16] are just two of the many WP:RSs cited. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 22:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just aggregating what politicians have said in the legislature doesn't make it notable. That's one of the major functions of the news media. The concept isn't notable at all; this is just a laundry list of criticisms that are not-notable. Sceptre (talk) 23:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Show that they are not notable versus the many WP:RSs in the article. Vexorg (talk) 00:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring for a second that the burden of proof is on the one seeking to include content, content is notable if:

a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject

Sources. Plural. Sceptre (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And there are many reliable plural sources cited in this article. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 03:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are plural sources, yes. But not plural sources for each criticism. Ergo, each criticism is non-notable. Sceptre (talk) 04:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why they are all in one article. Each criticism has at least 5 sources, though some aren't reliable. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 17:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As far as I can tell, the existence of "Criticism of..." sections is generally dealt with on a case by case basis: Wikipedia:Criticism, Wikipedia:Content forking, WP:CRITS etc. Most of the delete comments here appear to be about these sections in general (NPOV for example), and therefore fail to address this case specifically, as simply being a "Criticism of" section does not automatically mean the article is necessarily a candidate for deletion [17]. The article could (like any article of this type) be seen as a POV fork, but if properly dealt with (including arguments against the criticisms for example), then that in itself does not seem too problematic to me. The content on the page seems extremely well referenced, and there is far too much of it to be realistically incorporated into the Youtube article. Jhbuk (talk) 00:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The referencing is terrible; quite a lot of it's to blogs or YT channels/videos. The sourcing isn't the problem though; neutrality's the problem: there's no rebuttals of the criticism, except in the copyright section, and it's not really criticising the service; it's criticising the users of the service; I mean, even in the copyright section, no point is made about the fact that ten hours of video are uploaded every minute so they really can't screen content (and when TOU violations are pointed out, they're often removed quickly). Sceptre (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it might not appear particularly good now, it doesn't mean it never will be. AfD is really about whether the article could become a satisfactory article; if it could be improved to be one, without having to be fundamentally rewritten (there still seems to be a substantial amount of useable information there, and the article should therefore be salvageable) then it should surely be tagged for rescue first. Admittedly, some of the references come from fairly poor sources, but you can't ignore the newspapers and places like CNN and the BBC. I don't know enough about the topic to make a decision about completeness etc, but even if it isn't a satisfactory article now, as I mentioned, why can't an article called "Criticism of Youtube" exist, even if it may have to be different to its present form? Jhbuk (talk) 00:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the article could become satisfactory. I didn't mention the sourcing as I'm well aware that badly sourcing is not AFDable in itself. I don't think the article can ever exist because of its title: if an article is named "Criticism of X", where X is not an artistic work, then the default meaning will remove any hope of neutrality because it explicitly only focuses on the negative aspects of X while completely ignoring the positive aspects; whether the negative aspects of X outnumber the positive aspects is irrelevant, as the total set of aspects should not be split into two and one given preferential treatment. Editorial attitudes on Wikipedia also preclude any attempt of neutralising such an article—as this AfD sadly shows once again—because the "it's notable, therefore it must be covered" viewpoint (even if the "it" is not notable) and removal of positive aspects, and sometimes even rebuttals, from criticism articles is endemic. Sceptre (talk) 00:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can see where you're coming from (which is why I went for a comment instead of a !vote), but there is nothing I've seen in policy that absolutely forbids such articles, and as a result, we find ourselves back at smithers7's point again. This is a criticism of policy in not banning these articles more than a specific criticism of this one, as the WP' policy makers' do not appear to share the view that such articles cannot abide by NPOV, by definition. I think that you should go to the village pump. Your main criticism is about all of these articles, and it is not specific to this one. If this article is deleted, then they all should be, if this is the primary argument, unless you can make it specific to YouTube. Jhbuk (talk) 01:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is prohibited in policy under a general prohibition of content forks, here. Sceptre (talk) 01:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about this and in particular WP:Content forking, which states that "There is currently no consensus whether a "Criticism of..." article is always a POV fork, but many criticism articles nevertheless suffer from POV problems." WP:NPOV#Point of view (POV) and content forks mentions only POV forks, but it cannot therefore automatically equate "Criticism of" articles as them, due to the WP:Content forking guideline. Jhbuk (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep: all of the criticisms of YouTube, including the YouTube Channels 2.0, have some notability involved.--It's my Junior year in High School! (talk) 00:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)Chris[reply]
    Wrong. There's no criticism in the sources given for YT2.0. Sceptre (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Complaint: the nominator for the deletion of this article, Sceptre, is taking an axe to the article in order to boost his/her argument for deletion Vexorg (talk) 00:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I'm taking an axe to the article because a lot of the article contains poor sourcing. Big difference there. Sceptre (talk) 00:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Poorly sourced in YOUR OPINION. Why are you so heavily editing an article you want deleted? Just get on with it, you seem to be on a hypnotic mission at the moment. I won't be edit warring with you while you are on your rampage. Vexorg (talk) 00:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Poorly sourced in any sane person's opinion. I mean, really, are websites that fully embrace trutherism and blame the Haiti earthquake on oil drilling reliable sources in anyone's book? Sceptre (talk) 00:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above arguments. --Ixfd64 (talk) 01:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Per what arguments? The absolutely specious ones that I proverbially threw over a barrel and raped? Sceptre (talk) 01:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No the arguements that are genuine and are virgins. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 03:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just because an article is about criticism doesn't mean it's POV. We just have to show the sources in a fair light. POV would be say to say things like YouTube is Google's latest step in its quest to achieve total control of the content of the Web and destroy all of its competitors sourced to a news item that in an NPOV article would only be used to say something like Many critics of Google have pointed out that YouTube controls most of the online video industry and that Google's acquisition of it may have negative consequences for its competitors. I'd say the same thing if someone tried to delete the Nazi article by saying it was biased against Nazis. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 01:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    See what I said to Lugnuts: we're okay with criticism of something in an article. What we're not okay with is an article pretending that everything about the subject is bad. With your Nazi example, it's like apples and oranges: with the Nazis, we say the Nazis were bad, but in a historical voice and good quality sources that doesn't say they're outright evil; hell, the Hitler article says that for all the bad stuff he did, he at least improved German infrastructure a hell of a lot. With this article, it's gossipy, recentist, and just focuses entirely about the bad things about YouTube without ever focusing on the responses to the criticism or focusing on the good parts (except for some parts of the copyright section, which I think should be spun out once we get rid of this article). Sceptre (talk) 01:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sceptre above: "...it's gossipy, recentist, and just focuses entirely about the bad things about YouTube without ever focusing on the responses to the criticism...": This sounds to me like a mini-peer review pointing to areas that need improvement, rather than criteria for deletion. Sensei48 (talk) 02:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is important information here - a very good precis of copyright issues that go far beyond YT but for which YT is the current flashpoint. It's too detailed to fold into the YT article, though it needs more sourcing. The title is problematic, IMHO, as it is for all of the other "criticism of" articles referenced above. Those titles are puerile and un-encyclopedic. This one might better be titled with ref. to YT and copyright issues, which is after all the bulk of the article. Sensei48 (talk) 01:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and Reorganize Content. As it is right now, the article reads like a POV fork, which violates WP:NPOV. Now, this is mainly due to the last two sections. There's a trick here. If this article was specifically targetted to discussion YouTube and Copyright (including both what steps it takes including the audio forensics) and criticism of that (how to name it, I don't know), and the other sections moved back to the main article, we're removing the NPOV issue without losing coverage. But keeping those last two sections outside of the main youtube article hurts this article's viabilities. --MASEM (t) 05:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sign-up sheet:
    I can guess where this is going: people scream "has potential!" and "can be improved!" - and once the deal is over, we all go home, and nobody's gonna do anything. Please sign up below and pledge you will actually clean up this mess. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. TheWeakWilled (T * G)
  2. <your name>
  3. <your name>
  4. <your name>
  5. <your name>
  6. <your name>
    I do not want to sign this because it would seem to be that to do so would be to endorse the idea this article should only be kept if it is massively re-written, which is not what I mean with my !vote. I think the article is good as it is. Of course it can be improved, but my keep !vote is not contingent on any major changes to the article promised to happen in the future; nor are any of my other keep !votes on any other AfD. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 22:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
that's fine. :) I, however, do think that it needs to be completely re-written, and am curious to know who would do so before casting some sorta !vote (if at all) Here's why: I won't vote keep 'cause I not for sure that I am definitely not the one who's gonna spend any time on this, but I won't vote delete before I am certain no-one else will improve this mess. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but needs quite a bit of work. As stated above, many of the problems could be fixed with some work. Agree that parts of the article are rather sloppy at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE per nom, and as an uninvolved third party to countless of this kind of article, my view is that it is totally non-encyclopedic and serves no meaningful purpose, at all. Please take your time and honestly answer to the questionnaires below:

Q1: Does it actually improve Wikipedia?
A1: No.
Q2: Does it further the cause of Wikipedia being a free online Encyclopedia? (particular emphasis being on the definition of Encyclopedia!)
A2: No.
Q3: Does the existence of this article conform to the list of deleted other uncyclopedic contents such as List of cities by the sea/List of cities by the coast?
A3: Yes.
In fact, another recently deleted template suffered from the same problem → Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2009_December_30#Template:Major_cities_of_Greater_China, and was deleted after a long protracted discussion besides having too much presented "facts" from original researchers and POV pushers. But that's just my 2 cents. --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 08:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This is another of those Wikipedia articles that "just growed" like Topsy. Yes, there is some pruning needed, but there is some well sourced material, particularly on the copyright issue.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pardon me but I beg to differ, this here is a newsy article (yes, it fringes on being WP:NEWS) while the Topsy you've mentioned is a novel, which IMO means that your comparison is way off. --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 09:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, I beg to differ. Don't take it personally if I say this but here goes: "Would you care to sign yourself up on the sign-up sheet further up so that we know of the actual number of people willing to devote their own time to do whatever is required than say... just talk about it, which everybody can do." There's been a lot of cases where a lot of promises was made but no actions were undertaken to fulfilled it, here is another likely sample. Correct me if I'm wrong. --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 12:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Come on Dave, the sign-up game is a silly gimmick. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. Let's debate here, not use stunts found in political campaigns.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't come on me, I wanna know if you would commit to your words otherwise "don't write the check which you can't cash", to coin a phrase. All that I see above are so many people saying "KEEP" but none are willing to take the plunge to commit themselves to that Sign-up sheet to actually improve it or balance the criticisms aspect, which is at the centre of this AfD! Mind you, its easy to create an article on WP but how about maintaining it? Hence, my phrase above. Also, I have started tagging the article with maintenance templates and cleaning ups, what are you actually doing, if I may ask? Still want to talk? Why not silence the critics with our actions and deeds instead? Don't just say "KEEP" for the sake of saying it but what happens after that? There are some situations where you cannot have your cake and still be able to eat it, you know? And this is one of them, period. No offence to you but I don't think you can speak if you haven't taken the questionnaire I cited above. And no, I'm not mad at anyone... just annoyed that there can be irresponsible people who go on doing such things and yet, not even batting an eyelid or think anything of it. --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 14:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a "silly gimmick". I wanna know who's actually gonna do it so we won't have this mess rotting in the corner for months (or years). I see one person signed up as of know. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 21:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Dave, as stated before, Wikipedia debates are not political campaigns. It is a common feature of political campaigns for one of the candidates to hold up a document and say "Would you care to sign this?" I am quite happy to spend some time on a cleanup of Criticism of YouTube. Let's stay on topic here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Why don't we just incubate this article? It would get it out of the mainspace, and would allow people to work on it if they wanted, but it couldn't cause any harm. If nobody worked on it, so what? We haven't lost anything, and there is still a lot of useful information there that could at least be partially incorporated into YouTube related articles. Jhbuk (talk) 19:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I went through to article and (took me an hour) sourced the majority of the article, but didn't get to the last section. Most of the sources listed are reliable. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 19:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete (note that this is not the same as "keep"). I agree with most of what the nominator writes, including the main point that we should not have an article devoted solely to criticisms of YouTube. However, in this case, I believe that the issue should be resolved through the normal editing process (i.e., split or merge appropriate content into other articles, then convert this article into a redirect) since there is valid content and information contained in the article. –Black Falcon (talk) 21:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Orginazations and topics of extreme notability are usually large enough to have a critisism section, if not an entire article. Per how we've dealt in this area in the past, this should be kept. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Enough well-sourced contents to justify a separate article from YouTube#Criticism per WP:SUMMARY. Pcap ping 10:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 10:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a violation of WP:NPOV for the reasons stated by the nominator. Like another commenter above, I find it very unlikely that this will be fixed to be more neutral; "Keep and cleanup" almost never actually works. *** Crotalus *** 16:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • ... You do realize that it's currently being sourced and modified to comply with WP:NPOV (as much as it needs to)?--WaltCip (talk) 16:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The topic is clearly notable and it is certainly possible to discuss criticism in accordance with the NPOV policy. Everyking (talk) 09:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article isn't any different from other "Criticism of" articles, not to mention that the stuff mentioned in the article were heavily criticized by the Youtube users. TuneyLoon 06:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Everyking, Pcap and Coffee. It is common consensus that in such cases, criticism section can be dealt with separate articles. --Cyclopiatalk 03:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back to YouTube. On the face of it it looks like a valid spin-out, but actually once you look closer it's not a super-long article, and much of the content is unnecessary (for example, a long list of copyright infringement complaints that are just minor news items and are written in prose—this could be seriously trimmed or just condensed into a list, it doesn't need to take up so much space). With cleanup it could easily be short enough to fit within the main YouTube article, where it would be (and already is, in fact) an appropriate section.

    On the side, I should also point out that while there is nothing inherently wrong with "Criticism of..." articles, they should have impeccable sources to illustrate that the criticism is really notable. This one, unfortunately, appears to be almost entirely news articles—it's assembling a jigsaw puzzle of criticism out of a lot of little pieces. If the same criticism were processed and analyzed in, for example, a book or journal article, it would be much more valid here. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 18:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • The article was much longer before. Sceptre (who was one of the voices of deletion) deleted most of the content that he stated was unsourced, so that whether or not the article is deleted, his agenda wins out - the original version no longer exists. At this point, yes, it probably could be merged.--WaltCip (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • From a quick look at the history, it seems that Sceptre has deleted sourced information because of dead links; however, if my understanding is correct, this action violates WP:DEADLINK. News sources doesn't cease to be WP:RS only because they're no more on the web. Any comment, Sceptre? --Cyclopiatalk 18:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • DEADLINK doesn't have any procedural force on the encyclopedia; it's merely a suggestion. And as quite a lot of the dead references sourced things related to living people, BLP takes precedence over anything else, policy or guideline. Sceptre (talk) 18:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • It doesn't take precedence over WP:IAR. Have you tried looking on archive.org? TheWeakWilled (T * G) 20:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Actually, it doesn't. And it's not my job to look for replacement sources. Sceptre (talk) 20:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." With a lack of previously cited information, Wikipedia isn't being improved. It isn't my job either, but I can make a reasonable effort to look for sources. If you're going to delete previously sourced material, because of a 404 look on archive before you delete it. It only takes a reasonable effort. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 21:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • It's not my job to. And BLP cannot be ignored because there is never a good reason to ignore it. Sceptre (talk) 06:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Then don't delete the information then. I will be readding the info that was deleted, so other users may look for cites. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 20:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Sorry, that's not how it works. Any content that reinserts the unsourced allegations regarding living people will be reverted as vandalism. Sceptre (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                      • They will be sourced. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 21:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                      • And if said allegations are reinserted with sources, what then?--WaltCip (talk) 21:41, 12 February 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. 15:43, 6 February 2010 Firsfron (talk | contribs) deleted "Midnight Notes Collective" ‎ (A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Midnight Notes Collective) (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight Notes Collective[edit]

Midnight Notes Collective (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Academic group with a website, but no evidence of notability, and no assertion of notability. The only ref or external link is to the collective's own website. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. JForget 02:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I Am Carlos[edit]

I Am Carlos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable unreleased album with little media coverage of substance. Fails WP:NALBUM. TheJazzDalek (talk) 13:06, 6 February 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 here is that this person passes WP:PORNBIO and is eligible for inclusion on that basis. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Stone[edit]

Chris Stone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Gay porn performer. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Delete per WP:PORNSTAR. Armbrust Talk Contribs 13:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is another example of PORNBIO being used overly literally to sweep notable porn stars off Wikipedia. The original intent of PORNBIO was to deal with apparently promotional articles being created for porn actors in minor roles in less than notable productions. In this example Chris Stone was a big star of the 1990s and a search on IAFD shows him credited with over 150 films. Finding reliable sources for gay pornography from the 90s is difficult and relies on reviews of magazines such as Manshots, for which archives or on-line versions are non-existent. As many of his leading film roles were for notable films such as Idol Eyes (GayVN award winner) I propose that interpreting the GNG by the criteria of WP:ENT#1 and WP:ARTIST#3 & #4(c), there is sufficient likely-hood of the article being improved to meet the GNG that it should be kept and marked for improvement in the normal way. PORNBIO does not over-ride every other guideline on notability. Ash (talk) 13:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Update) I have added a reference for him being named as winner of the 1992 GayVN award for Best Sex Scene in the film Scorcher, consequently he meets PORNBIO as well. Ash (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 13:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 13:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Sources provided are either trivial, unreliable or don't mention him. Epbr123 (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you point out which sources do not mention him so they can be checked? Ash (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Although disagree with ASH's comment that Porn actors are being sweep off Wikipedia. This actor meets WP:PORNBIO. The source is at [23] year 1992. ttonyb (talk) 16:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per award satisfying PORNBIO. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from nominator - With the addition of the GayVN award, I'm satisfied that the performer meets WP:PORNBIO, not so sure about WP:GNG, but that often seems to be overlooked if the additional criteria are met. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ash, WP:PORNBIO criteria look to be meet. RFerreira (talk) 23:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per Ash. - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep If Ash is right about the media coverage then listing the issue number and article name/author etc. should be sufficient. Another source is archive.org. It's not necessary that all sources be in print or online, just that attribution is accurate. No doubt this article needs work, but that work isn't going to get done if the entry is deleted. --Stillwaterising (talk) 04:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 02:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mika Midolo[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Mika Midolo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural nomination, was proposed for deletion having been previously contested.

Reason for proposed deletion was: "minor local TV person, does not meet WP:ENT" Taelus (talk) 10:21, 6 February 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 - expansion and referencing mean my reasons for nominating the article for deletion no longer apply. Thryduulf (talk) 16:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shyam Sundar Chakravarthy[edit]

Shyam Sundar Chakravarthy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a one-sentence substub biography that has had no sources since at least September 2008. Excluding all the Wikipedia mirrors and irrelevant lists of names from a Google search [24] verifies that the single statement is true, but does not offer any additional information with which an article could be written. Thryduulf (talk) 10:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I've not notified the author of this discussion as they left the project in 2007. Thryduulf (talk) 10:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have expanded the article with references now. It is a spelling issue - Shyam Sundar Chakravarthi/Shyam Sundar Chakravarty/Shyamsunder Chakravarty are all many variants of the name which garner significant hits in Gbooks.--Sodabottle (talk) 15:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Sodabottle. Shyamsunder (talk) 16:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following Sodabottle's expansion and referencing I am withdrawing this AfD nomination. Given the lack of sources with this spelling it may be better to move the page to a more common spelling, but I'll leave that for others to discuss. Thryduulf (talk) 16:39, 6 February 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 (G10, attack) by Starblind. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 14:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Peanut Butter Man[edit]

The Peanut Butter Man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural nomination, was proposed for deletion after previously being contested.

Reason for proposed deletion was: "This content and subject appears to based on conjecture, and appears to fall under WP:NOT#OR and fails to meet WP:RS and WP:Verifiable. Wikipedia is not a place to publish one's own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information. Wikipedia should not be used for any of the following: Primary (original) research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words.WP:NOT#OR" Taelus (talk) 10:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. JForget 02:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Karan Pratap Singh[edit]

Karan Pratap Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have removed the prod tag to allow more users to take a look at this. The prod rationale by SpacemanSpiff (talk · contribs) is:

A Google News Archive search returns some results, none of which appear related to this person. This article fails Wikipedia:Notability (biographies), Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Cunard (talk) 10:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per my PROD rationale. There's nothing at all in Gnews or Gbooks to confirm anything in the article. The population of Banswara was 85K in 2001, and attendance at this coronation was 750K, that's a lot of travelers; contrast that with attendance at the Pushkar Fair -- 200K. Given the difference in scale one would expect to find way more references than the Pushkar Fair for this, but there aren't any. —SpacemanSpiff 18:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:27, 7 February 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. 15:47, 6 February 2010 Firsfron (talk | contribs) deleted "Fatty fatty boom boom" ‎ (A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fatty fatty boom boom) (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fatty fatty boom boom[edit]

Fatty fatty boom boom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was prodded three days ago, the creator removed the template without making any other edits to the page. I would have nominated this for speedy, but unsure how it would be tagged. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, I'm sure others agree. Many thanks for your views. Jared Preston (talk) 09:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rustaveli cinema[edit]

Rustaveli cinema (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability. References just show it exists not that there is a reason for it to be on Wikipedia noq (talk) 08:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a prestige building at a prestige location, which is why it is discussed in the references. Cinemas of comparable size from that era in the United States or United Kingdom often have their own articles, even though they may have been demolished. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - apparently the nominator has not read the article. The references and the article have more to say about this cinema and the building than just that they exist. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons (talk) 12:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What are the claims to WP:Notability? noq (talk) 13:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. You should withdraw this bad faith nomination, as if your two successive speedy deletion nominations were not already bad enough. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons (talk) 13:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Significant coverage has not been shown - some coverage has. I repeat my original question which you chose to ignore. What are the claims to notability. A claim to coverage is not a claim to notability. What makes this Cinema worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia? What is significant about it? - And that question is not just has somebody written about its existence. Instead of accusing me of bad faith, show why the article should be here. The original speedy nomination resulted in the article being userfied to allow you to do that. You added some details about people involved in the design and construction but still did not show why it should be here. noq (talk) 18:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Really, you nominated the article twice (sic!) for speedy deletion, despite the article having third-party references that clearly showed notability. In fact I could have added at least five more as literally every guide book on Tbilisi thinks that is worth mentioning the Rustaveli cinema, in the context of it being a historic building and being the premier film theater in Tbilisi. And I am only talking about English language references, which are very thin when it comes to Georgia to begin with. No wonder we have dozens of articles on movie theaters in New York or London, but none on Tbilisi. Good job noq for making sure that Wikipedia has everything about Pokemon and every single shack in the US, but next to nothing about countries such as Georgia. If you think that the premier cinema in a historic building on the main boulevard of the national capital has no place on Wikipedia then go on. But then what we would be left with here on Wikipedia would be articles on places and buildings in the US. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons (talk) 19:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sources in the article along with others found by the Google Books and Google News searches linked above amount to significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and, contrary to the nominator's statement above, a claim to such coverage is a claim to our definition of notability, which doesn't depend on any subjective notion of importance. Having said that the cinema is important for its architecture and interior decoration, as well as for being at one time the only functioning cinema in a major city. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Both the cinema and the building which houses it are clearly notable. The cinema is also discussed in the sources retrievable from Google Books [25].--KoberTalk 19:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Philippines–Romania relations[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Philippines–Romania relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

last nomination was definitely a non consensus but was closed as keep by an admin who is now banned from closing bilateral AfDs. this article hinges on 3 sources, no evidence of trade agreements, trade or many heads of state meetings. yes "supported each other's bid for a non-permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council" but this happens regularly between lots of countries. a lack of significant coverage of actual relations [26]. LibStar (talk) 07:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

as stated in my nomination, admin Docu has been banned from closing any bilateral AfDs, the previous one was definitely no consensus. Docu's keep assessment reflected his continual bias in erroneously closing bilateral AfDs. LibStar (talk) 10:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well of course, anyone who disagrees with you must be in error. Dream Focus 05:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:KETTLE on your part. you generally just appear here without actually providing additional sources and vote only 1 way. LibStar (talk) 05:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since the nominator has neglected (apparently intentionally) to notify the participants in previous discussions, I will notify them. I ask the closing Administrator for an extra few days before closing so that those users are given a fair chance to participate.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
anything to save the article? remember the time you didn't notify all AfD participants of the deletion review for Romania-Sri Lanka? LibStar (talk) 05:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You know, I'm glad that Wikipedia keeps track of whether administrators can do their job impartially, and we need to speak out when we see a bias toward inclusionism or exclusionism (I saw one recently who closed a discussion as "no consensus" because a second person had argued "keep"). But I don't see that the administrator's later demotion makes any difference. As noted in the discussion before, the Philippines and Romania seem to consider their relationship important, and they've been working on building ties since 2002, when the Romanian President and a large entourage came to Manila. [[27] They've had a close relationship on the U.N. Security Council, where they worked together to get two of the non-permanent seats. [28]. Romania called on the Philippines to send railroad workers during a labor shortage in 2009, the distance between the two notwithstanding [29]. The Manila press seems to celebrate ties with Romania [30]. Last year, the nominator, LibStar, did a wonderful job in cleaning up the mess that had been left by Groubani in the reckless creation of hundreds of Nation X and Nation Y articles. And folks like Richard Norton and I did a great job in cleaning up those articles that had potential, including this one. To the extent that people have made improvements on a neglected article, I don't see any reason to revisit it. Mandsford (talk) 16:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
supposed cooperating to get a UN seat [31] to me unless various sources can be found is nothing different with hundreds of countries that call other countries to vote for each other in gaining UN seat. better indications are state visits, trade agreements, significant trade etc. LibStar (talk) 10:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Libstar, your personal opinion that votes of UN support aren't as important astrade agreements is not really the point. The fact is that the UN support is documented by an independent third party source. That supports the argument that the subject matter of this article is notable.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 15:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
yes we can verify this, but this act in itself does not constitute notability. Significant coverage is what makes something more notable. LibStar (talk) 00:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This article has more potential and some nice references that will act as a starting point for future expansions. LibStar has indeed done a good job with bi-laterals, not just deleting them but also expanding them. If we put work into these afds then they will grow, I myself have done this for many and its a rewarding endeavor. -Marcusmax(speak) 19:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that. If we're to the point of having reruns on articles that had been improved, that indicates to me that the original goal of the community-- to get rid of myriad stubs that had no prospect of being added to-- has been accomplished. Many people are to be congratulated (Richard A. Norton and Birutorul and Marcusmax and LibStar and myself, to name a few). I regret that this one has been brought back to the table after the successes of 2009. Mandsford (talk) 17:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As I said last time, and will probably repeat six months from now when he nominates it yet again, them supporting each other's seats is worth noting. It got plenty of news coverage, as have other things between the nations. Searching in the native languages of these countries, in major newspapers of their nations, and you can surely find more information about them. Dream Focus 05:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I never nominated this article before. Plenty of news coverage? the article has only 3 sources. do you even read the articles or vote! blindly? in the native languages of these countries, in major newspapers of their nations, and you can surely find more information about them" that is pure presumption on your part, the last nominator of this article is in fact a Romanian speaker. LibStar (talk) 05:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you might want to check out WP:BURDEN one of these days - we rely on published sources that are actually brought to the table, not on speculation of what might be out there (and most likely isn't, given the absurdity of the pairing). And no, procedural maneuvers in the UN aren't substantive proof of notable relations, for which in-depth coverage would be necessary. 146.243.4.157 (talk) 15:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've lost me. How is the pairing absurd? -- Hoary (talk) 00:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because its notability is not immediately apparent through readily-available, substantive coverage. For Romania, such pairings in Asia are limited to China, North Korea, Israel, Turkey, Iran, and perhaps Syria, India and Vietnam. Not the Philippines. 146.243.4.157 (talk) 14:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep easily meets the usual inclusion criterion, WP:N. I see no reason or argument presented why this is an exceptional case that would warrant irregular treatment. WilyD 17:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That tired non-argument again? A lot of such poor articles were deleted, so, no, they don't meet the criteria. --BlueSquadronRaven 17:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The normal, pedestrian interactions of governments aren't notable. That's simply business as usual. The lack of coverage of anything that stands out as notable makes me go with delete. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Direct, detailed coverage of this topic in reliable, independent sources has not been demonstrated. Therefore, it fails WP:N. If no one else is writing about these countries' relations, then neither should we. We are, after all, an encyclopedia. Yilloslime TC 19:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Misrepresenting the facts of the article isn't helpful to the discussion. Please look at the article before offering your opinion. This isn't a vote, so an argument based on a false premise doesn't contribute anything to the discussion. Before closing this discussion, the administrator will look at the article and see that Direct, detailed coverage of this topic in reliable, independent sources has been demonstrated. WilyD 19:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wily, please assume good faith. Of course I've looked at this article closely, and considered all the sources. And of course the closing will do the same. It is my opinion, and one that I stand by, that direct, detailed coverage has not be demonstrated. You are free to disagree. But if there's anything on this page that's not helping the discussion it's your accusations of "misrepresenting the facts" and admonitions to "look at the article before offering ones opinion." The latter jab is particularly infuriating as it comes someone who !voted in 3 bilateral AfDs in 8 minutes. Yilloslime TC 20:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • As has been established, cookie-cutter arguments are allowed by the "keep" side in these arguments, but not the "delete" side, remember? --BlueSquadronRaven 17:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The inherent notability of such articles is backed by the reliable and verifiable sources provided in the article. Alansohn (talk) 23:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3 sources is hardly significant coverage. not all these bilateral relationships are inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
seems like an almost identical standard text argument was also used here and here. LibStar (talk) 00:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds more like a "delete" vote then. 146.243.4.157 (talk) 15:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Er, how do you know that there are no Filipinos living or working in Romania? -- Hoary (talk) 00:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There seems to be no unusualy close ties or co-operations about this relasionsship. At this rate there will be a page on every countries ties with each other country.Slatersteven (talk) 12:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really, in fact we are on a deletion trend. -Marcusmax(speak) 00:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 00:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 00:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Romanian Foreign Affairs Office has a page only about the bilateral relations (i.e. it has no generalities about Philippines.) A start-class article can be written. I've added the 2002 visit of (then) president Ion Iliescu to the article already. Although I don't think this is particularly important, there's a 1992 trade agreement. (The absence of both of these elements was raised by the nominator.) The page also gives a couple of projects built by Romanian companies: the Leyte-Cebu power line, and a cement factory in Iligan, Mindanao. The total figure of Philippine's investments in Romania as of 2007; it's only about $600K. It is rather trivial info, but someone that doesn't understand Romanian would have trouble finding it assuming they cared to read it. I don't promise to work on this article myself, but if someone uses google translate to add all that info, I'll give it a proofreading; I'm ro-N. Pcap ping 00:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Romanian Foreign Ministry has pages on every country with which Romania has relations, so that's no particular sign of notability (especially because the rules call for independent sources). 146.243.4.157 (talk) 14:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep... I !voted delete on the older AfD... The article has improved and sources have been provided now. I do not believe in inherent notability for bilateral relations, but the bar should be fairly low. Gigs (talk) 00:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Given that there are 92 million people in one of the nations and 22 million in the other, the relationship seems peculiarly insubstantial and uninteresting. (I recommend an increased level of sexual activity.) Still, what little there is of it is satisfactorily backed up in this article. ¶ I just love these articles; their leads are so inspirational. Consider: Philippines-Romania relations are foreign relations between the Philippines and Romania. Damn, that's well put; especially when we consider the number of readers who'd otherwise presume that they were kinds of cheese. Is it just my imagination, or is there perhaps a curious echo in that of Holy See-Romania relations are foreign relations between the Holy See and Romania and possibly even of Bosnia and Herzegovina-Romania relations are foreign relations between Romania and Bosnia and Herzegovina? -- Hoary (talk) 00:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The indiscriminate bilateral relations articles were all created by the same banned editor. Gigs (talk) 00:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is not one of the unreasonable ones. There are significant relationships between the two, enough to justify an article. DGG ( talk ) 00:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep well referenced article. My lord, give it a rest already. If admin Docu is not allowed to close bilateral articles anymore, Libstar should not be able to nominate them for deletion anymore (anyone care to open a community ban on ANI suggesting this?). In addition, I have solicited User:Docu whether he wants to pursue an overturn of this ban, User_talk:Docu#Your_name_was_brought_up which was done with 8 editors supporting (libstar included) and 2 opposing, after being open only 16 hours. Yet another example of why community bans are simply mob rule and are not helpful. (PS libstar, no messages on my talk page please, i am all too familiar with your modus operandi)[32] Okip (the new and improved Ikip) 10:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If something "happens regularly between lots of countries", we don't need to write about it? That, and the above points. Keep.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:51, February 11, 2010 (UTC)
It depends what that "something" is. If it's a war, then it's a good idea for us to cover it. If it's the UN matter, then no, that usually passes without being noticed by this encyclopedia, except during silly "rescue" attempts of pointless "articles" like this one on topics no one in the real world has ever noticed exist. 146.243.4.157 (talk) 15:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of things pass without being noticed by this encyclopedia. It doesn't mean all of them should, nor, especially, does it mean that we should delete valid articles for that reason. Furthermore, just because you (I take that's what you mean by "real world") don't care, does not mean no one else will. This AfD is a particularly good illustration of that.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:09, February 11, 2010 (UTC)
What I mean by "real world" is published sources attesting to the notability of this topic as such. For instance, if someone were to contest the notability of Romania – United Kingdom relations, one could easily point to theses ("Romanian-British political relations between 1936 and 1941"; "Romanian-British political relations in 1918-1940"), academic careers and even [books http://www.bcub.ro/continut/noutatipp/mai_soc.php] ("Romanian-British Relations between 1914 and 1924") devoted to the subject. With "Philippines-Romania relations", no such depth of coverage exists. Instead, a few users have thrown in passing mentions of the two countries they happened to find. This cannot substitute for actual, real-world if you will, coverage of a topic. 146.243.4.157 (talk) 16:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This may not be book length but it's surely real world. Enough for a short article. Pcap ping 16:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True, but it's also not independent of the subject (as required by WP:GNG). That the Romanian Foreign Ministry writes about relations with the Philippines (and, I reiterate, every other country) is nice, but it's also their job to do so and they're the ones handling relations. That no one else has bothered to touch the subject is telling. 146.243.4.157 (talk) 17:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The point that I think IP 146... was making--and one that I've tried to make in various ways--is that wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias are tertiary sources. One could certainly (and people do do this all the time on WP) synthesize a treatment of a topic out of primary sources and passing mentions in newspaper articles, but this more akin to writing a research paper than it is writing an encyclopedia. I think many people here don't understand this fundamental distinction. Yilloslime TC 17:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
silly "rescue" attempts of pointless "articles" like this one on topics no one in the real world has ever noticed exist Fighting words! The first half is very much in the traditional rough-and-tumble spirit of AfDs, and doesn't trouble me at all. As for the second half, you puzzle me a little. I'd have inexpertly guessed that a more than infinitesimal percentage of the tens of millions of people in Romania and the tens of millions of people in the Philippines would have noticed the existence of this topic. Very unfortunately I'm not able to communicate in either Romanian or Filipino and thus cannot google. I'm also far from any library with a good reference section in either language. I do realize that a topic such as this is of minuscule interest to right-thinking anglophones compared with, say, Category:Star Trek, but I'd have guessed that somebody in the real world would have noticed that it existed. Am I really deluding myself? (Or have I fallen asleep and woken up amid Idiocracy?) -- Hoary (talk) 03:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:JUSTAVOTE and WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 00:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Still highly lacking as an article in regards to providing information on the topic as a whole. There are no references to sources that examine the topic as a whole and their impact either on the two countries or the rest of the world stage, which is unsurprising as relations seem only to go back fifteen years. What is here is pretty hum-drum and routine information that could just as easily be presented in the two "Foreign Relations of..." articles in the "See also" section. Not a notable relation. --BlueSquadronRaven 17:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First of all, I'll admit my bias: I am an English-speaking American, and I'm deeply offended by the very thought that two countries should have relations between each other without using the US/English as a conduit. Second: When nominating AfDs, I believe an editor should ask him and/or her-self, "Is [target for deletion] a part of the 'sum of human knowledge'". If the answer is "yes", and the article is in poor shape, and the editor cares about the article, then please do some work on it. If the answer is "no", then the editor should perhaps be writing a blog rather than attempting to decrease "the sum of human knowledge". Dekkappai (talk) 04:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
the previous nomination was made by a Romanian speaker who would have made a search in Romanian. English is widely used in the Philippines including official publications. your argument fails to supply any evidence of significant third party coverage as per WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 04:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The previous nominator was also topic banned by the ArbCom from editing anything related to Eastern Europe. Does that mean you're just proxying for a banned user? I hope not. Just because he understands Romanian, it doesn't mean he searched for anything. I found the RO Foreign Office page in about 30 secs, and it was last updated in 2007 (surely it was up during the previous AfD). Only one Romania newspaper, Ziua, has web archives going back to 2000, but it surely covered Iliescu's visit, and so did the Philippine press [33] [34] [35] [36]. There are also guest workers from Philippines in Romania, according to press reports [37] [38] [39] [40]. Romania exports its own workers to the EU (mostly), and imports replacements from East Asia; only a few thousand are from the Philippines tough [41] (3,500 as of 2009). There's also coverage in the Philippine press about this issue [42] [43]. Not sure if this info qualifies for this article though, although the last story mentions some waves in the Philippine Senate “for the protection of the said workers and the improvement of their work conditions therein.” I understand that some editors think that only wars and diplomatic spats are worth including in Wikipedia, while economic relations are boring to them. To each his own. Pcap ping 14:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have no problems with this article. It seems to also have improved quite a bit since the nomination, and now has substantial, useful, well referenced information. Lampman (talk) 08:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I verified that what Lampman wrote above is true. The article is close to a stub, and stubs with verifiable -- and verified -- information, sufficient to show minimal notability, belong in the project as a place to collect further verifiable text as it appears. It's possible that each country article would have an associated page on the foreign relations of that country, but, if so, this stub would become a redirect to a section on one of those pages, but, quite the same, those pages could consist of very short sections for truly minor "relations," plus links to more specific relations stubs or deeper articles, with only very summary data, such as date established. Probably the separate articles should remain, and relations pages started to collect them all in one place also. --Abd (talk) 20:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The topic, text and references are all valid. Effort in this AfD would have been better invested in the improvement of the article. gidonb (talk) 13:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Farouk Ben Mustapha[edit]

Farouk Ben Mustapha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can find no evidence that this player has played in a professional match to meet WP:Athlete and there is no significant coverage from reliable sources that I can find to meet the notability criteria. Prod was removed without comment by page author. I am happy to keep the article if evidence can be shown that WP:Athlete or WP:N are met but otherwise it should be deleted. Camw (talk) 06:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first two sources look very much like a blog/fansite (their about page says "Tunisia-is a site Foot.com nonprofit made by enthusiasts for enthusiasts of Tunisian football") but may just scrape by as a reliable source. The third doesn't constitute significant coverage, all it says is that if other players are injured/ill then he may start a game. Camw (talk) 23:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes wp:athlete. In addition has had call ups as an international. sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 07:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:ATHLETE. Conditions of membership of the Tunisian top league require a club to have a minimum of 16 contracted professionals, see the Tunisia Football Federation website [47], which in my view makes it a fully-professional competition (and I've added it to the list of fully-pro football leagues accordingly). His club play in that league, and Ben Mustapha was in the starting eleven for their latest league match [48]. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Struway2 (talk) 09:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per previous comments. He passes WP:ATHLETE, which is sufficient to merit keeping the article. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep has been called up for a major international tournament. Eldumpo (talk) 20:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 02:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maximum Computers[edit]

Maximum Computers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I originally thought this was a hoax because it had a history that didn't exist, a stock ticker that didn't exist, and claimed that 7 years after 9/11 was 1996... but now the editor has explained that it was actually a fictional company in a series of Youtube skits. We don't have any articles on that youtube skit itself (that I can find).

In the best of worlds we'd merge this into the youtube skit page, but I don't even know if that would qualify as notable. I'm confident that an in-universe aspect of a possibly notable youtube skit is not. Shadowjams (talk) 06:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - as a fictional company with no demonstrable notability. No sources are provided. Searching for sources, the term "Maximum computers" turns up all sorts of stuff, but qualifying it with Bedle and Tuse turns up nothing but the wikipedia page. -- Whpq (talk) 14:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable. Racepacket (talk) 15:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unreferenced, non-notable. --EEMIV (talk) 15:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. no consensus for deletion JForget 02:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arborophilia[edit]

Arborophilia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable play with no WP:RS references to reviews, writer or production. Speedy delete was removed in May 2008. Flowanda | Talk 06:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I'm puzzled why the sources listed are not reliable. In any case, play was aparently reviewed in Detroit News and Detroit Free Press. Check Lexis News/Academic TRATTOOO (talk) 20:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Play by notable playwright at large regional theater, reviewed by multiple WP:RS. Vartanza (talk) 12:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP -- I am (hopefully) writing my thesis on Professor Appel and his works are unquestionable notable. I have photopies of both reviews of this play and a feature, front page article by Barbara Hoover in the Detroit News about they play and Professor Appel's influences in creating it. A lot of people, especially conservatives, don't like Prof. Appel's ideas, but that does not mean that they are not important. I may be biased because I am studying his writings, but at the same time I believe I know much more about his writings than most people. I vote to keep this article as it is! JohnTalaver (talk) 00:13, 13 February 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) 03:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James and q[edit]

James and q (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be WP:OR on an obscure religious topic. The image of footballers it includes, File:Pic2.jpg, appears to have been used by the article author for a copyvio scan from a book (this has since been reverted), which indicates the text may also be a copyvio.  Sandstein  06:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as original research. JIP | Talk 07:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the existing articles Q document and Gospel of James. The article depends heavily on a single reference, but that doesn't necessarily make the article original research. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the article as it stands now is essentially an essay, it appears that at least one book has been written on the topic. Given the overpopulated nature of the field, though, I doubt that that's really enough literature to demonstrate notability. If there are other sources that demonstrate notability of this concept, then stubbify and keep. Otherwise, Delete it. Jclemens (talk) 18:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or merge into Two-source hypothesis - Q document and Gospel of James already have articles, and this reads like an essay taken from a single source supporting the Two-source hypothesis. There are also articles for Gospel harmony, Synoptic Gospels, and Common Sayings Source, among others, which deal with the similarities between the 3 synoptic gospels, and are much better sourced than this one. Joshua Scott (talk) 01:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I can't help being reminded about these two... =) JIP | Talk 20:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I am far from sure that this article is about the "Infancy Gospel of James", which is the subject of the article Gospel of James. If I am right, then we need an article on the "James" to which this article refers. The Q document is a legitimate (and well-known) artefact of textual criticism, and rightly has an article. However this article is about an academic's synthesis created following his editing "James", clearly a work of pseudigraphy, which is much better left as an academic article. It is notable that all the sources are from the same article. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Peterkingiron. This topic is well covered elsewhere, as noted. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Phil Gordon. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Gordon's Little Green Book[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Phil Gordon's Little Green Book (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication that the individual book is notable. Suggest a redirect to the poker player's page.

It's one of dozens of poker books. Tellingly, the other color books of Phil Gordon don't have pages, which is indicative of the fact that a series of poker books by poker players aren't independently notable unless they've reached a stand-alone status, such as Super System Shadowjams (talk) 05:54, 6 February 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 Miss Earth United States. JForget 02:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Earth Florida[edit]

Miss Earth Florida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod denied. There are, however, no reliable sources to be found: this is a non-notable contest. See this search in Google News. Drmies (talk) 05:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Nothing beyond minor articles in a small local newspaper, this pagent just hasn't received the significant coverage notability guidelines dictate. Zero Google news hits. Google web hits are either primary sources from the pagent promoting itself or of simlarly questionable reliability. Perhaps redirection to Miss Earth would be appropriate. RadioFan (talk) 12:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, when and if evidence of notability is available, but not until, can be re-expanded from a redir. Otherwise delete. DES (talk) 14:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Miss Earth United States, the pageant that this pageant's winner competes in, which itself is of doubtful notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Redirect to the national Miss Earth United States competition article.--Richie Campbell (talk) 19:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would not oppose a redirect, with the caveat outlined by Metropolitan, above. We do need to make sure that the linkfarm is left behind, and that the unencyclopedic material is removed--I just removed, again, the list of requirements, which is entirely inappropriate in a WP article. Drmies (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Piwko, for a deletion discussion of a previous winner of this competition. Drmies (talk) 19:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Drmies and I have removed unreliable sources of the article. The following are reliable sources which may support the Miss Earth Florida article. It can be verified through google news search or by following the links:
    • "Pageant promotes Earth" by the Central Florida Future of the University of Central Florida: See Here
    • "Pageant helps woman promote her respect for environment" by Palm Beach Post; Google news search using "Lauren Hall Miss Earth Florida United States Beauty Pageant": See Here It's a Pay-Per-View, here's part of the article: See Here
    • "UF grad to represent state in Miss Earth pageant" by the Gainesville Sun:See Here--Richie Campbell (talk) 20:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - who cares about sources when it doesn't even qualify for an article! :-P Kayau Don't be too CNN I'LL DO MY JOB uprising! uprising! 11:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 02:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Missouri Facts and Symbols[edit]

Missouri Facts and Symbols (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't see any indication that this book is notable. Shadowjams (talk) 05:42, 6 February 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. Jayjg (talk) 06:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandra Wasowicz[edit]

Aleksandra Wasowicz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about an academic of unknown (probably minor) notability. The only "sources" it has is a list of her own writings, but the publication record is not such that it would automatically mark her as passing WP:PROF. No sourcing about anything biographical: work affiliation, career, etc. Nothing about the reception of her work, no coverage in third-party sources. Was tagged as blp-prod, but unprodded on the (specious) argument that the listing of her works in itself constitutes sourcing. It doesn't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This article was previously nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexandra Voskowitz. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 22:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 02:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 02:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • GS cites are 24, 17, 11, 9, 7, 5 ... h index = 5 so does not pass WP:Prof #1 by today's standards although her publications are rather old and citations may not be fully reflected in GS. Looks like DeleteKeep if member of Polish Academy of Scientists. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Weak keep, GS is almost totally irrelevant for a Polish archeologist publishing in the 1960s entirely in in other languages than English . That at least one of her books is found in many WorldCat libraries indicates that she is possibly an authority in her subject. DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep changed to weak delete - I've accidentaly seen this entry on the WikiProject Poland page. She wrote at least two books - confirmed by Polish National Library catalogues: [51]. All the books were published by Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich - a major Polish publishing house. For a Polish scientist publishing books in Ossolineum or PWN is an obvious sign of high notability. Obviously apart of these books she had to write many articles... Laforgue (talk) 03:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC) She was also a member of Polish Academy of Science ([52] - here one can find also some simple information about her accademic career), to which belong only the most important professors. I'll try to find some additional details about her in the libraries, but in a two or three weeks (we have now winter vacations in Poland). Laforgue (talk) 03:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question: can you verify that she is in fact an elected member of the Academy, in a sense comparable to being a member of the Royal Society or the French Academy of Sciences (i.e. an honorary title conferred to academics of leading status), or just a researcher employed in a research institute run by the Academy? As for book production, I would disagree two books is a sign of notability. For a professor in the humanities, two books is the absolute minimum to give them any professional standing at all, nothing beyond that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Seems true: Google translates it here. There are only nine hits for archeologist members of the Academy "Członek Polska Akademia Nauk" archeologia site:nauka-polska.pl, and one is deceased. Searching without "Członek Polska Akademia Nauk" reveals 22 professors, and searching without the "prof" reveals ~100 researchers. Abductive (reasoning) 00:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've consultated this case with the best author of biographical articles on pl-wiki (he has access to many Polish biographival dictonnaries). I thought that finding sources won't be very hard, but the person I've asked for help thinks that "professor Wąsowicz apparently avoids invitations to books like who's-who". Now I'm nearly sure that findning sources won't be possible, though I'll try to find something in one or two weeks... But I still think that her reaserch on the Black Sea Greek colonies is quite important. Laforgue (talk) 12:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 04:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While it is borderline, I'll keep based on Abductive's findings, and the fact that older foreign language sources may be difficult to find online. Wine Guy~Talk 02:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 14:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mate1.com[edit]

Mate1.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable website Orange Mike | Talk 03:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment was posted by a single purpose account which has done no editing not related to Mate1. Many of this account's edits consist of adding promotional links relating to Mate1 to other articles. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]
  • Comment The first of the two "scholarly articles" cited above contains a table table showing numbers of visits to various dating sites. It shows us that Mate1.com received 2354 visitors in an unspecified period: that is the only mention of Mate1.com. (Presumably to find what period is covered one would have to check the original source from which the table is copied, namely comScore Media Metrix.) Incidentally calling this a "scholarly article" seems somewhat odd: it is in a quite ordinary, non-academic magazine. Now for the second "scholarly article" (which is genuinely scholarly). That article uses an example to illustrate a method described in the article. For the purpose of that illustrative example it uses a list of 20 web sites. This time we are not even told any statistic about Mate1.com, such as number of site visitors: all we are told is that the authors of the article chose to include it in a list of 20 which were used for illustration. There is no other mention of Mate1.com in the article, apart from its appearance in this list. Frankly, if these two links are given as evidence that Mate1.com has received substantial coverage, then the situation must be fairly desperate. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Definitely needs work and more references, but I think it's a keep. --Adrian Archer (talk) 15:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable site; article appears to be strictly promotional in nature. --mhking (talk) 19:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As creator of this article I recognize that it is not meeting the criteria for approval by Wikipedia. I would like to nominate the article for deletion in recognition of the importance of the high standards that Wikipedia maintains. How may I request the article is up for speedy deletion? Please excuse me for any inconveniences that I may have caused and thank you for helping me with the article thus far. I appreciate all of the effort. I hope to continue to contribute to Wikipedia in the future. Thank you once again. --JannTomaro —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.90.181.2 (talk) 21:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: In this edit JannTomaro confirms the/she was indeed the author of the above comment, despite the lack of a logged-in signature. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:42, 12 February 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 CTJF83 chat 21:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Die Antwoord[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Die Antwoord (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Keep keep it. its real. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.90.86.53 (talk) 20:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC) Non-notable bandspam. Orange Mike | Talk 03:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Seems like I'm not completely off the wiki-planet after all... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability was established pretty thoroughly in the last AFD debate. Just because you have not heard of something or do not appreciate its significance does not mean that it is not notable. Does the article need a lot of work? Definitely. But articles that need work should be tagged appropriately (which it has been), not deleted. Wikipedia is a work in progress, and if every article that were inadequately sourced were deleted, few quality articles would ever be written. -zorblek (talk) 09:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super Keep!* - These guys are blowing up all around the internet, live as we speak. The act's constituents are all well known from previous South African entertainment incarnations. As a group, Die Antwoord now has several top-end, television quality music videos under their belts as well as a CD released on a decent label. They are known and beloved throughout much of the Commonwealth Empire and the English-speaking world... P.S. I am annoyed that YESTERDAY'S deletion discussion was invalidated only to have this new one appear immediately thereafter. The consensus on yesterday's deletion was heavy on the keep side. I just spent an hour tuning the article up to higher Wikipedia standards. Would somebody with authority please declare the matter closed with a KEEP so that we may move on? Thanks. --AStanhope (talk) 16:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. —zorblek (talk) 12:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Die Antwoord has enough Google results that they pass a basic sniff test for notability. Half a million Youtube views (for three videos) in 72 hours makes them no less notable than internet memes that have their own Wikipedia entry. 74.248.71.72 (talk) 10:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable in its country and on the way to be a worldwide hit.  Grue  10:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable SA band, and currently being promoted by rest of world via celebs (eg. http://twitter.com/serafinowicz/status/8718180195). Jamsta (talk) 11:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The band is definitely notable. By the way what is the reason for the second nomination? What has changed since the first one to require a new one?Nedril (talk) 23:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep how are they not notable? They're all over the web. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr zoidberg590 (talk • contribs) 00:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above. -ClockworkLunch (talk) 00:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Was looking for information on them a few days ago on wiki, found nothing. They exist, and obviously aren't going anywhere, like it or not, they should be on wikipedia.
  • Strong Keep They are very notable —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.228.220.243 (talk) 14:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Surely we can do better than simply saying "not notable" or "very notable", full stop - policy and sources are what count? Anyway, both Reuters and Pitchfork have items on them now, as well as the various South African ones already noted. The Reuters one is currently being used in the article. I don't think we'd be quite as hard on this if it was the latest project that had been put together by established British or American musicians/artists, and which was getting this level of coverage - even if some of it is simply blog/general internet hype etc, which may of course pass in a week's time. --Nickhh (talk) 20:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep A few weeks ago, it wouldn't have made sense to keep this article. However, recently they have exploded online and probably aren't going anywhere for a while. I would even say they're notable in the US considering the coverage in American blogs. treyjp (talk) 21:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "DEFINITE KEEP" - This is a valid and soon-to-be-bigger phenomenon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winston.F.Armstrong (talk • contribs) 22:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep!* - They're becoming huge, the videos are part of a viral campaign by the record company. Webhat (talk) 22:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think there's a surge of interest in them. I mentioned them to my South African friend who says they are "vile" but that there is much discussion among South Africans recently about their cultural significance. DanielM (talk) 23:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Keep"* If they have made it all the way from SA to western Kansas, then they deserve an article.

--hacky (talk) 05:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep They have just been featured on BoingBoing, Times Live, New York Magazine and Washington Post, need to say more? --Classic1010 (talk) 05:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep They have made the front page of Sunday Times and have been interviewed with news24 [53] --FNC (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Strong Keep Also featured by the NY Times: [54] Mrsid (talk) 14:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above. -SeanBotha —Preceding undated comment added 14:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Strong Keep if we delete this, what should we leave here? --KGyST (talk) 16:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Featured on today's online version of the Corriere della Sera newspaper (Italy) and becoming a worldwide phenomenon. Redgolpe (talk) 11:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep definitely notable, one recommendation though would be to improve the quality of the references, they let down the notability of the subject DRosin (talk) 13:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep There are already 4 references, and a quick Googling yeilds almost 800,000 hits, some of which appear to be reliable--such as the New York Times (in cases like this where obviously notable references weren't provided, a deletion nomination is just a lazy editor's way of getting out of doing research). On a side note, the seemingly common kneejerk deletion of non-USAian band articles strikes me as cultural bias. But I digress. Besides, given that this thing's going around Facebook like wildfire, no doubt the deletion nom will fail WP:Snowball in about fifteen minutes. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 14:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 02:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geomajas[edit]

Geomajas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

New open-source software with no indication of notability; I find no references in the news or other reliable sources. There seems to be a small amount of coverage in blogs, such as here, and a few press releases, but that's about it. My PROD was removed without comment.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 02:07, 6 February 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) 12:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Duckmandu[edit]

Duckmandu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnotable performer. Even the provided references link to either unreliable sources or very trivial mentions. Fails the guidelines for inclusion by a long margin Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 20:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep - mostly because i prepared most of the keepable parts of the article, however he was always going to be on the edge of independent notability. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 03:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per rocksanddirt. Chutznik (talk) 02:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you show which references you believe demonstrates the subjects notability? Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 02:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable and one of the sources is "personal communication!!" MiRroar (talk) 18:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  06:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've found a couple of passing mentions, a couple of completely trivial mentions, and this article, in which he is only described together with his co-composer as "Seeman/Spigelbaum." I can't conclude that Duckmandu has been the "subject of multiple non-trivial published works," or otherwise that he meets WP:MUSICBIO.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 11:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not appear to pass WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only third party RS are for one production that lasted two nights. the Monsters of Accordion tour in a local paper (as are the other two), no national coverage. However if better sources are found this would change.Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 14:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 02:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Postgenre[edit]

Postgenre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable, poorly defined, and probably at least partially WP:MADEUP plenty of hits on the term but with no real definition it's more of a neologism. Ridernyc (talk) 01:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, WP:NEOLOGISM. And there really aren't "plenty of hits" on the term, only 173, of which quite a few are Wikipedia mirrors, things that have nothing to do with the concept this article describes, etc. Book results, like this one, seem generally to use "postgenre" not as some specific concept, but only to mean "after (some genre that was being discussed)." Results like this and this do seem like they might support the article. However, it is not clear that these authors are talking about the same thing; to the extent they may be, the concept is very ill-defined; and notwithstanding these mentions it remains the case that "postgenre" does not appear to have been the subject of significant coverage in any reliable source.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 02:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment more info the article was originally created by someone using the same name as one of the three bands originally mentioned in the article. Pretty clear self promotion. Since then it was taken up after a few years latter by one editor, who can not source the article because his sources are myspace pages and bots keep removing them, I'm reasonably sure this article has been edited almost exclusively by people with a promotional COI. Ridernyc (talk) 03:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an unsourced neologism. JIP | Talk 07:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unsourced neologism. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 02:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gorgi[edit]

Gorgi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable musician autobiography Orange Mike | Talk 01:32, 6 February 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 SNOW keep. The prior AfD closer agreed on ANI that the subject is notable, sourcing concerns have been addressed. Jclemens (talk) 22:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Quicksilver[edit]

AfDs for this article:
DJ Quicksilver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can find no non-trivial mentions of "DJ Quicksilver" through Gnews. There are 66 total Gnews hits for him, and all seem pretty trivial. And the current list of sources is ittle more than a milieu of Myspace, Last.fm, and similar "sources" that are not reliable. Until such sources are found (I tried, and couldn't find any), this should be deleted. UnitAnode 01:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The previous AFD showed a clear consensus for keeping, despite the way it was closed, and the article has reliable sources for his hit singles, including two top-10 hits in the UK, and adequate demonstration of coverage.--Michig (talk) 09:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
also note that MySpace has never been used as a source in this article as far as I can see.--Michig (talk) 11:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep and Close Starting a new AfD five days after the first AfD closed? The admin that closed the first AfD on 1 February clearly stated, "Subsequently restored after editor offered to source it. Do not delete if this promise is met." The promise was met and the article is sourced. Warrah (talk) 14:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The first AFD was closed as "delete" and you know it. It was only restored after promises that the article would be reliably-sourced. This has not been done. Last.fm is not a reliable source. And none of the current sources provide anything other than trivial mentions of this guy. UnitAnode 16:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep UK top 10 singles = definitely notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First, the article is now sourced as promised in the first AfD. Second, once it's sourced we can see if it meets some of the notability guidelines: one of the sources (The Complete Book of the British Charts) says that it had two singles charting among the top ten in a UK chart, so it meets well at least one point of WP:MUSICBIO, specifically "#2 Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.". He also had other singles listed in other charts: UK #12, Germany #56, Germany #34, Austria #33, Switzerland #99, and also an album in UK #26. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per Eric, article is sufficiently well sourced now and a notable musician. Off2riorob (talk) 15:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per my statement in the original AfD (which was along the lines of him being notable, having made the British Top 10 twice) - even more so that everything in there is sourced. (As for lack of results in Gnews - there would be: most of his success came when the Internet was the domain of ultrageeks. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 16:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Enric Naval and DitzyNizzy. Hit singles confer notability. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:41, 6 February 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) 18:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SambaStream[edit]

SambaStream (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no indication that the company meets WP:ORG noq (talk) 01:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Following was posted to my talk page noq (talk) 10:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concerns around the SambaStream page, however I'd like to point out that the reference article is in a prominent trade journal for its industry Information_Today,_Inc., and while its not a web resource, it is in print. In addition, I've found several other pages in the same category Project Management Software which appear to have even less than this: WizeHive, Schedule24, Scrumpad to name a few. If they meet the minimum criteria then SambaStream should as well. Please let me know if you have any other concerns. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgildeh (talk • contribs) 02:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. The article needs to show WP:Notability using WP:Verifiable, WP:Reliable sources. There does not appear to be significant online coverage and the online site of the magazine you reference does not even include Sambastream in its index. I will try to look in the print edition when I am back in the office next week but I think this on its own is unlikely to establish notability. noq (talk) 11:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the page, and Sambastream is listed, but at this point I cannot see the article online. As you said, though, this in itself doesn't establish notability. Joshua Scott (talk) 19:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, article masquerading as spam. Cannot see how this is notable. Haakon (talk) 16:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, NY Times has nothing, gbook search has nothing, yahoo & google news show nothing, and The creator's username matches this, which appears to be a Conflict of Interest. There is the one mention in Information Today, but I'm not familiar with that site to know if it is reliable. Still, to satisfy the general notability guideline, we would need to see significant coverage, which in my mind means a minimum of two reliable sources. The second link the article provides is to a paid endorsement, and I know that doesn't qualify as being reliable. Joshua Scott (talk) 19:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. More of the "project management" morass. Referenced only to publications of limited circulation and interest. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 23:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Only one WP:RS article [56] about it. Virtually no other coverage. Pcap ping 07:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accepted. Thanks for this, has been a valuable learning experiance on how Wikipedia operates with my first foray into this. I can accept the arguments and hope that we can provide more notable references for you all next time. My intentions are not to spam wikipedia, just provide a stub page for SambaStream, which is why I deliberately left it short and sweet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.84.248.99 (talk) 10:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Information Today is highly respected as a publisher in information science and library and information science. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 18:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keepas for the source, I consider its reviews and news independent and even authoritative in the field. I would be extremely surprised if it is a paid endorsement, and I challenge Joshua --who admits he knows nothing about the publication--to support or retract his assumption, which comes pretty close to libel. But how substantial is the article? If it is, the product is notable. Contrary to what was said above, there is no nothing wrong with specialized sources for specialised subjects--in fact, that's what we mostly look for. DGG ( talk ) 18:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
that particular magazine has tabloid paper, 11 inch by 17. DGG ( talk ) 20:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Similar stories in the magazine run to about 850 words. noq (talk) 21:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • DGG, Let me make myself more clear, I wasn't trying to bash Information Today, which is reliable, as was pointed out, I was speaking of the second link as being a paid endorsement, and it is just an advertisement for a seminar, including a link to sign up for the conference. This seminar happens to have SambaStream as a vendor, and SambaStream's logo is their only mention in that source. We are still not meeting WP:GNG which calls for multiple sources in most cases. Joshua Scott (talk) 03:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Main products seems to have been launched late 2009 [57], some in-depth mention in Information Today a few months later is at least indicative of notability, so let it rest for a while. WP is WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY and there is also encyclopedic value in providing timely information, and the WP:N guideline is not law. Smerdis is running a personal vendetta against More of the "project management" morass. - there is no broad support for this view, and, eh, it's not project management but "content management" - even that I'm no sawy in this field, I'm pretty sure that these two things are entirely different. Despite the eyesore "on top of its multi-tenented architecture", it's not too spammy either, can be fixed easily. Power.corrupts (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Company launched one product and received one good article. A case of "one event", except that the guideline was written for bios. I think it should be applied here as well. gidonb (talk) 13:22, 14 February 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) 12:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of musical artists from Japan[edit]

List of musical artists from Japan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Here lies yet another indiscriminate list which clearly violates WP:NOT. I have a wheelbarrow here full of WP:TROUT for anyone who disagrees. JBsupreme (talk) 21:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Could someone please explain why this topic wouldn't be prime material for a list? —Quasirandom (talk) 03:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Perfectly fine list, with clear inclusion criteria (IE - not indiscriminate). Works hand-in-hand with WP:CLN. Lugnuts (talk) 09:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In using the word "indiscriminate", we aren't saying that the description is vague. Instead, it's a matter of whether there is information to between one musical artist from Japan and another musical artist from Japan. My feeling is that lists should be able to impart at least some information about the significance of a blue linked name; by analogy, List of Presidents of the United States would have clearly defined criteria for inclusion, but would be uninformative without some information to separate them (such as when they served in office). In this case, even a one word mention as to whether they're classical artists, pop music, etc. would be feasible. Mandsford (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, this is a pretty good example of an Index of articles as defined on WP:LIST, and comparable to others in the linked category. And as noted above, WP:CLN explicitly says that lists and categories are complementary (if I have the right spelling of that). —Quasirandom (talk) 16:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I can tell, this meets all relevant guidelines for a Index of articles as defined by WP:LIST, including having well-defined, discriminate guidelines for inclusion, and as such is a valid stand-alone list. That adds up to keep for me. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The "discriminate" is having articles in Wikipedia-- how many of the possible artists is that-- 1% perhaps. That would certainly not be indiscriminate. DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Definitely not indiscriminate. Qualifies as an index of articles under WP:LIST. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 01:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Of course, my argument relies on the need to remove those (very few) red links present in the list. I think musicians should only be listed here if they have an article currently. (The alternative fix is to make stubs for them after verifying they meet WP:ENT or similar.) --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 01:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE I'm inclined to agree with JBsupreme on this one. It doesn't pass WP:LIST it has no lead section, doesn't provide any useable information regarding the artists on the list (only wikilinks to their articles). Here's a great test to see if a list is worthy of inclusion or not. Could it be replaced by a Category? If yes then the list doesn't pass WP:LIST and should be deleted. If it actually adds information and value above and beyond what creating a category then it potentially has a brighter future. Nefariousski (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There's an interesting point here: I would disagree that it can be replaced by a category for the simple reason that there's too many articles. It's still not indiscriminate but it is a lot. The list can (and does) show these entries in a way no category could: In a well-formatted manner all on one page. This is, in fact, another point at WP:LISTPURP. I do agree that there should be a lede section, but this is something that can be fixed. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 07:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looks like a perfectly valid list. Again, categories, lists, and navigation templates are three different ways to group and organize articles. The grouping of articles by one method neither requires nor forbids the use of the other methods for the same informational grouping.(1) — Rankiri (talk) 00:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve by including the type of music and perhaps some other useful information. This list is clearly acceptable per WP:LISTS. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete under WP:CSD#A7 as this list lacks any verifiable source to identify it as being suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, let alone a verifiable defintion to demonstrate that this is, in some way, a culturally significant cross-categorization. This list fails the basic principle that Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I doubt that this criterion applies to lists, but even if it does, most of the list's entries have Wikipedia articles and considered sufficiently notable by the standards of WP:N. — Rankiri (talk) 17:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, "Japanese musicians" is not a culturally significant categorization? I beg to differ. — Rankiri (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Even if this is a culturally significant categorization, there is no verfiable evidence in the form of citations or a externally soourced defintion to support this premise. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry but your argument it preposterous. If you have doubts that Japanese musical professionals are culturally significant, try searching for their coverage on Google News and Google Books. You can also take a look at [58], as well as the inclusion guidelines of WP:SAL#Lists of people. — Rankiri (talk) 14:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Perfectly valid list, certainly not indiscriminate. Edward321 (talk) 01:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 02:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Mills (actor)[edit]

Joe Mills (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I put quite a bit of effort into trying to find some sources for this article after coming across it on the Recent Changes page. While Joe Mills is an actor he seems to miss WP:ENT by a fairly wide margin. In trying to find sources I found that he played bit parts on single episodes of UK soap operas which clearly don't establish notability. For example one episode (number 295) of Holby City as seen here [59]. Being that "Joe Mills" isn't a particularly unique name I used "Joe Mills" Actor in my search engine test to see if he met GNG. Aside from his own pages and profiles on his agency page I couldn't find anything that met WP:RS or met any of the tenents of GNG or WP:ENT. If someone can point out some reliable sources that make a good case for notability I'll gladly pull this nomination. Nefariousski (talk) 01:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 12:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Randall Fontes[edit]

Randall Fontes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources that establish notability, and really no claims in the article that assert it in a substantial way. If everything non-encyclopedic were removed from this article, there would be nothing left. It appears likely that the article was written by its subject. Article was previously prodded, and the prod was removed by the author, Plantman77 (talk · contribs) Looie496 (talk) 18:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]



Hi, You certainly have me at a disadvantage as I am a novice in Wikipedia. I am not the subject person of this article. My name is Bob Swanson and I went to college with Randall and worked with until 1981. I had not seen him for 28 years. I ran into him this summer and talked with him and experienced some of the work he has done. I realized that as a scientist he had cloistered himself away in workshops for all that time and much of the work that he has been doing no one knew about.

As an educator for many years I have taken it upon myself in my spare time to help educate people about his wonderful work. I have to disagree with the idea that he is not notable. I read the guidelines and he is notable in at least both books and movies.

As far as non-encyclopedic I would have to disagree. Perhaps you don’t like my writing and I would certainly be open to suggestion. What I am looking for is friendly help if there are errors. Bob Plantman77 (talk) 02:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I nominated the article is because it doesn't give evidence that he's more notable than the average guy -- what I would like to see is some evidence that he has received significant attention from authors or the media. The material about The Secret Life of Plants goes in that direction, but doesn't make clear how important his role was. If he has academic or journalistic publications himself, that would also help. Basically all the article shows solidly right now is that he's a guy with a Masters degree who works at a museum and fools around with plants. In short, the article currently has lots of biographical material that is unsupported by sources, but very little in the way of solid statements about what makes him notable. Regarding your writing, it has no major problems stylewise, but the content violates the principle that anything that appears in Wikipedia must be backed up by published sources -- we can't write from our own personal knowledge. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 03:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Thank You for your response. The Author Peter Tompkins and Randall went on the book tour for the Secret Life of Plants and it is a best seller. They did radio shows, TV spots, The tonight Show, David Susskind and more.

Randall’s work was highlighted in the Movie of the same name. I have included a YouTube clip of the movie as a reference on the page. I have listed a number of news articles that were dedicated to his work. Unfortunately the internet did not exist in the 1970’s or there would be more information to link to.

I hope that I have been able to meet the needed criteria. Plantman77 (talk) 06:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Scott Mac (Doc) 23:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep How can you make a claim on notability after looking at this article? He clearly passes General Notability by a wide margin. Reliable sources including multiple newspapers, published books, documentaries etc... A case can be made for meeting [[WP:Notability (academics}]] as well since he is one of the pioneers in the field. Clearly meets WP:AUTHOR as well. I'm pretty confident this article doesn't stand a snowballs chance in hell of being deleted. Nefariousski (talk) 01:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, sufficient third party coverage. -Reconsider! 08:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article has been significantly improved since the nom, I think notability is pretty clear now. Wine Guy Talk 12:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Great job of rewriting this article to meet guidelines. His notability is now well established. --MelanieN (talk) 01:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you all for reviewing this article. Thanks for the guidance and kind words. Plantman77 (talk) 19:49, 7 February 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. JForget 01:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarence Acox, Jr.[edit]

Clarence Acox, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

My searches show that this musician is only notable locally. Joe Chill (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As of May 2009 the article had inline citations establishing notability. Will re-paste 'em. As for the above comment ("only notable locally"), is notability subject to regional/worldwide criteria or is notability sufficient per se?--Technopat (talk) 01:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It really depends on the editor's opinion. Joe Chill (talk) 01:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's see. The article could certainly still use more citations, but just sticking strictly to what is now cited (and skipping a good bit of that):

  • Faculty leader of a high school jazz ensemble that has "won every major competition on the West Coast", made eight European tours, and performed at the Montreux Jazz Festival.
  • The group is also the only band ever to win the First Place Trophy at the Essentially Ellington High School Jazz Band Competition and Festival twice in a row (and a finalist 8 years in a row).
  • Named Educator of the Year by Down Beat magazine in 2001
  • Seattle Metropolitan magazine named him one of the 50 most influential musicians in the history of Seattle music (which when you consider the status of Seattle in American music is no small thing).

Admittedly, the long list of who he has played with is uncited, though I have no reason to doubt it. I would say that just playing with Quincy Jones, Ray Charles, Slide Hampton, and Ernestine Anderson would clearly indicate someone notable enough to belong in Wikipedia; those are just 4 names out of about 15 listed, several others are equally well known. So, while I think citations could be improved, I don't think there is any doubt that he is notable enough to belong here.

Is this a crucial article? No. But I think he clearly makes the cut. Keep.

By the way, the article would be much improved if someone could come up with a list of working musicians who studied under him. I know there are quite a few, but offhand I can't find a citable list. - Jmabel | Talk 06:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Citations clearly establish notability. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 07:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:59, 6 February 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 that the subject is sufficiently notable to merit inclusion. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delia Gonzalez[edit]

Delia Gonzalez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:N, no results on simple google search or news, although a few in google images. Article appears to be securely in the realm of self promotion, completely unreferenced, adding a rescue tag as an attempt to assume good faith that this isn't a shameless self promotion article. Nefariousski (talk) 23:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Found a few results but nothing I'd call particularly reliable. There are a few ratings pages, but I don't know enough about boxing to know what is official and what isn't. Even if the article stays, it smacks of self-promotion and fails WP:NPOV. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  00:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the effort! My spanish is passable as is my knowledge of boxing and I came up with the same results. I'm trying to check some boxing org websites that have results or titles pages that might not be indexed by google for something that hints at notability since that's the only real dealbreaker here. I'll gladly help fix the NPOV tone of the article if some reliable sources can be found that establish notability. Nefariousski (talk) 00:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added three sources that look to be independent and reliable from a search for 'chikita boxing'. If you believe that women's boxing is notable, then you should believe that winning the WIBF World Bantamweight title in Las Vegas in 1995 qualifies for WP:N. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 01:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep title is documented. Problem seems to be that 1995 events are a little old for Google to be a good test of the existence of sources. --Bejnar (talk) 07:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Six nag boxes at the top of this article! Is that a record? If you search for her name and "boxing" you do get a number of results.--Milowent (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete She's 13-9 with 5 draws, but one of the "best"? Better to delete this and start over if there's soemthing accurate worth saying. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article clearly needs a rewrite, and she's no Muhammad Ali; but as a professional boxer who has held an internationally recognized championship, she meets WP:ATHLETE. Wine Guy Talk 10:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The article is severely POV, but sources have been added, and the contents is mostly verified minus the shower of peacock terms. Pcap ping 14:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She is notable, and I just added some references. Samwb123T (R)-C-E 01:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment still only one real source and being that its the website of the boxing organization to which she belongs it doesn't do too much to support her Notability. She fails GNG considering that there's no significant coverage, she's iffy on the reliable sources since there's no real secondary sources to verify outside of her organizations webpage. She fails on her sources being independent of the subject. Considering that she was the "Champion" for one division of one organization doesn't meet WP:N for athletes because there are dozens of women's boxing organizations and multiple people that can claim to be the "world champion" for the exact same division of a sport because they belong to any number of different leagues. Nefariousski (talk) 20:34, 9 February 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/Merge. Jayjg (talk) 06:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alvira "Allie" Packingham Sullivan Earp[edit]

Please Note: This article has been moved to Allie Earp in accordance with WP:COMMONNAME. A redirct has been left behind.

AfDs for this article:
Alvira "Allie" Packingham Sullivan Earp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject has no notability of her own and is only known because she married a notable person. Fails WP:BIO. No evidence of significant coverage of her by reliable third party sources. Most coverage is peripheral to coverage of her husband. Notability is not inherited. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Virgil Earp. "That was our life: workin' and sitting home. Good women didn't go any place." Not exactly the stuff of legend. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or redirect to Virgil Earp if her only claim to fame is having been married to him. JIP | Talk 07:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: If we redirect this, which is where it looks like it is headed, should we change the title to something like "Alvira Earp" or "Allie Earp" (which is how she is more commonly known)? The title, as it stands, is a very unlikely search term. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I have boldly moved this article to Allie Earp per WP:COMMONNAME. A redirect has been left behind at Alvira "Allie" Packingham Sullivan Earp, and a redirect created at Alvira Earp. Having looked at this discussion, I don't believe this is a contentious move, or that it will cause undue confusion. Wine Guy~Talk 06:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So now we're going to redirect Allie Earp to Virgil Earp when this closes??? Niteshift36 (talk) 06:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's what I would suggest. The article title Alvira "Allie" Packingham Sullivan Earp really should never have existed per common name, and both Alvira Earp and Allie Earp are plausible search terms. I was really just trying to do a bit of sensible housekeeping before the closing admin arrives. If you think the move is improper, feel free to revert my actions. Wine Guy~Talk 07:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, no disagreement. I agree that the original title should have never been. I was just making sure I followed what was going on. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:05, 7 February 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) 12:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Black Knights Parachute Centre[edit]

Black Knights Parachute Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability and article is unreferenced, source appears to be own website, contested prod. MilborneOne (talk) 22:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Seems to just be a club of no real notablilty.Slatersteven (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (Original Page creator) - The article is only a stub. It is similar to many other stubs that have previously survived AFD. - Rehnn83 Talk 23:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative (Original Page creator) - Could this (and other UK DZ's be merged into the article British Parachute Association - Rehnn83 Talk 23:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would seem resonable.Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree it would seem reasonable as some of the other club articles dont appear to be notable either they could also be moved in, just need to make sure it is just not a list as at present. MilborneOne (talk) 17:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Userfy articles are built on substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. I don't doub tthat this subject exists (and it can be redirect to BPA where it's mentioned) but there's no indication it meets the WP:Notability guideline. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete does not appear to have the sort of substantial coverage in reliable sources that we can build an article around. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Major League Baseball record breakers by season[edit]

List of Major League Baseball record breakers by season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

What the heck is this list? Apparently records were only broken in 1897, 1932, 1961, and then every year from 95-09? And what purpose does it serve anyways, it's just grouping up information that belongs at the individual pages. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This list does meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria for lists. All information is either currently sourced or is easily sourceable. It is just an incomplete list. It is noteworthy; others to keep such info. For example, Topps has made cards each year (or at least they did in the past) showing record-breakers of the past year. This is because it is a huge job to complete the list and it takes the work of more than one person. I started it, but I do not have time to do the whole thing. The solution would be not to delete it, but to add to it. Hellno2 (talk) 23:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Duplicates lists such as List of Major League Baseball single-game records, Major League Baseball record holders, List of Major League Baseball single-season records, and a number of other similar lists. I see no reason for a chronological listing of each time every one of the particular records was surpassed (which would involve a much more extensive listing, both backward and forward in time, than is presented here). This seems to me to be a case in which the guideline of WP:SALAT is overstepped. Deor (talk) 01:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments in favor of keeping:
  1. Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#General formatting #4 states chronological lists are currently used on Wikipedia
  2. There is a section on that page Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Chronological ordering that specifically states how they should be written. If this is written here, they must be permitted.
  3. WP:L#Purposes of lists says "Redundancy of lists and categories is beneficial"
  4. WP:L#Information says The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists.
  5. This list is incomplete and is even marked appropriately as such by a template. And there is no deadline for its completion. Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard can be invoked here on the basis that the materia is notable, verifiable, complies with an official policy, and there is a desire or others to se the content
  6. Even if no one works on it for some time, per WP:NOEFFORT, this is not a valid reason for deletion.
  7. WP:SALAT, as Doer has stated above, says nothing specific against this list. It does not specify a limit to the number of lists Wikipedia can hold, and in fact, it is so vague. Doer specifically said "*I* see no reason for a chronological listing of each time every one of the particular records was surpassed . . . This seems to me . . ." This is just a personal point of view of being useless.

Hellno2 (talk) 18:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Duplicate articles redirects to Help:Merging. This, alone, indicates that duplicated articles should be merged, not deleted.
User:Muboshgu has not cited any policy, guideline, or essay showing a duplicate article should be deleted, or any policies, guidelines, or essays for that matter, but just used the subjective term "seems like" and the POV terms "unnecessary" and "to me" (see WP:ATA#Personal point of view).
WP:BEFORE #2 says Read the article and review its history to properly understand its topic... Stubs and imperfect articles are awaiting further development, and so the potential of the topic should be considered. This article is imperfect, as this states, and is awaiting further development.
WP:BEFORE #4 says Consider turning the page into a useful redirect or proposing it be merged. Neither of these actions requires an AfD. merging is normally what is done in the event an article provides duplicate informtion. Someone, instead, should be placed the {{merge}} tag at the top to suggest a merge, or boldly merged it, if he felt it was duplicate.
WP:BEFORE #10 says Please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, an associated WikiProject, or on the article's talk page, and/or adding a cleanup tag, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.

Hellno2 (talk) 16:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I think arguments based on duplication aren't really accurate. They don't include the date information in the same format, so this presents new information. Incorporating full date information onto existing records wouldn't be inherently useful as the more chronological form. Other than duplication, there is no convincing policy reason for deletion. matt91486 (talk) 20:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hellno2, who makes a very well-reasoned defense. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:26, 8 February 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. Wine Guy's argument is compelling. Per WP:BOP, "if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it", and the article cites only self published, possibly partisan sources.  Sandstein  08:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boško Perić[edit]

Boško Perić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a memorial. DimaG (talk) 18:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. It's possible that Perić is notable as a combat leader during a major war. For one thing it appears to be true that a square in Brčko is named after him. However a google news archive search brings up only 12 hits from 1990-2009, largely in the Bosnia and Herzegovina newspaper Nezavisne novine. Perhaps Perić is discussed in detail there (though the odds are good that it would not be in a complimentary fashion), but I cannot read the articles (not sure if it's published in Serbian or Bosnian or what). If the article cannot be sourced I would have to say that deletion is necessary, so in order to avoid that we'll need someone familiar with the language in which these articles are written. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia-related deletion discussions. —Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. —Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He does appear to be notable. There is a photo and he has a nice biography at "БОШКО ПЕРИЋ- ПЕША" "MAGNA SERBIA - SERBIA ETERNA!" a site honoring war heroes in Serbian. Both of the links in references in the article appear to be broken. I found much discussion of him as a hero, but it was in forums and blogs. The books that mention Boško Perić seem to be about an earlier man. Unfortunately Бошко Перић is not a unique name, one of the articles that Bigtimepeace found was about a totally different Boško Perić who was busted along with his wife and mother in 2009 for drug manufacturing. There is also a current author by that name. --Bejnar (talk) 20:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I should note that the article has been in the Wikipedia since 20 August 2006, so it is not so strange that the old links have gone dead. --Bejnar (talk) 20:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Notable enough to warrant an article since a square is named after him and he's had some coverage. Getting a reliably sourced article that is accurate and not propaganda and hearsay is another issue. Perhaps it should be stubbefied to what can be verified? ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per ChildofMidnight. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see any WP:RS about this person, only the bio in what appears to be a Serbian nationalist blog. The fact that there is a public square in a town of 40,000 that bears his name does not make him notable, unless you consider that a "notable award or honor"; I don't. The villages, towns, and cities of the world are littered with squares, parks, roads, etc. named for people who are not remotely notable outside their hometown. Wine Guy~Talk 08:03, 7 February 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) 12:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Caddy Cad[edit]

Caddy Cad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced (the 4 references are promotional) BLP article in which the only claims to notability are "hosting parties" and "extensive radio airplay". One Google News hit implies he was an MC at an event once - that isn't enough to establish notability.  Frank  |  talk  17:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO. TheJazzDalek (talk) 13:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MUSICBIO. The article helps to explain: emceeing at events such the Labour of Love which "draws anywhere from 8,000 to 10,000 clubbers each year"; the link shows Caddy Cad among 30+ acts for this event. A single, notable emcee will draw that many in a weekend. Wine Guy~Talk 08:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dinero (cache simulator)[edit]

Dinero (cache simulator) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't think this article meets notability requirements, and has been tagged that way since October 2009. The article cites one course at ITT, and says "it is frequently used in education purpose" without providing any evidence to prove it. Tpk5010[Talk] 07:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notifying me in my talk page :). However, I found Dinero is widely used in education as you can see in Google search result. I think it would be supplemented ref paragraph in article. It was my fault that there are not enough infos about wide usage in the article. -- Modamoda (talk) 18:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have not looked at the topic enough for a position on what to do with this article, but a quick Google Scholar search (terms: "Dinero" +cache simulator) returned 537 results. The same terms in Google Books returned 158 results, some of which suggest that there is significant coverage in reliable sources. A few random tidbits from the first page of results: In "MSCsim--Multilevel and Split Cache Simulator", a conference paper from the ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference says, "Some memory hierarchy simulators such as Dinero III, Dinero IV ... are known in the academic world...". It also says that they are known for "cache memory simulation excellence". EDA for IC, system design, verification and testing, a book published by CRC press, says on page 3-14, "The dinero simulator is a well-known example of a cache simulator." In "Computer Architecture Simulation Applets For Use In Teaching", another paper from the ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, there is a short section on Dinero, and it is claimed that it is distributed with the 1996 (second edition?) of Hennessey's and Patterson's Computer Architecture: A Quantitative Approach textbook. From the Google results it would seem that the software is widely known and is used in academia. While none of the examples I have provided are of significant coverage of the topic, I think that it is demonstrated that there is sufficient coverage and claims to warrant further efforts in locating references. Rilak (talk) 04:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Rilak said what I want to say. But I think this article should be improved. Thanks Rilak :) -- Modamoda (talk) 14:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kurykh 07:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 02:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Over 100 citations for the paper describing the latest version, Dinero IV, [60]. In research academia it's extremely rare to find people describing at length other's work; instead we have to go by citation count. This is a cache simulator, so it's a rather specialized piece of software, not taught to undergrads, so you're not going to find it described in textbooks. Pcap ping 03:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. —Ruud 15:48, 10 February 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) 12:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nashua Street Residences[edit]

Nashua Street Residences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I came across this while checking non-free images. I had considerable difficulty even to find out whether construction of this nondescript structure had, or had not, actually begun, so as to find out whether the non-free image of it was replaceable. On reflection, however, the very lack of information on this structure suggests that it isn't something we should have an article on: no mentions on Google books, a passing reference on scholar and a smattering of news reports in the Boston papers which say very little indeed. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • You've linked to an essay. Would you prefer to cite a policy or guideline to support your assertion?  RGTraynor  03:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No actually, because even the existence of an essay in the 'Essays on building Wikipedia' Template, shows that there is a difference of opinion from that you have stated, which happens to be seconded by myself in this case. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 04:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid I don't conflate "not everyone in the world agrees" with "there's no consensus."  RGTraynor  07:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then please read WP:ATD. "Articles which have potential, but which do not yet meet Wikipedia's quality standards, should be moved to the Wikipedia:Article Incubator,..." (which is policy, as you asked for) I am not necessarily saying this article has potential, just that the stated viewpoint is not consensus. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 11:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only that it's consensus that such an article does not belong in mainspace. Which is, oddly enough, what nominating an article for deletion in the first place maintains.  RGTraynor  03:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Nashua Street Residences currently is being reproposed according to one of the article's sources and will not be completed (If it even will be) until 2014. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kurykh 07:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, saying "keep because it has potential" is akin to crystalballery. No evidence of notability, but it can always be recreated if it gains notability. Nyttend (talk) 00:43, 6 February 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. after Mattg82's improvements JohnCD (talk) 20:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leaders of the Free World (song)[edit]

Leaders of the Free World (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Empty. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Notable single by a notable band. Esp. if the claim it was the last V2 single too. At worst, redirect it to the album. Lugnuts (talk) 09:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect Maybe with more content and an infobox I'd change my mind. andrewrox424 Bleep 12:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With the infobox and added information I believe that this should stay. I added the cover art to help. andrewrox424 Bleep 15:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The song charted at #53[73] in the uk. Needs infobox+cover pic, track listing, categorys & navbox, etc etc. Mattg82 (talk) 03:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails quality guidelines for articles. If the song charted, it's not in the article, and should ahve been placed there with verifiable references/cites by the article creator or contributors, and even then, may not be enough context to support quality guidelines of articles Alan - talk 23:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've now added infobox, navbox, tracklist & chart table. Mattg82 (talk) 23:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Agta. Scott Mac (Doc) 13:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

E Agta[edit]

E Agta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot find any reliable sources for this subject, and no indication that it would meet the general notability guideline. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 15:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep: This looks like a subject where the source material is mostly offline and not in English. There may also be some Original Research involved.--Auric (talk) 15:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This page [74] makes reference to them. Search for The Agta, instead of e Agta.--Auric (talk) 16:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Are we certain that Agta is not the same as Aeta? That article begins "The Aeta (pronounced as “eye-ta,”), Agta or Ayta are an indigenous people who live in scattered, isolated mountainous parts of Luzon, Philippines." If they are the same, just copy the references to the references section of Aeta, then redirect. Chutznik (talk) 02:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kurykh 07:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 12:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mariana van Zeller[edit]

Mariana van Zeller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This reads like a CV for an up-and-coming journalist rather than a serious encyclopedia article. Doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO standards. Warrah (talk) 23:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if this article is to be deleted, I suggest deleting all the other biographies from Current TV journalists, as well as many many many biographies here in Wikipedia because they are made alike. Instead of deleting I suggest that someone could edit and adapt it to Wikipedia. -Luz del Fuego (talk) 01:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Luz del Fuego authored the article. It has a twin in Portuguese Wikipedia with exactly the same structure and presumably the same content. I am not well positioned to judge notability but it looks right, so keep. Chutznik (talk) 02:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. But it needs more sources. MiRroar (talk) 17:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –SpacemanSpiff 06:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I found a couple more sources, she was in NYC (at Columbia Univ.) on 9/11 and was called by SIC Notícias to report on the attacks from NY to "the whole of Portugal". There are more sources out there, she meets WP:BIO. Wine Guy~Talk 10:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 12:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeannette D. Ahonsou[edit]

Jeannette D. Ahonsou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this author and I can't find anything that shows that Literary Prize France-Togo is a major award. Joe Chill (talk) 01:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I added two references from scholarly web sites, plus bibliographic information about her two novels. Female authors from Togo is a tiny category, with one source listing only 10 names [75] so notability is straightforward (and this probably points to a whole set of articles that should be improved and better referenced). Edward Vielmetti (talk) 06:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An editor from an IP address removed the AfD on that page; I restored it until this discussion is properly closed. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 07:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no significant reliable,published secondary source material on the subject. A one or two line biographical entry in a review of her book is not significant. As notability is defined for Wikipedia purposes, it just may be that some countries have no authors who meet the threshold. By the way a detailed search in Lexis/Nexis News, including non-English sources, did not turn up any articles about her or the "Prix France-Togo". Maybe the prize has another name. --Bejnar (talk) 19:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There's some more coverage of the subject here and confirmation of her prize here. I must say that I consider the idea that there may be no notable authors in a country with a population of 6.7 million breathtaking, to say the least. Are we supposed to believe that the inhabitants of Togo are all illiterate uncivilised cannibals who live in mud huts? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, there isn't reliable secondary coverage there, there is a book blurb there. There may be 6.7 million perfectly erudite people in Togo, but they haven't made an impression on the outside world. It is not about a country having an entitlement to a certain number of article slots, it is about whether the notability guidelines are met, they are not. --Bejnar (talk) 06:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources and improvement.--TM 22:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CommentStill no significant reliable,published secondary source material on the subject. --Bejnar (talk) 06:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:36, 6 February 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) 12:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scott L. Harris[edit]

Scott L. Harris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable pastor of local church, former professor, and author. Does not meet WP:BIO, WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. Has been cited in footnotes of the works of others (as article notes), but I do not believe this qualifies as making an "enduring historical record in his or her specific field" BaronLarf 08:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a well-documented article, but the references do not add up to notability. He has had original ideas, but obviously not ones that have taken the world of Old Testament studies by storm. Looking at the nine criteria in WP:PROF, Harris doesn't satisfy any of them. I'm doing graduate study in Old Testament, looking at the Book of Samuel and I hadn't heard of him - citations of his work are actually quite sparse. StAnselm (talk) 01:20, 6 February 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) 12:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Goel Ratzon[edit]

Goel Ratzon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability fails WP:N/CA and WP:BLP1E, not worthy of inclusion. MBisanz talk 07:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Rupert Hine. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thinkman[edit]

Thinkman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable, unsourced band article; band did not win awards or make other lasting impact. MBisanz talk 07:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep As PROD decliner. Passes WP:BAND #6 at first blush. Will see about sourcing it tomorrow. Jclemens (talk) 07:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 02:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Berggruen[edit]

John Berggruen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable subject. He is the owner of an art gallery. The external links are his self-promotional website, and a single news story about an exhibit he put in his gallery. Apparently has a more famous brother. Tempshill (talk) 00:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. The dispute is mentioned in the University's article, and the consensus is that there is not enough other notability here for a stand-alone article on the person. JohnCD (talk) 20:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Fredrics[edit]

Howard Fredrics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a classic WP:BLP1E article. Fredrics is notable only in the context of his dispute with Kingston University, that article is currently protected due to an ongoing edit war related to this same event and so I suspect that this article is an offshoot of that. The whole incident. including those involved in it, probably deserve no more than 1-2 paragraphs tops at the Kingston University article. Thryduulf (talk) 00:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I, as article creator, have no involvement in the dispute or any previous edits on the subject. You assumed incorrectly.  Francium12  00:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Poorly written WP:BLP1E. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep and rename to cover dispute. A merge with the main Kingston article sounds okay too. But deleting this notable dispute doesn't seem like a good option. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not proposing to delete the dispute, I'm saying it doesn't need a standalone article and can be, and basically was (at least last time I read that section of the Kingston University article in detail), covered in sufficient detail at the main article. I wouldn't object to a merge, but there's pretty much nothing encyclopaedic to merge so I don't see the point. Thryduulf (talk) 03:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The dates of the news coverage does suggest a BLP 1-E type situation. How about a targeted redirect to the section in the main article since it already has a seciton there? It can be protected if necessary. I see there's been some edit warring? ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.The subject does not warrant a separate article - his artistic work has little significance within the music world, and much of the content is concerning a failed dispute with his ex Employer. The content is not independently verifiable at present being largely hearsay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim Laker (talk • contribs) 15:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • A rather sweeping statement for refer to someone with Emmy Award winning work, Fulbright grants, reviews of his work in media, publications and publications in journals. I might have a go improving this article if someone can prevent people with a COI of interest editing it. The edit history of User:Jim Laker is interesting! It seems this topic is the only topic he edits on!  Francium12  16:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still waiting for a source other than the subject's own webpage for this Emmy business. There are articles calling him "Emmy award winning" but details are scarce and he seems to be missing from all the Emmy databases I can find. There are several kinds of Emmys given out by different organizations, some of them (like "regional Emmys") probably fall below the standard for notability. Hairhorn (talk) 05:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
evidence? - oddly enough, the website for the folks for whom he supposedly got that Emmy doesn't list it among their "Awards", even though they list every little "regional Emmy" and even the Telly Awards they've received! --Orange Mike | Talk 03:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and allow User:Francium12 to expand and diversify the article, thus resolving Xxanthippe's poorly written misgivings. Yes Jim Laker has an "interesting" edit history.--Penbat (talk) 18:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per a combination of WP:V and WP:BLP issues. There are WP:V difficulties with trying to verify the claim of having won an Emmy which is sourced to the subject's CV. However, there does not seem to be an independent confirmation of this. It was definitely not a Primetime Emmy as the search of the award database there[76] produces no results. His CV says that the Emmy was for a theme to the BBC series Texas Parks And Wildlife. However, IMDB does not have a listing for such a series[77] and it does not have an entry for Fredrics either[78]. So the Emmy claim looks rather suspicious. Apart from that, I don't see much evidence of academic, musical or biographic notability. Most of the coverage relates to the Kingston University controversy and is largely negative and contentious in nature. The amount of coverage is fairly modest (several newsstories), which is not sufficient to overcome BLP concerns here. Nsk92 (talk) 01:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (unless substantially expanded with proper citations on natability issues). At present the article is about an academic with limited notability and in dipsute with his employer. Accordingly he seems NN, according to what is said at present. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SUMMARY. Dispute w/ Kingston University is worth discussing, but parent article doesn't merit full details, per WP:WEIGHT. The bio by itself only borderline meets WP:AUTH, but as an organizational matter, it is by far best to keep it to allow dispute discussion at sufficient length. LotLE×talk 19:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Nsk92. JBsupreme (talk) 06:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -non-notable bio of minor academic, padded with self-puffery and marginal WP:BLP1E notoriety. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per LotLE  Francium12  23:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Kingston University or Delete. As it is, this is basically a BLP1E; I've looked at the sources, and searched for more, but I'm not convinced notability has been established independent of the dispute with Kingston University. So, this article is best covered as a subsection of that one; in fact, it's already mentioned there in the 'Controversies' section. If this article is kept, I would at least suggest that it be renamed to be an article about the dispute instead of the person. Robofish (talk) 14:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. His output and activities as a musician seem negligible. His output and activities as an academic seem negligible. His major notability seems to be that of complainer about harassment, irritant, and winner of a dispute over a domain name. Merge some of this into the article on Kingston University? No, because it tells us nothing about the university except that at least one of its previous employees was unhappy there and (it appears) turned his displeasure into an occupation. That article already has an entire subsection titled "World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) Complaint" in which we read that "Sir Peter Scott, Vice-Chancellor of Kingston University filed a formal complaint" over this; there's no indication in the article that this was a university matter, and the paragraph ends limply with the statement that our man Fredrics "was found guilty of harrassing [sic] Sir Peter Scott through the use of the above website", again no mention of the university. ¶ Yes, there is something odd about Kingston University: it seems to attract the strangest tolerance in en:WP for molehill magnification (or just pottiness). Consider the way that a lengthy passage within the article by one Francois Greeff about the same Francois Greeff lasted not for a day but for half a year. Or indeed this excited article on a Kingston "controversy". -- Hoary (talk) 12:22, 13 February 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_February_6&oldid=1142641793"