Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 January 24

< 23 January	25 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy delete. A reasonable G11. Would also have met A7. Regards So Why 14:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Preeden[edit]

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

spam IconicBigBen (talk) 23:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete It was tagged. Why was the speedy tag replaced with an afd? Eeekster (talk) 23:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was best. IconicBigBen (talk) 23:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, please explain why you thought it was best. Eeekster (talk) 23:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 00:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD-G11 as originally tagged by Eeekster. Jarkeld (talk) 01:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, spam/db-corp, no need for AFD. Hairhorn (talk) 01:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks to me like the consensus is to speedy and I have speedied it, but it would be nice to get one more voice in here; if one more person agrees (admin or not), then please close this. If you disagree, please say so. - Dank (push to talk) 14:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TheGreatHatsby[edit]

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

Some bots that run on AOL Instant Messenger. Of no interest to anybody except AIM users. No decent references. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Encylopedia Dramatica, their article needs work. Fences&Windows 00:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 00:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:RS or WP:WEB. Warrah (talk) 00:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivial scripts/bots of no apparent general importance. Fails WP:WEB. Rodhull andemu 02:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Quarte t 13:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if this changes anything, but the official name of the project that controls the bots is "Project Upstream". I don't know why this page is called TheGreatHatsby. It should just be moved to Project Upstream. --Secundus Zephyrus (talk) 20:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. DKqwerty (talk) 17:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Palmer[edit]

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

I've never been on a reality TV show, for which blessing viewers everywhere should be supremely grateful. Wouldn't be nice. Josh Palmer, on the other hand, was on Canadian Idol. Good for him. And he belonged to a band which doesn't have an article. He was mentioned, but only a name-check, in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix. I'm sure he's a lovely bloke, but is he notable? My usual hapless attempts at Googling say that he isn't, really, not in the WP:N sense we use here. But I could be wrong. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails WP:BAND. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 00:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not winner or even top five of Canadian Idol, so he doesn't rank for that reason. If someone can save this, by finding good sources, I will change my mind. Bearian (talk) 00:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. --Quarte t 13:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Coverage is very skimpy. This is the most substantial coverage I can find. Some more here. Some additional significant coverage would convince me that this is a keep, but I was unable to find any. -- Whpq (talk) 17:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Robinson's Neighborhood (Yung Joc album)[edit]

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

Fails WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 22:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 22:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL (no tracklist or release date). I can not find any in-depth coverage for this album (just trivial mentions like this); WP:NALBUMS is not met at this time. Gongshow ^Talk 04:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the general notability guidelines. The only reference (one reference is a soft redirect to the other) gives a 2009 release date, and that seems to be the only available source, so a 2010 date is purely speculative. Yappy2bhere (talk) 22:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters in the Fantastic Four film series[edit]

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

The articles subject is not notable enough for an article. All of the characters listed in the article already have their own article for the comics version of the characters. The articles also include sections about the characters' film appearances and any changes to the characters the film created. Furthermore, only two of the three films the article covers are actually in a film series with the other being an unrelated (and unreleased) film. Marcus Brute (talk) 22:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because the following pages share the same problems of the above listed article:

Delete or maybe Merge. All of these franchises have articles on their characters (for example: List of Spider-Man supporting characters), so I don't see a point to making one specifically for their movie appearances. The only doubt comes because some of the TV shows for these franchises have similar lists. TJ Spyke 22:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Most characters already have their own articles, which it does not even redirect to. Plus, one should be able to aggregate all of these characters into a list using categories and should most likely be approached in such a way if such categories don't yet exist. DKqwerty (talk) 02:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at it... the same editor that created these lists had previously created categories to collect the characters from the films. These categories were deleted prior to the creation of these lists.
As for the list... The editor has mentioned, in relation to a similar list article ([1]), that they copy the material from the either the "In other media" section of the character articles or from IOM lists. Aside from that, the lists tend to make two or three bad logic jumps - treating disparate films as all part of one series, treating name drops as "the character appeared", and incorporating characters that "may" appear in yet to be made films or that actors have said they'd "like to play".
The best way to handle this maybe to delete these right now - the IOM sections and character lists in the film articles may be the best way to handle this. - J Greb (talk) 03:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - The problem with these big group nominations is that it makes it hard to suggest redirection or merges since they are such daunting tasks and almost no one will do them, leaving them in merger hell. But getting back on track the information in these articles all have an existing place to go to no need delete the information but also no need for separate lists/articles. --Sin Harvest (talk) 11:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Emperor (talk) 00:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as J Greb points out this is part of a wider pattern. This, like other examples, is the reshuffling of information that should already be in the character's "in other media" sections or articles, which is exactly the right place for this information (the relevant film article links through to the character one which explains their role in the film) and this is unnecessary and, like the other cases, presumably breaches guidelines like WP:SYNTH. (Emperor (talk) 00:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sixth studio album (Sum 41)[edit]

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

This is yet another recreation of an article for Sum 41's upcoming album, and WP:HAMMER strongly applies here, as it did in the last several AFDs. There is no significant coverage of this album in reliable sources, mainly because none of a title, release date, and track listing have been determined. Tim meh 22:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 22:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Stop... Hammertime (as I can't find anything to back it up). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 23:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree that WP:HAMMER applies, WP:CRYSTAL violation. I'm not finding significant coverage for this in reliable sources; does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 04:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gongshow and others: WP:HAMMERTIME. Adambro (talk) 19:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and WP:SALT... So ridiculous that these keep getting created. JBsupreme (talk) 18:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Also, why is it identified as their sixth studio album, when the template at the bottom only lists four previous studio albums.........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Scott Mac (Doc) 12:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional vehicles[edit]

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

Article is far too large in scope to accurately maintain or reference. Contains no references or assertions of notability, and was not referenced after its last AFD discussion (in which even keep voters suggested a category would be a better idea). Category:Fictional vehicles does a better job of organizing the vehicles notable enough for their own article. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A category itself might be acceptable if there were more articles on vehicles. Unless somebody wants to do an article on every fictional vehicle that has ever existed, I'd say the list should stay. ----DanTD (talk) 21:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I glean from your comment is that "every fictional vehicle" should be in Wikipedia. This is not the case, unless they are notable.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You "glean" wrong. I don't think every fictional vehicle should have an article in Wikipedia. Being on a list, however is perfectly acceptable. I have no interest in an article on "The Flying Fishmonger" (from one episode of Phineas and Ferb), or the "Roth SL Coupe" (from Kim Possible Season 4)," or "The Tank" (various episodes of Daria), or Al Bundy's broken-down Dodge Dart (various Married... with Children episodes). ----DanTD (talk) 03:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You admit knowing those? Damn. Jack Merridew 03:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Far from not having their own articles, I don't think those vehicles should even be mentioned in an article unless it is a sentence in the plot summary of their own respective shows.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Really a random collection. Almost any work of fiction will involve a vehicle, unless it takes place indoors. Note that invented vehicle types, the Batmobile and the Time Machine, are listed along with ordinary vehicles that happen to be featured in fiction. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced hodgepodge -- the majority of the vehicles are not notable in their own right. Warrah (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivia magnet. Also as an indiscriminate collection of information, as unencyclopaedic in nature, and as bringing the project into disrepute. Please note that this is not an IDONTLIKEIT; I had a blast last nomination finding things for this list and will see what I missed last time. nb: *I* added all the trains from Starlight. Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jack, I know you've got a history of trashing articles related to fiction. Maybe your articles on the Starlight trains would be better off in the category. And what's with the Cities in Flight? ----DanTD (talk) 03:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added Cities in Flight, thanks. My articles? I don't think I even edited any of those character/train articles; I just added them to teh list, here. Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you didn't create them. My mistake. ----DanTD (talk) 16:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pretty much per nom. The scope of the list is too broad, per WP:SALAT, to be a defining characteristic for an encyclopedia article. A category does a fine job organizing this material, but I don't think that anything extra can be added to the listing that is not trivia. Them From Space 03:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep referencing will keep the list manageable. Manifestly notable topic. Converting or replacing with a category means that vehicles incorporated into parent articles can be listed, which they can't otherwise. I'd support a splitting (if folks thought the article too large) into cars, boats, trains, etc. Anyway, the whole article is only a measly 20kb long. I've worked on much larger. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuild as a list of lists, and link to various lists of vehicles that aren't indiscriminate. 76.66.192.206 (talk) 04:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Way too indiscriminate. What do an AT-AT and the General Lee have in common? Absolutely nothing other than being fictional. A list that contains both is inherently too broad to be usefull. oknazevad (talk) 04:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The list is for fictional vehicles, so the two things they have in common are being fictional and vehicles. Dream Focus 04:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Despite the reasons given to delete I can see a use for this list. Lambanog (talk) 13:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and migrate over references from the articles. List vs Category is never a good argument. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - More like a random collection of stuff than an article, or a list, as there seems to be no rhyme or reason to the stuff included-New York in the same category as Star Wars spaceships? C628 (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Too large to reference is a logical fallacy, and lists and categories are not an either/or choice. Please read the editing guideline Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. This list is clearly centered around the first definition of vehicle listed at Wiktionary and not the second, although it would be good if the lead clarified that. If an entry doesn't belong on the list, the solution is to remove the entry, not delete the list. Trekker78 (talk) 02:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Like I pointed out in my earlier nomination, this list is far too indiscrimate, fictional vehicles will always appear in every ,media for one amongst other certain fact, copyright and licensing issues. Plus too large and totally unmanagable, plus vehicles such as "Christine", the "General Lee", "Herbie", "KITT" and "Ecto-1" are hardly fictional, they are based on real vehicles otherwise modified real vehicles. Not to mention most of these will never go beyond notability nor reliable third party source to have its own article. Donnie Park (talk) 16:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously not every fictional vehicle in existence is listed, just those which are clearly notable. Form consensus on the talk page for anything you doubt is a significant part of a notable series. Dream Focus 04:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aside some clearly notable ones there that make up a small percentage of this list, there are plenty of non-notable and modified vehicles based on real vehicles listed there, plus how do you know they are notable especially all of these are unsourced. Donnie Park (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plus looking at it, I don't know most of these listed there, I'll tell you what I'll do, I will delete all those without its own articles, also the redirects...once I done with all that, I will reconsider my vote. Donnie Park (talk) 23:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You nominated this article for deletion back in May, and consensus was Keep. Now you are mass deleting most of the article, reducing it from 20,886 bytes to 6,639 bytes. I'm going to undo that now. I see several examples of things clearly notable, some of them even having their own articles The General Lee. Use the talk page if you believe anything is not notable, and discuss it with someone familiar with that series. Dream Focus 04:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll tell you why I reduced it, why? because those removed do not have an article of its own, also they are not fictional (cars in fact), they are more like modified vehicles in fact. Donnie Park (talk) 00:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and expand lede a bit. Certainly notable subject of interest. If the scope is too broad that is a reason to find some logical ways to organize and possibly split the article which remains a regular editing practice not a reason to delete all. -- Banjeboi 03:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm just going to copy and paste part of what I said at the last AFD, since nothing has changed. This list is perfect valid and no reason to delete it. If you were curious about the most widely known vehicles ever used in fiction, then this would be the place to find it. Quite useful and interesting to some. Please don't go through and delete something you personally haven't heard of, without checking first. Dream Focus 04:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is evidently notable as one can find in moments a source such as The Greenwood encyclopedia of science fiction and fantasy - an encyclopedic entry about transportation and vehicles in SF and fantasy. That the scope of the topic is large is unimportant as it already has a scalable tree structure - lists of lists with articles as the leaves. Categories are irrelevant as they have their own problems and do not supersede lists - please see WP:CLS. This mostly seems to be a tiresome rerun per WP:NOTAGAIN. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Colonel Warden. Edward321 (talk) 01:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as "Fictional vehicles " is not a notable subject matter per se, so there is not need to have a list at this time. The list itself is not defined (even in the broadest sense) by any reliable source in accordance with WP:Source list. Without a reliable source to support its inclusion, arguments that it does not fail WP:NOT#DIR based on subjective importance are not supported by form of external validation. Without notability or verifiable defintion, this list is little more than a magnet for excessive plot summary that gives undue weight to in universe trivia. Notability to come, perhaps. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin, what section of this article is in any sense a plot summary, let alone an excessive one? DGG ( talk ) 05:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Major plot components of notable fiction are appropriate for a list. The rule is not vehicles with their own articles for the vehicle, but that the book or film involved must have their own article--this has been the practice with all of these. Each entry needs to be sourced, and trivial ones removed, as always, but thats an editing question. WP:DIR would apply if this were a list of all vehicles in all fiction, but it is not. List articles of this sort are navigational articles, to facilitate browsing, which is one of the key functions of any reference work like ours, and are thus justified by the foundational principle that WP is an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 05:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some wish it deleted based on inclusion criteria. Please discuss on the talk page with me [2]. This is something that can easily be worked out there. Also, I'd like to clarify that when I said Keep, I meant keep the entire article, not have 2/3rds of it deleted. I believe most of the others who said Keep felt the same way. Please participate in that discuss as well on the talk page. Dream Focus 06:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clear out the items which have no references, and work from there, building consensus. Ikip 16:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox's argument against transwiki'ing this is compelling. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ελληνική Μειονότητα Κωνσταντινούπολη[edit]

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

See the Google translation at Talk:Ελληνική Μειονότητα Κωνσταντινούπολη. While merging has been suggested, the lead section says nothing not already found at Greeks in Turkey or Treaty of Lausanne, except for the (unsourced) figures that contradict the ones given in the others. Speedy deletion seems warranted under {{db-a10}} except that the Education section has new material. However, it's unsourced and seems faulty. Why is it mentioning Arabic-speaking Syro-Chaldeans? It leaves 135 Greeks to whom three whole high schools are devoted, which seems odd. In any event, it doesn't seem sufficiently substantiated to warrant adding it to an existing article. Hence, I move for deletion. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as a good faith effort to contribute that is entirely misplaced. - Richard Cavell (talk) 14:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to the Greek Wikipedia. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 05:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Greek Wikipedia if possible; it does appear to be in good faith. As to Arabic-speaking Syro-Chaldeans in Turkey in particular? The numbers may be wrong, but it may be pointing out the Greek minority population and the Syro-Chaldean population live in the same areas. I would like to know more. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 19:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and delete. I'm the one who suggested the merger, except that on second thought there is nothing substantial to merge. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 19:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki, but change the title to el:Ελληνική μειονότητα Κωνσταντινούπολης. There is no corresponding article at el:, and the topic is not covered adequately there. Andreas ^(T) 01:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I know that transwiki-ing is a more "feel good" option, but how would we take it if the Greek Wikipedia dumped an unsourced stub on us and told us it was our problem now, especially if we already had an article dealing with the subject? I'm pretty sure we would delete it as an unsourced stub that replicates an existing topic. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Atsushi Naitō[edit]

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

Not enough verifiable evidences of Notability. This person has just two minor roles which sources to assert Verifiability were not found after diligent searches. KrebMarkt 21:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --KrebMarkt 21:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- allen四names 08:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No third-party sources to demonstrate notability. --DAJF (talk) 12:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The ja.wiki article only lists one role, the one in our lead, and doesn't mention the one in the list. Looks like we've got a small verifiability problem here as well. In any case, even the two wouldn't be enough to pass WP:ENTERTAINER, which means delete. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely non-notable voice actor. Wow... really? I'm shocked this is actually happening. JBsupreme (talk) 18:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep for now. The nomination raises valid points regarding the lists, but the consensus is that these issues can be resolved through the normal editing process (i.e., by tightening and clearly defining their scope and membership criteria). Whether the list is restricted to notable entries only or includes minor, non-notable characters as well will depend on what inclusion criteria are selected. Neither option is without precedent and could be justified; the important thing is to define clear membership criteria and implement them.

Since the core of the overall argument to keep the lists rests on the premise that the lists can in fact be made to pass Wikipedia policies and guidelines, failure to produce such improvement within a reasonable amount of time (e.g., six months or one year) could form the basis of a future deletion nomination. A list does not need to become (or even have the potential to become) a featured list in order to be kept, but it does need to be able to meet Wikipedia's basic inclusion standards. The argument that the lists can be improved to address the issues raised in the nomination is not invalid, but it is essentially speculative until such time as the improvements take place.

Editors working to improve the lists should adhere to Wikipedia content policies and guidelines—in particular, the guideline for stand-alone lists and, of course, the policies concerning verifiability and original research. Lists, like all pages in the main namespace, may not contain original research and content in lists needs to be sourced to reliable sources; it is not enough to simply link to another Wikipedia article, which may or may not contain appropriate sourcing. –Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional computers[edit]

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

This list is ridiculously wide in scope, with with no assertion of notability. Contains few references and hundreds of items, ranging from minor characters, to title characters, to simply listing a series that contains robots. The page List of fictional robots and androids even contains golems and statues from mythology and overlaps with List of fictional female robots and cyborgs. Robots are such a commonly used fictional subject that the list is likely to become ever larger and more unreferenced. Categories are a much better way to organize this type of information.

I am also nominating the following related pages due to their similarity to the nominated article:

_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes they are WP:Original research, but so are most lists on WP. These are actually interesting, to some anyway, and useful to a person wanting to learn more about the history of computers and robots in fiction. Steve Dufour (talk) 21:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMO articles on the history of computers and robots in fiction would be less useful since they would reflect the views of whatever sources were used, and would probably be almost unreadable. Steve Dufour (talk) 21:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being "interesting" and/or "useful" are not free-passes to ignore notability and referencing. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect the views of other sources, not the original research and views of Wikipedia editors. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 22:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with you in general. However, in this case these lists are far superior to what a newspaper or magazine reporter would have produced if assigned to do a story on the topic. Also views are not really being presented in the lists. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, a newspaper reporter would also have to verify their sources for all of these entries, and most likely, people looking for fictional computers would care more about HAL 9000 than the "unnamed supercomputer from Superman III".--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. This is an awesome list, comprehensive, well cited, nicely arranged and thoroughly linked to the other Wikipedia entires that more fully document these. For anyone looking to do further research within Wikipedia on these topics, it's an ideal starting point, and for the most part it provides the appropriate capsule summary level of detail that would be necessary to sort through it to find what you'd like. It's a better structure than a category for the purpose, since not all of the individual fictional computers in this list are notable enough in and of themselves to require complete entries. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Woah, you must be talking about the wrong article... I don't see any evidence that it is "well-cited". And though it may be comprehensive, not every fictional computer and robot needs to be listed on Wikipedia, since they're in a large percentage of science fiction. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be verifiable, and a hodgepodge of random listings certainly isn't. Even if they weren't notable enough for their own article, there are a total of TWO references, whereas in a well-cited article, everything on that list should be referenced.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Generally fictional entities should be discussed in their own context; there must be a reason for a list other than mere existence of a class of objects. --Wtshymanski (talk) 23:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - These pages are appropriately flagged as needing rescue because the lists are largely unsourced. However, I expect that the lists can be fully sourced and that the list topics will be demonstrated to be notable. The lists are impressive in their scope. However, because they were started before Wikipedians were particularly conscious of the need for sourcing, they need to be brought up to current standards. --Orlady (talk) 01:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CommentSince between then and now, nobody has seen fit to add sources, and it is highly unlikely that people would in the future, especially due to the overly broad scope of these articles that means that thousands upon thousands of both notable and non-notable things would have to be added for them to be fully complete.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Having worked on the sourcing of similarly broad lists -- the sourcing of which some people said would be futile (such as List of city nicknames in the United States and List of bow tie wearers), I am confident that these lists can and will be sourced. This AfD will not be in vain if it instigates major improvements to these lists. --Orlady (talk) 19:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep List articles do NOT need to list sources. They just list links to other Wikipedia articles, which have something in common, in this case having fictional computers in them. Does anyone sincerely doubt the accuracy of the information presented here? Do you think someone who has read the books mentioned, should tell you exactly what page it was mentioned on? What would be the point of that? This list is very well done, and quite informative. Dream Focus 01:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This list does not "list links to other Wikipedia articles", in fact most of the items on the list do not have Wikipedia articles, making it a list of minutae. And as said before, what is informative for you might not be for others, who are attempting to navigate a badly organized and crufty list with an overly wide scope. Simply reiterating the fact that the list should not be referenced due to its "informative" status seems to show that you need to take another look at WP:Source list.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't like it, is not a reason to delete it. The information is easily conformable in the primary sources, there no doubt about it. I don't see a problem with how it is organized. Everything on the list is from a notable series. What do you possibly gain by destroying something others would find interesting and useful? If you don't like it, you won't be likely to ever find it anyway, and can easily ignore it. Dream Focus 02:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no bias towards the lists, I just think that they are unnecessary due to the crufty nature of the items listed in them, their large scope and complete dearth of sources. Since you claim there is "no doubt about it", then why don't you find sources for everything? If you don't feel like it, that's exactly what pretty much everyone else who visits this list feels.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is not necessary, and would result in a very large pointless reference section. And you don't know what others feel, I certainly not feeling that. And no one cares if you think something is unnecessary. You can say that about any article on Wikipedia. They exist because people want to read them. No rules violated, no valid reason to delete. Dream Focus 14:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There's an FL in there somewhere. It should be limited more, but AfD is not for forcing improvement. Stuff like HAL could have two sources by itself, so notability isn'at an issue. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to no actual reason presented as to why this verifiable and notable content must urgently be protected from the public eye. The articles passes WP:LISTS by being discriminate listings that provide a navigational/table of contents function as well. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most/all capable of being referenced and sorted out. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong~~Weak Keep - Considering ~~almost all~~ some of the entries are cross-linked to articles I don't think notability or verifiable sources is a problem and the lists themselves seem to be properly bounded in the leading entry. In fact I think the lists are pretty well maintained considering how badly lists can rollercoaster out of control in Wikipedia. --Sin Harvest (talk) 12:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The point is that they are not cross linked to their own articles, but rather a decidedly random assortment of articles that have nothing to do with computers and/or robots due to their vague association with the subject matter. Not to mention that simply linking to articles does not satisfy WP:Notability. The argument that the info needs to be "urgently deleted" is irrelevant, since there are categories such as Category:Fictional robots. --_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry your right I don't know what was going through my head when I said almost all but there are some on the list that are. however I stand by my decision that the ones that are cross-linked to other articles should be considered notable though the articles they link to shouldn't exist at all if they aren't notable and I'll assume good-faith that the articles that they lead to are proper articles that are notable. --Sin Harvest (talk) 13:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This list and the other 2 related ones up for deletion are examples of a Wiki working at its best. No individual could have constructed these. They are probably the most complete lists of their kind and are a treasure. They provide a unique insight not only into the history of the subject in fiction but into the way our culture has conceived of thinking machines. As wikipedia list go they are also in reasonable shape. Lumos3 (talk) 13:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, all the issues raised are basic clean-up ones. Each list should expand the lede to explain the notability of the subject and the list cleaned up so that future editors can intuit the inclusion of items. We need to be flexible with a work-in-progress. I suggest start with the lede so at least the rest of us know why these are important. -- Banjeboi 14:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It's a good, useful and informative article. I don't know of another on line source that compiles this information in one place in this way. The "original research" sobriquet does not negate its utility. Obivously, it needs more research, more citations, more internal links, etc., but that is not to say that it should not be kept. Killing articles at birth will diminish the encyclopedia and keep a work-in-progress from becoming a full blown article. As a WP:inclusionist I think it is worth keeping. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 17:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC) Stan[reply]
Strong Keep Excellent list, just needs a reference migrated over from the mail article in each case. I am not sure how it is considered original research, it is just unreferenced. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Why is this AfD debate classified under Science and Technology? Rilak (talk) 04:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Categories are not superior to lists and it is not our policy to replace one with the other - please see WP:CLS. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all -- very useful characterization. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Somehow I don't see the utility of a list of fictional computers. It would be like a list of fictional airplanes or fictional automobiles...there's nothing very remarkable by itself about a computer showing up in fiction. Especially in the more recent works cited, computers are just part of the background furniture of the fictional universe. And some of theese fictinal universes have very little following; if a video game sells 100,000 copies, does its list of fictional artifacts make it to Wikipedia? --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - The computer or at least the fictional universe in which it features should be notable enough to appear as a Wikipedia article in itself otherwise it shouldn't be included in the list. That is how I've seen most comparison/list/disambig pages keep to as a general rule of thumb. Having said that I'm sure you will find entries that don't have either slotted into comparison/list/disambig pages which isn't a huge problem as long as it is not allowed to creep out of control with dozens of entries of such. Of course some common sense and bold editors will be needed to keep it in control and decide if entries such as "unnamed supercomputer from Superman III" should be allowed but that is the same as a lot of comparison/list/disambig pages. --Sin Harvest (talk) 02:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I agree that this could become a Featured List if given a little love and attention. It has a lot of useful information, valid links to Wikipedia articles, and a great depth and breadth of knowledge. It is organized in a easily navigated format and lends itself to continuation by multiple editors. We should work on upgrading it, not delete it.Sabiona (talk) 14:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep useful for readers interested in the subject and for any accademics studying the genre. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep but I agree that the list is poorly sourced, and sometimes woefully incomplete. For example, "Adam Selene" is certainly one of the most famous computers in science fiction, but the list doesn't do him/it justice, IMO, and I am not sure how he is to be cited. Should Heinlein's book be the citation? Reviews of the book? --DThomsen8 (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep There is nothing wrong with these lists a little housekeeping wouldn't fix - to get rid of them is to take deletionism too far - lists like these probably don't exist anywhere apart from here and provide useful information FreeMorpheme (talk) 00:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lists of significant things is notable fiction are relevant navigation guides, that facilitate browsing, one of the core purposes of a reference work, and are therefore justified by the basic foundation principle that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. As long as it is limited to notable works and to important things in them, it is not a directory. ASs for trivial, some people tend to think all of fiction is trivial. Categories and lists are complementary, and there is no reason not to have both. Lists have the particular advantage of providing some information about the material in which they appear, thus facilitating identification and browsing. In addition, as here, they can include objects such as those computers that are significant , but not significant enough to have an article of their own. It might be possible to have an article on every computer listed here, but it is not really necessary--for some of them, a list like this will do, Lists therefore discourage the creation of superfluous little articles. DGG ( talk ) 16:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. NAC. Joe Chill (talk) 20:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

T.I.P. (album)[edit]

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

Non-notable "demo" album with little ~~or no~~ media coverage of substance. Fails WP:NALBUM. TheJazzDalek (talk) 20:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —TheJazzDalek (talk) 20:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Keep': Passes WP:MUSIC. Joe Chill (talk) 20:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep uh dudes it has a review already in the article and this second one is like the third result on google: http://www.stylusmagazine.com/reviews/young-buck/tip.htm This took ten seconds. 86.44.18.194 (talk) 04:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok "dude", I changed the nomination to reflect your findings. TheJazzDalek (talk) 10:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Sadly too much of this album is just plain mediocre." [3] "And not to belabor the down notes of the album, but the coarseness is, in fact, bold... the meager production values on the compositions do take either a charitable ear or blind eye to get something out of the instrumentals alone." [4] I'll assume that you read both reviews before !voting, and that you would have offered better if better were available. So, you're arguing for notability on the basis of two reviews that found this album without merit? Yappy2bhere (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I made some additions to the article. While WP:NALBUMS states that demos are generally not notable, (1) That's generally, not always (indeed, the next sentence notes that demos may be notable if "significant coverage" exists), and (2) Demos generally do not crack the Top 40 of Billboard, as this did. The fact that it charted, combined with the two independent, non-trivial album reviews, is enough in my view to satisfy WP:N and WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 19:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, look at that, it actually charted—my face is red. I can't shut down the AFD now that others have !voted but this article should clearly be kept. Kudos to Gongshow for finding the chart info (which, oddly, wasn't even mentioned in the article before). TheJazzDalek (talk) 20:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ileana Burnichioiu[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP. It can be sourced, but it looks like she fails WP:PROF anyway. Pcap ping 20:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 20:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 20:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. According to her CV, she seems to be an Assistant Professor. No evidence of satsfying any of the criteria in WP:PROF. --CronopioFlotante (talk) 22:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see any evidence of impact (either in Google books or Google scholar) that would pass WP:PROF #1, she doesn't seem to pass the other WP:PROF criteria. I also don't see enough third-party press about her to pass WP:GNG — Google news search for her last name finds three Romanian news stories that all seem to mention her but not in enough depth to source an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some hits in GS but no citations – WoS shows 0 hits with the most liberal query (Author = Burnichioiu I*). So, there seems to be little to no impact of her work at least within the journal sector. (David Eppstein concluded the same here and also in the academic book sector.) Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete according to above. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Scott Mac (Doc) 12:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Albany Records[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this record label. Joe Chill (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 20:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - It is certainly notable in Albany, New York, where I live, and has produced CDs by Albany Symphony Orchestra and live shows at the Saratoga Performing Arts Center. Peter Kermani is a big socialite here in Upstate New York, but not notable by himself. I'm not sure whether there's notabilty nationally. In any case, this stub needs a lot of work. Please give me and the WikiProject:Capital District a few days to attempt to rescue it. If not, then it goes. Bearian (talk) 00:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This quick search of the NY Times archives shows several instances in which music CD's released by Albany Records gets mentioned in this highly reliable newspaper of immenent importance, and at least one arts section article here that mentions "A few -- Albany Records, GM Recordings, Bridge Records and New World Records -- have staked out a commercially unviable corner of the repertory, contemporary music and particularly American contemporary music, and developed notably adventurous catalogues and telling histories." I think this quick little search adds enough notability that it should stay. Being a terrible article in need of work doesnt mean its not notable. Just makes it a crappy article for now.Camelbinky (talk) 01:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are any of those significant coverage by reliable third party sources? What you've listed as your killer source is basically trivial coverage and noted by WP:Notability as such. It is a name drop and that doesn't cut it for notability. The search you've linked to is incredibly misleading as you haven't searched with quotes and there are all kinds of results mixed in there that simply mention albany, music and records. Here is a better search [5] and I don't see anything in there that isn't trivial coverage.--Crossmr (talk) 01:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the ENTIRE NY Times article that I provided? Several quotes from the owner of Albany Records is in that article, and I wouldnt say its trivial coverage. And since when is the NY Times NOT a reliable third party source?Camelbinky (talk) 01:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a reliable third party source, I asked if it provided significant coverage. If there was far more content in the source, you should have stated that. You linked to a search which basically showed nothing and contained tons of irrelevant results. the quote you provided from the article was trivial and you didn't indicate there was more. While that article provides some print, the article isn't about Albany Records and its only mentioned in relation to a larger issue and there are some quotes from a couple people who work there. Has anyone ever written an article about Albany Record or are they only ever mentioned in relation to a CD release or sound bites on other issues?--Crossmr (talk) 01:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dont know and I have better things to work on right now. It is enough to keep the article however, and I dont have to give more than a snippet when talking, if you want to comment on things like this do your homework, I linked directly to the article and I assumed people reading this would have read the ENTIRE article before commenting. The fact that their releases get mentioned in the NY Times (emphasis on what newspaper I'm talking about, this isnt a podunk newspaper from the midwest, this is THE NY TIMES talking about releases from an independent record label from a small city well outside their regional coverage area) and being mentioned even in this one article I have linked is more than enough to save the article so MORE RESEARCH can be done at a person's leisure instead of such a deadline on trying to save it. To save an article it shouldnt be required that the article becomes complete. Its been shown to be notable. We've done our job as required for this AfD.Camelbinky (talk) 01:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

addendum- Here is a third party website talking about the AMC giving the company an award. Here is them listed on a "scholarly resource of recordings". And yes, when doing searches at the NY Times archives or Google it IS pretty much common sense that you need to put "Albany Records music" instead of just "Albany Records", since as a US state capital for ~250 years and since it has existed for 400 years there are lots of sites talking about "records" in or about "Albany"; so yes a search for the words "Albany Records" like you have done is going to show alot of red herrings and swamp any mentions of the recording company. A search should always be tailored to get you the most correct responses, not the most general.Camelbinky (talk) 01:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete based on current sources provided I don't see anything that indicates significant coverage by reliable third party sources.--Crossmr (talk) 01:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The coverage is there in the links provided by Camelbinky. Award-winning label, etc. Plvekamp (talk) 02:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per meeting notability guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Tuftin[edit]

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

Upgraded from PROD. The Distinguished Service Cross seems like a claim to notability and the reference checks out, so I think this is worthy of discussion. Original prod concern was "Non notable per WP:MILPEOPLE, see recent AFDs, such as those for Henry Blomberg and Daniel Martin. No other information found in a Google/Google books search." HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 20:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per multiple recent AFDs and accepted PRODs, a Distinguished Service Cross is a second-tier decoration and, while admirable, is not notable if it is the only decoration the person has recieved. Please see the two AFDs linked in the PROD description above for examples of the recent decisions. Dana boomer (talk) 01:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Dana's assessement. Royal broil 05:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there a policy anywhere that lists what decorations confer notability? I assume Congressional Medal of Honor winners are inherently notable, for instance. Just curious.—Chowbok ☠ 15:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MILPEOPLE is a guideline- is that the kind of thing you're looking for? HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 16:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nominator withdrew, no other delete votes. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 02:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jediism[edit]

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

Strong Delete' no independent evidence of serious notability everything relies on original research. Both major editors responsible for most of the article admit COI giving increased wight on OR making bulk of the article. If anthing this should be a section of Jedi census phenomenon not its own article. Substantial time has been given to improve this article and yet RS are nearly nonexistent. Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep It is shocking to me however that if are all these good sources why i had to why the article is so poorly sourced. typically in my experience if an article is poorly sourced with things like this i am inclined to beleive it is two members with COI trying to beef up scant resources to build a flimsy article. This article need such drastic rewriting it is even funny, the "in the media" and in politics section looked more like SW trivia questions than actual segments of encyclopedia thus i nominated it for deletion. I repeal my "delete", there seems to be enough evidence that the movement his significant enough, Clearly some books cover it i was unaware i highly encourage those who seem to have spent such substantial time editing to use those sources.Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is bad, yes. But Jediism is real. Improve, don't delete. Steve Dufour (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

that was my initial thought as well however i was unable to find any sources that were actually decent and i just ripped the sources that Classify it as NRM do not say anything of the sort. "jediism" itself seems to neologism.Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge To Star Wars as not independently notable (since it is based upon someone else's intellectual property). Fans worshipping Lucas' ideas cannot, however, hijack those ideas as their own unless he proclaims himself leader of this "movement".--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ideas are not subject to copyright. The word "Jedi" itself is a trademark for Star Wars related things such as books and figurines. Religion isn't on the list.

Comment Actually, it seems like Jedi census phenomenon should be merged into THIS article instead. If you put your 'religion' down as "jedi", then you are ostensibly a 'jediist' even if you are doing so in jest, as you are officially declaring it. The phenomenon is intrinsically linked to this article.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is independent evidence of serious notability through the five academic references provided. It's ranked mid-importance on wikiproject religion and high importance by NRM workgroup. There is no COI on the article except in things relating to the inclusion of individual churches. (which I am against, just trying to 'copy' other religion-related GA wikipedia articles) The major issue with this article is the lack of detailed academic secondary sources.Ren ✉ 22:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If Jediism is a high importance new religious movement I'd hate to see a mid or low one. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. COI? Are you for real? So Christians shouldn't edit article about Christianity? Jews can't edit Judaism? Wow. Hell, let's take is a step futher. Americans can't edit articles about the US and no citizen of the UK should be allowed to edit anything regarding the Queen. It's a legitimate religion. It become notable, if for no other reason because it has been noted in the media regarding its impact on census'. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merely meant to indicate that that the COI combined with OR makes most of the article suspect as notability wise. there seems to be no academic notability even by Melton's Encyclopedia which covers so many fringe groups it seems to be threshold for notability by NRM Workgroup. Existence does not constitute notability.Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Admit COI" doesn't really make people think of what you just explained, does it? No, existence doesn't confer notability. I didn't mean to imply that it did. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"New Religious Movement in Global Perspective; a Study of Religious Change in the Modern World" does cover the religion, and cites several other studies in it's recap.[6] Niteshift36 (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exploring Religion and the Sacred in a Media Age doesn't seem to have a high opinion of it, but they do cover it. [7] Niteshift36 (talk) 23:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Jedi Manual Basic - Introduction to Jedi Knighthood" is of course devited to the idea, and also verifies that Canada has recognized the religion. [8] Niteshift36 (talk) 23:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Sociology of Religion for Generations X and Y" also covers it. [9] Niteshift36 (talk) 23:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Steve Dufuor, Ren, and Niteshift36. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 01:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Jediism is a real and influential thing with enough coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Described as a "heper-real religion" (along with Matrixism) [10], it has 70000 followers in Australia and 390,000 in the UK [11]. As noted by Niteshift36, Jediism is analyzed in detail in the books Exploring Religion and the Sacred in a Media Age by Christopher Deacy (religious studies researcher, expert in religious motifs in film) and Elisabeth Arweck (expert on new religious movements), and New Religions in Global Perspective by Peter Bernard Clarke, Professor Emeritus of the History and Sociology of Religion at King's College and tutor in the Sociology of Religion at the University of Oxford. There is an entire research paper on this subject From Jesus Christ to Jedi Knight – validity and viability of new religious movements in late modernity. The nom should check the sources in google before making nomination like this again. --Defender of torch (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nom has an apparent COI and deleted a good ref in an attempt to support his views. Apparently this isn't his first time.Ren ✉ 07:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

reply deleting poor Ref that do not meet RS is not a an illgeitmate act Weaponbb7 (talk) 16:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment. A book written by an academic, that's partially avilable online and actually confirms the information it references is a good source. There's no better ref than that.Ren ✉ 20:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

please be specific

Speedy Keep The reference in Clarke is good and strong. Other good references: [12], [13], [14]. There simply is significant coverage in scholarly sources. --JN 466 22:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harvest Moon Online[edit]

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

Per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V: single source is about five years old and was speculative then; there is nothing to justify the article's existence. DKqwerty (talk) 20:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 20:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DKqwerty. If there haven't been any new sources by now, there probably never will be. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 01:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete - There's no chance of this article surviving at this point. No reliable sources found, let alone any with significant coverage. Snow delete this one. --Teancum (talk) 17:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberathlete Professional League[edit]

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

Corporation is defunct/non-notable ZBrannigan (talk) 20:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Defunct" doesn't really matter, but since it's all sourced to its own website, I don't know that it was ever notable. If someone can show that this made news back when it was going on, I'd say keep, but it's not apparent from the article. Mandsford (talk) 21:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I will go and clarify by saying that the entire purpose of this article seems to only be to uphold the flow chart of what appears to be winners from various competitions. It all kind of smacks of a self aggrandizing blog. ZBrannigan (talk) 00:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems fairly notable: a quick search finds plenty of coverage, such as [15], [16], [17], [18] and [19]. Robofish (talk) 20:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability is not temporary, and additional sources have been provided by Robofish. Article needs major cleanup though. --Teancum (talk) 12:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Robofish's sources. SharkD Talk 08:07, 1 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Toshiyuki Kakuta[edit]

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

Procedural. Article has been repeatedly prodded, most recently by User:Bali ultimate, with rationale "long standing unreferenced blp with not even an assetion of notability. Fails MUSIC, CREATIVE, BIO. Part of a walled garden of musicians involved in video games." Since prod was contested earlier, I am bringing this to AFD Ray^Talk 19:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 19:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 19:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 19:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If the claims in the article are true, he easily passes WP:MUSICBIO #10 several times over. —Korath (Talk) 20:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in fact, even if the claims are true none of them lead to passing musicbio. As it is, it's unrourced anyways.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Bali, and per the fact that #10 of MUSICBIO also includes the following: "But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article." UnitAnode 21:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Which article? There are seven competing for this redir. —Korath (Talk) 21:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Any one of the 7 would work better than a full article. UnitAnode 21:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: That clause is only applicable if the subject is only notable for one work: they should then probably be redirected to that work. If there are multiple notable works, redirecting to one of them does not make sense. It would be too arbitrary. — Gwalla | Talk 21:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient notability or sourcing to justify a BLP article. --DAJF (talk) 12:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject does not appear notable and reliable sources not available. --Stormbay (talk) 23:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DAJF. "Insufficient notability or sourcing to justify a BLP article" is right. JBsupreme (talk) 11:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 13:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above; unsrc, nn, &c. Jack Merridew 23:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect.

Short version: Consensus says JWASM is not notable and does not merit an article.

Long version: Despite much discussion, it is very clear that the consensus of informed opinion here is that this topic is insufficiently notable for a stand-alone article. Many arguments were proffered as to why the topic was important, but the standard notability threshold of the encyclopaedia is not importance but significant coverage in independent reliable sources. In the absence of a compelling reason to keep an article on a topic of questioned notability, the burden of proof is on the editors wishing to retain the article to provide evidence of such sources, and I do not believe that they have been successful in this case. Although the rough consensus here is to delete the article, the suggestion that the topic be covered in an article of broader scope was well-received, and so rather than deleting the article and forcing editors to go and have it undeleted to include elsewhere, I am boldly redirecting it to Open Watcom Assembler as suggested below. Skomorokh 21:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JWASM[edit]

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

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

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

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

Software product does not appear to be notable. My search failed to find any references apart from the product's primary website and various technical help fora. A previous PROD template was removed without providing any reliable third-party sources to establish notability. Much of the content also appears to duplicate the MASM article. Being "useful" does not satisfy the notability guidelines. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 19:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this is an discussion about the notability of a subject. Familiarise yourself with How to discuss an AfD before responding. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 19:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to ~~MASM~~ ~~Comparison of assemblers~~ Open Watcom Assembler, as nom. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 19:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The notability of JWasm is difficult to understand for non-assembler programmers. In a nutshell: Assembler is the last language that allows to produce very fast and compact code. Video viewers, for example, would be far too slow if programmed only in Basic or C or .Net. In recent years, the owner of the dominating Operating System has tried to keep programmers away from this "low level stuff", and to force them towards High Level Languages, notably .Net-based ones; the motivation is clearly economic, and has to do with the observation that bloated software needs faster hardware. Masm is about to be phased out. There is a small but dedicated community of free software developers who are more than happy that Jwasm has emerged as an alternative. If you want to have video viewers, animation etc that do not require the :latest, best, and fastest PC on the market, then you will recognise the "notability" of JWasm. Remember that Mozilla was not so notable when it started challenging MS Internet Explorer... Jj2006 (talk) 10:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why it wouldn't have had a Wikipedia article then. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 19:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be confusing no notability with less notability. Should we omit forty or so browsers listed in Template:Web browsers because they are less notable than the main ones?? You don't seem to have a leg to stand on here. -- spin^control 19:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be confusing usefulness or future possible notability with notability. Unless you are able to provide adequate appropriate sources, you have no leg to stand on. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 20:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In no sense. You have given no indication of lack of notability where it is essential. You have merely argued here that less notability is no notability at all. That is not an argument. You have already shown that there is notability. So the case should be closed and the notice removed. -- spin^control 20:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that one day it may be notable, however as we don't have a crytal ball we cannot say one way or another if in future this becomes a notable assembler. Perhaps when it starts getting used in a signficant way if the article is deleted you could take to DRV. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 02:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's strange that someone would want to delete this article about a product that is currently under development and maintenance, while there are other assemblers with their own articles that are no longer in development and therefore not able to produce software that will function as native to current operating systems. JWASM is a modern assembler available as freeware to use. That makes it notable to assembly programmers, for whom this page is most useful. And incidentally, JWASM draws 12,000 hits on Google.

This is a bad idea and I'd recommend that the deletion notice be removed ASAP. There was no discussion of the deletion proposal on the talk page. Calls for deletion that make no effort to discuss before the notice is slapped up must not be taken seriously.

OrangeDog, you still don't seem to understand the point of showing the unique conventions of a particular assembler. When you say, "Much of the content also appears to duplicate the MASM article", you don't seem to have looked closely at the subtle but necessary differences. If you cannot see the utility of such information, then you probably don't have much use for assembly programming. -- spin^control 00:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the place to discuss the deletion. No prior discussion is necessary. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 20:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have apparently already alienated an editor here and this stated non-consensus approach is guaranteed to alienate you more. -- spin^control 20:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should be clarified: "Calls for deletion that make no effort to discuss before the notice is slapped up must not be taken seriously" is missing the point. "The notice" that was "slapped up" is precisely an invitation to take part in a discussion as to whether the article should be deleted. It is not true that there is "no effort to discuss": this here is a discussion. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would not recommend that this be done at all. I need to add my voice to the general chorus - this is the place to discuss deletion matters. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 02:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. This appeal to delete has no basis whatsoever. It meets none of the criteria in WP:BEFORE. -- spin^control 18:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did adhere to WP:BEFORE. If you have any sources establishing notability that I have missed, please provide them. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 19:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you are making the claim of lack of notability. Therefore you need to make a case for your assertion. -- spin^control 19:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My case is made at the top of this page. You need to prove the opposite. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 20:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the little that there was, I already have. Besides, referring to an issue is not making a case. You claim: "My search failed to find any references apart from the product's primary website and various technical help fora." Where do you expect to find the notability of an assembler except in the areas where people deal with assemblers? I'm sorry, the only case you've made is that it is notable where it counts.

You are supposed to have made a case, not suggest the possibility. Please consider the issue in more depth, thank you. -- spin^control 20:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Under Wikipedia policy the onus is on those wishing to retain information to provide evidence of notability. (I also think there are good reasons for this policy, but whether you agree or not we have to work from that policy.) Also, how can one provide evidence of lack of notability? In other words, how can one provide evidence that there is not substantial independent coverage? Surely (1) by looking for such coverage and failing to find it, and (2) by inviting anyone else to find some if they can. OrangeDog has done both of these. If there is a third way I can't think of it. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The repeated premature tagging of this recently added article is neither well informed nor occurring within the guidelines of Wikipedia. In both instances the users who have nominated this page for deletion without any prior notification on the JWASM discussion page and apparently having even bothered to read the discussion page.

The suggestion to merge the JWASM page with the Microsoft Macro Assembler page is unsound, Microsoft, Sybase and Watcom are distinct commercial entities with different technical and corporate backgrounds and to include JWASM on the MASM page would mislead readers as to the identity of both assemblers. Note also that with the page up and readable that other updates have now been made to it to keep it up to date.

It is a mistake to assume that all assemblers are the same, notational differences, licencing differences, platform and hardware differences etc ... Implimentation of such assumptions if the editors do not have demonstrable experience with assemblers to correctly referencing technical data that applies to each different tool has the net effect that the quality of the Wikipedia article is seriously diminished and that the reputation of Wikipedia as a reliable source of technical data is placed under further pressure. Hutch48 (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith. Notification before starting an AfD is not required. I had read the discussion page (including your incivility there). It is also a mistake to assume that all assemblers are notable. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 19:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your desire to delete this page is certainly not transparent. Why is it that after attempting to remove large amounts of the MASM article, you leave it to try to delete the JWASM article? I'd suggest that you assume some good faith here and think that those who've done the work of presenting the information have done so to fill a need. I await your case for lack of notability. As is, I'll be happy to remove the deletion notice ASAP as it is against the consensus. -- spin^control 19:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My decision to nominate JWASM is completely independent of my decision to attempt to edit MASM. I simply found the JWASM article as it was linked from MASM. This is not the place to discuss the MASM article. As before, my case for lack of notability is presented at the top of this discussion, i.e. that no reliable independent sources can be found. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 20:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are not discussing the MASM article, but your change of tack to post a deletion notice on JWASM. As before you have no case. This is a specialist topic and you have shown that in specialist circles JWASM is notable. Would you post a deletion notice say on Endogenous Retroviruses because it is a specialist topic? I'd think not, and neither should you with JWASM. -- spin^control 20:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endogenous retroviruses#References lists 11 academic journal citations and 1 news article, among others. That is why I would not nominate it for deletion. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 20:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So your answer is no, you wouldn't delete it because it is a specialist topic. That however is what you are trying to do with JWASM. It's just that notability is measured differently from an academic topic. -- spin^control 20:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @OrangeDog: The JWasm article is relavent and serves the programming community. JWasm provides an important alternative to MASM for those who need to avoid a variety of licensing issues. For example, if a programmer wishes to write an operating system or distribute code under GPL open source, an alternative to MASM is needed (refer to MS MASM license). Quote: "...the owner of the dominating Operating System has tried to keep programmers away from this "low level stuff", and to force them towards High Level Languages..." Nothing could be further from the truth, as Microsoft continues to distribute MASM and provide low-level coding ability for high-level languages. Quote: "Masm is about to be phased out." Please site sources to verify this statement. Perhaps it would be best if you left articles about programming to those who are knowledgeable in that field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.219.214 (talk) 13:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please address the question of notability by providing the necessary sources, not attacking the nominator. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 19:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above editor seems to be attributing the quotes they make to OrangeDog. In fact the quotes are from Jj2006, arguing against OrangeDog.JamesBWatson (talk) 10:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The use of assemblers and assembler programming generally is a specialised field and to make a viable and/or meaningful analysis of a field as specialised as assembler programming, the person making a value judgement by tagging a page of this type has acted outside the guidelines of Wikipedia and passed an unqualified value judgement on a topic they are not competent to comment on.
1. Elen of the Roads tagged the article in under 12 hours of its creation while knowing nothing about the topic.
2. Magioladitis tagged the article as an orphan with no knowledge of the field or what reference material was available.
3. OrangeDog tagged the article for deletion without any form of consultation and with no known expertise in this field.

Citing the Wikipedia specifications for article deletion "For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort." this in fact has not been the case with the three (3) users who have so far incorrectly tagged the JWASM article, it has been an act of first resort with no consultation, no discussion on the "Discussion" page for JWASM, no consensus with any other person of any known expertise and from users who have no demonstrated expertise in assembler programming.

In particular user OrangeDog has attempted to isolate the current author of JWASM from its historical origin as open source code owned under a Sybase licence where in fact Sybase is a well known software company who purchased the Watcom line of development tool some years ago and made the source code availoable under their own Open Source licence. The names Watcom and Sybase are a sufficient condition to establish notability for a tecynical target like an assembler and it is a mis-representation on the part of user OrangeDog to try and represent the JWASM assembler as a private single ownership work.

Citing again the Wikipedia specifications for article deletion, "If the article is about a specialized field, use the expert-subject tag with a specific WikiProject to attract editors knowledgeable about that field, who may have access to reliable sources not available online." This is fact has not been done by any of the three users who have so far tagged the page rendering it useless and unreadable.

It is reasonable to require users who place tags on new articles to actually bother to READ THE RULES and properly comply with them rather than simply slap labels on work that defaces it and renders it as technically useless. Form is no substitute for content and as long as Wikipedia allow non-competent people to tear around technical pages with automated software vandalising the content in violation of the rules, the quality of the articles will be diminished and leave Wikipedia open to further pressure in terms of reliability and relevance of content. Hutch48 (talk) 16:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As it is only you here who are pushing for deletion, perhaps you'd be kind enough to explain your interpretation of notability with regard to the JWASM article. You see at the moment that a number of people disagree with you and the consensus is that this is sufficiently notable. For example, which third-party sources would you expect other than materials derived from the provider of the assembler?

Redirection of JWASM to MASM would naturally be inappropriate because there are notable differences between the two assemblers, as the Usage sections indicate. -- spin^control 19:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Third-party sources would include reviews and features in major computing-related publications, citations in news articles or academic journals, appearance in TV or radio documentaries, etc. See WP:GNG and WP:RS for more details. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 20:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are not answering my rhetorical question: "which third-party sources would you expect other than materials derived from the provider of the assembler?" Assembly language matters are not what one would expect in academic journals, TV or radio documentaries (!?), but you expect them in areas where people who deal with assembly languages congregate and you have shown that it is dealt with there. -- spin^control 20:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GNU Compiler Collection includes two published book citations, one magazine and two news articles. Microsoft Visual Studio includes multiple citations of notable bloggers and 1843 Google News hits. Even MASM manages [20] and one relevant news hit. JWASM has none of these.

wikt:rhetorical question - obviously... OrangeDog (τ • ε) 21:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously Microsoft and the Free Software Foundation both have the resources to have books published. So now you are arguing that organizations that muster finances are privileged on Wikipedia. This argument is one you can use against any other assembler package. The JWASM article is technical material of a specialist nature and you are not looking in the right places, such as assembly language forums. -- spin^control 01:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am here because I was notified in my talk page. I tagged the article as orphan since it has less than 3 incoming links based on criteria found in WP:ORPHAN. My tag was reverted by Hutch48 with a comment in article's talk page and later in my talk page writing "I have read you categories of contributions and it appears that programming is not among your expertise." Since the article had 2 incoming links at that time and the Orphanage Project gives priority to articles with no incoming links I lost interest in retagging the article or doing more on the case. Just to mention again the obvious: Tagging an article for needing editors' attention, it doesn't imply that it's going to be deleted. Usually tagging is there to help article to get improved. I personally have no opinion of whether we should delete the article or not. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No secondary source coverage to be found. I can therefore only conclude that it fails WP:GNG as it is. Will of course reconsider my comment if others can provide sources. Redirecting to MASM would be inappropriate, for reasons discussed above. decltype (talk) 20:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment RE: Comments by user decltype who I thank for a constructive addition to the discussion, the complete original source code for all versions of JWASM are cited in the introduction with reference to the authors page of the source being written in portable C and by the Open Source code being available at the authors site. As typical with Open Source code, the annotation is the source code and the derivation and further description is wholly solely and exhaustively contained in the authors source code. There may be a case for additional citation back to the source code but it risks making the page a lot harder to read and may place a requirement for a reader to have to learn portable C to properly understand the assembler notation.

In an area that has yet to be addressed on the page, the JWASM assembler is currently 64 bit capable in a number of platforms and to this extent it ceases to be MASM compatible as MASM is not targetted at any other environment apart from Microsoft Operating Systems. Also specific to the Windows environment ML64.EXE and JWASM deviate in terms of technical capacity and notation. While these updates need to be made to the JWASM page, while it is under threat of deletion it is not worth wasting the effort to further improve the page if it ends up being deleted and until its status is properly resolved there is little reason to improve the page.

Hutch48 (talk) 01:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since someone has decided to drag me into this, I will add my opinion. I PRODded this article with "Notability not verified - please provide secondary references that support the notion that this widget meets Wikipedia notability standards." At that point, someone did what the creator should have done and added some references. Since I would expect this sort of topic to be notable only in a specialised field, and not make the front page of The Times, I decided to leave it be at that point. I followed the rules to the letter. It is not my fault that Hutch48 - who it appears is better placed to find sources for this article - decided not to add any references. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. To address a number of issues raised here, firstly, Elen of the Roads was "dragged" into this because of having tagged the beginning of the article in under 12 hours of its creation. My extremely subdued response (I speak the Australian idiom) was in response to a direct breach of Wikipedia rules related to newly created articles as specified on the deletion page cited above. I note that user only commented in the "Discussion" page AFTER I made my comments there instead of the prior notification required under the rules. I would complain here that users who tear around slapping tags on technical pages at least READ THE RULES and make some comments FIRST in the "Discussion" page of a newly created article before rendering a page unreadable with inappropriate tagging.

I note that so far the originator of this latest attempt to delete the JWASM page OrangeDog has continued to avoid the obvious with this page in that it is Open Source software issued under a SyBase licence which alone is sufficient notability as the Watcom name purchased by Sybase and subsequently licenced as Open Source. Isolating the current maintainer/author of JWASM and attempting to represent JWASM as a private project by a single author is a misrepresentation of the facts. The externally published content of the Sybase Open Watcom licence makes this clear. Its Watcom predecessor WASM has been in existence since the early 1990s and JWASM is a direct upgrade/rewrite of WASM to modernise it and make it available for a wider range of platforms.

With the current status of the JWASM page being tagged for deletion after repeated graffiti on the page I would class the page as "DEAD IN THE WATER" and not worth the effort to continue to work on it even though I have about 20 years experience in writing the Microsoft dialect of x86 assembler and with MASSIVE RESOURCES behind me in hundreds of highly qualified and experienced members of the MASM forum coupled with a massive database of technical data in the forum ranging back over 5 years in the current incarnation of the forum, as long as this page and the Microsoft Macro Assembler page are subject to damage by users who have yet to demonstrate any form of expertise, it is a waste of effort to update technical pages that are subject to repeated damage of this type.

I note that the originator of this current deletion attempt OrangeDog has already tried to delete more than half of the content of the MASM page before another member reverted the page so I would suggest that his intent is clear by way of his own actions and the comments he has made on his own talk page in response to to my own questions about his actions, experience and intent.

To address a response from user OrangeDog in relation to notions of conflict of interest because other people in the past have linked to my web site and forum without my permission, I primarily work in Microsoft assembler and run the MASM forum to support x86 style assembler programming. I am not in any way connected with the production of the JWASM assembler and do not use it in my own code production but I do host such a critically important Open Source project at the MASM forum which has been used by the current maintainer to further develop JWASM and interact with its expanding user base and I build the JWASM project from its source code in Microsoft C on a release by release basis to stay up to date with its capacity in the Windows environment.

In accordance with the above mention Wikipedia rules on deletion, I would suggest that people who are not technically competent in this area restrain themselves in terms of damaging these technical pages and obtain the advice of an expert in x86 assembler programming who is both familiar and experience in using the Microsoft assembler in the Windows environment and other experts who are familiar with writing Intel notation x86 assembler for the Linux, BSD and x86 MAC environments. This takes the decision making out of the hands of amateurs and places it where technical articles of this type should be, in the hands of people who actually know enough about it.

Hutch48 (talk) 00:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Issues of notability require a reasonable search for references made in good faith according to Wikipedia policy. While the original person who tagged the JWASM article for deletion claims to have done so, it appears not to have been done within the guidelines of Wikipedia but to make the claim that the JWASM project is not notable. Here is a quick smattering of the notability and support for JWASM at an international level. A simple Google search makes the evidence for notability overwhelming. Note multilingual sites with reviews and multiple download sources for JWASM for both the Windows and Linux environments.

There are in fact many many more available in multiple languages.

http://www.freedos.org/cgi-bin/lsm.cgi?mode=lsm&lsm=devel/jwasm.lsm
http://ko.sourceforge.jp/projects/sfnet_jwasm/
http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/devel/asm/jwasm/
http://www.rcedir.com/index.php?list=latest
http://www.downloadplex.com/tags/jwasm/Page-1-0-0-0-0.html
https://hermes.opensuse.org/messages/2399877
http://www.openwatcom.org/index.php/Wasm
http://www.retrovicio.com/programas/cutemouse
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1327211
http://www.dmoz.org/Computers/Programming/Languages/Assembly/x86/Assemblers_and_Linkers/
http://www.haker.com.pl/showthread.php?p=123376
http://slashdot.jp/softwaremap.pl?id=325
http://groups.google.am/group/openwatcom.users.c_cpp/browse_thread/thread/bf68e4bfdc4b7a04

Hutch48 (talk) 03:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. It is odd to see, in Wikipedia, the argument that notability has to be proven by citing print media and/or academic journals. Programming was among the first disciplines that abandoned print media. I have retyped code myself in early 1980's from computer journal pages, and it was not fun. So not surprisingly, independent references for programming languages are nowadays dedicated software forums - and there are plenty which point to JWasm. The reason is that >90% of the existing codebase are written in MASM syntax, and assembly coders are desperately looking for an alternative assembler, because MASM itself is slowly being abandoned by its owner. Besides, JWasm is the only notable legal software for Linux assembly. One more reason to keep this article.Jj2006 (talk) 08:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, such misinformation is definitely not going to help the notability case of JWASM. Point in case: NASM has been around quite some time, and GAS has been around even longer; both very notable and "legal software for Linux assembly." SpooK (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: can I again reiterate that I breached no rules when I new page patrolled that article. Only the fact that it was about the software and not the creator/distributor stopped it being eligible for speedy deletion under category A7, as it made absolutely no assertion of significance at that point. PRODding the article was an entirely reasonable response, and I request that Hutch48 withdraw his continued bad faith assertion. It is not my fault that Hutch48 did not create the article in accordance with the Wikipedia 5 Pillars, particularly verifiability. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Elen of the Roads. Don't worry. I'm sure you understand the situation where someone is in the middle of creative activity and another comes along and apparently puts the damper on it. You were following the rules. But when someone creates an article, it is often saved in an intermediate form in order to get the article started. Once started you can go back and set it straight. If you come along and mark the fresh article as a candidate for deletion when the article hasn't been allowed to reach the editor's desired form, you'll probably stimulate a reaction similar to the one you got. What you see is not bad faith. It's a very reasonable reaction of someone relatively new to Wiki-dom. I'd recommend that you wait next time before marking an article for deletion: less than a day doesn't allow the editor to get the article up to scratch. As to verifiability, all the information is available in the annotated materials supplied with the assembler package. It's just rather hard to cite. But you can verify it yourself working through those materials. It's all there. It's good to have people who care about what gets posted on Wiki. We need more people like you. I'd just like to defuse the situation. I don't think you are being attacked and there is no bad faith. It would be good though for Hutch48 to clarify this. -- spin^control 12:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi spin. I appreciate your attempts to mediate here, and I do understand that Hutch48 is upset that his work is not being appreciated. However, I don't think that Hutch48 understands Wikipedia's notability policy. None of the sources he has provided above(most of which I found) indicate that the topic is notable in Wikipedia terms. I may not work in an area which uses this gadget but I can perfectly well understand the difference between a mention in a bunch of listings that say this is a free clone of some propriatory product, and a couple of sources that say "new breakthrough" "significant development" "has become the product of choice for" or similar indications of notability. I check all unsourced articles when I page patrol, and if I can find a source that gives even some evidence of notability I add it. I would also add that if an article is likely to take some time to compile, creating it in a sandbox is probably the correct way to do it. I would also add that as Wikipedia is not a How To manual, finding reliable sources would have been a better use of time that downloading and evaluating the software, something that comes quite close to being original research. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elen of the Roads, while I finally have no deference towards you, I make no apology for having reacted to your original tagging of a new article under 12 hours after it was created as I consider your actions unreasonable within that time frame. The article you tagged took the time to download the JWASM software, build it with the appropriate software, put it through objective testing, trawl through the auhors home page and reference material, detailed search of Wikipedia for compatible articles and then the time to write the article. I came back under 12 hours the next day to do some more work on the article only to find your notice slapped on the page to delete it.

While I don't live in Wikipedia trawling articles to delete I do in fact read the policy of Wikipedia carefully and here specifically the Wikipedia policy as stated on the page with the heading "Wikipedia:Notability" at URL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GNG#General_notability_guideline

In particular I quote the following Wikipedia policy.

Subheading -- Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines

Although articles should demonstrate the notability of their topics, and articles on topics that do not meet this criterion are generally deleted, it is important to consider not only whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be. Remember that all Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article can be notable if such sources exist even if they have not been added at present. Merely asserting that such sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially as time passes and actual proof does not surface. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources. For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort.

(a) it is important to consider not only whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be.
(b) Remember that all Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article can be notable if such sources exist even if they have not been added at present.
(c) For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort.

Now I remind you that this IS WIKIPEDIA POLICY I can reasonably expect that editors act in good faith and comply with that stated policy. You have not addressed (a) in terms of whether the article at less than 12 hours old was able to satisfy the notability guidelines, (b) that it was clear from the editing date that the article had just been created and was in early draft form and (c) you have tagged the article as a FIRST RESORT, not the Wikipedia policy of last resort. Acting in good faith is double ended and while I am satisfied that you have not intended the tagging with any form of malice, I also suggest at the best that you were careless in tagging an article that was less than 12 hours old and did not address the published Wikipedia guidelines quoted above.

Hutch48 (talk) 14:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can we stop discussing other user's imagined intentions or conduct, or the content of other articles. This is a deletion discussion about JWASM, and should be dedicated to discussing whether there are sufficient sources to establish the notability of JWASM (not its producers, or usefulness, or extent of use, or the content of the article) and thus whether it is a suitable subject for a standalone article. "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" does not include technical information on how to use the product. The final decision will be made by an uninvolved (and likely non-computer-expert) administrator based on quality, not quantity, of arguments - WP:GNG, WP:AGF, WP:AADD, WP:TLDR. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 12:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OrangeDog, the reason why statements about your intention are involved is not based on imagination but what you have both said and done. Making reference to the content of your own talk page you cited criteria that was incorrect about the MASM page and after trying to negotiate with you, you deleted over half of the MASM page and further threatened to delete more of it. After another user restored the page you then shifted to the JWASM page and with no consultation whatsoever or any attept at establishing the required consensus you tagged the article for deletion which lead to this page of discussion.

You have been unwilling to address the overwhelming notability issues I have raised in relation to Sybase, its owndership of the Watcom name and code base or the range of support and reference available with a simple Google search and it would appear that you are relying on ignoring the notability of an old and well know Watcom code base and are trying to have this page deleted by avoiding the available information. SHifting the Open Watcom licenced code to the status of a single individual may achieve the effect you want to achieve but it is not based on fact or the legal ownership of the Watcom code base.

Hutch48 (talk) 14:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per textwalling from supporters. Look, guys, if you want this kept, all you have to do is find and include non-trivial, reliable, third party sources. I see there's more arguments about notability here than effort has been made to source the article--always a bad sign. I've tagged the article for rescue; maybe someone can come to your aid here. OrangeDog has a perfectly reasonable nomination for a software product that doesn't tell me why this assembler is notable (pedantic and irrelevant explanations of what assemblers are aside). Jclemens (talk) 16:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Existing and being useful doesn't make something notable. Ghits don't make it notable. Future usefulness doesn't make it notable. As for the complaining about "it was only 12 hours".....Sources that demonstrate the notability should have been there when the article was written. The fact that they weren't demonstrates that the author didn't do his job. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Because this isn't very hard: there's no notability. As one of the proponents inadvertently argued somewhere in this giant wall of text, maybe someday this will be notable. But it isn't now. The fact that code exists, or that assembly is important isn't really relevant. Bfigura ^(talk) 16:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Folks, it would seem that the intent here is clear, feel free to delete this article, even though it took me a reasonable amount of time to research it, test the data for reliability, check the links for relevance and bother to write the article. As it is evident that no technical expertise is going to be exercised here so it is best left to the people who are not willing to write a technical article of this type. Forget the legal ownership of the Watcom code base by Sybase or the thousands of hits that JASM generates on Google, the criterion of notability being put in place here is not within published Wikipedia guidelines as referenced above so it should have a familiar feel to people who are not willing to add content of this type to improve Wikipedia.

I would like to thank user Jclemens for having made a constructive retagging the page as rescuable but with the demonstrated disregard for published Wikipedia policy and the rush to delete this page I doubt that it will succeed.

Be sure of this much, if the work I have done to put this page up so it can be added to and improved is wasted, I will never re-create it again.

Regards,

Hutch48 (talk) 16:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:N. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 19:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable by Wikipedia's standards. This isn't to cast doubt on the merits of the software itself, but by the guidelines we use on Wikipedia to judge the notability of the topic this article fails. Significant coverage in more than one independent reliable source is what is used to show notability, and those asking for the article to be kept have demonstrated themselves that this isn't available. -- Atama頭 19:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, and the textwall supporters don't provide ANY clue as to notability, only WHY the article should be kept. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 20:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure but I am more on the delete side. Article lacks secondary sources. In the version I am reading right now all references are from its official website plus 2 that are tagged with "not in citation given". The links given above just indicate that the assembler exists but the existence alone is not a reason to keep in Wikipedia. The article must be covered and probably reviewed by trusted third parties. The links provided don't fulfill this but they seem to me more like that one source copied the other or that just one user or a few tried the assembler and just added info about it in some forums. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. The textdumps by supporters do not help their cause, but the main issue is that the subject is not notable, and there is a distinct lack of reliable, third-party sources. Unit Anode 23:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - 'DELETE'. I don't honestly care about the software or why it is useful. As a wiki editor I care about the article meeting the guidelines laid out for ALL articles here at Wikipedia. For "this" article I want to know where are the trade magazine articles (like "PC Gamer" if this was a computer game), news articles (like a local/state-wide paper, or some national coverage), book coverage (like a book dedicated to just this software or a chapter in a book about this software) or even academic journals?

Where is the significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the software? Show me sources, independent from the source code, that have given significant print coverage to this software's notability. If this was notable, where are the books on this software from publishers like O'Reilly Media? If this is a specialist software there must be many books on how to program in this language for those just starting out. There must be some major coverage by specialist magazines or maybe a special TV show on G4? No? Then it fails wiki's standards, but that doesn't take away from the software itself. --Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 05:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 00:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[edit]

I have asked the person responsible for this deletion notice to make a case for lack of notability. OrangeDog has failed to do so. He merely refers to the issue and states his inability to look in the appropriate places for interest and importance of the software which is the topic of the article. This is clearly specialist material and a lot of Wiki contains specialist material. We don't go around deleting things merely because they are of interest to a very specific audience.

As I pointed out earlier, JWASM gets 12000 Google hits from various countries around the world. It's being mentioned in assembler fora. In the field of assembly programming it is obviously notable. But the sort of notability that has been evinced by the deletion proponent is not the sort that he can expect in this field. Assembly language is not something that run of the mill programmers ever use, so books don't often get published in the area. He cannot be serious mentioning coverage on radio or TV. Claims of notability or the lack thereof need to be established in the appropriate circles and the deletion proponent has failed to do so.

Sadly I think OrangeDog is wasting everyone's time because he has not made the effort to establish the notability issue. He has merely shown his lack of interest in it. He has not established his case from the assembler language community out of which it needs to be made. -- spin^control 18:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've got it backwards. Articles which are challenged must demonstrate notability to remain un-deleted--the burden of proof isn't on those arguing for deletion. If the article has multiple independent RS it's kept; if it doesn't, it's deleted. The point of the AfD discussion it to ascertain whether the sources provided, if any, are sufficient. Jclemens (talk) 18:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability in terms of the assembler community has been demonstrated here. I've got nothing backwards. This is a specialist area and to make cogent comments one is supposed to be familiar with it. I've seen no-one here advocating deletion show any familiarity with the assembler community and its unique situation. That's why the issue of notability is being misapplied here. This is not a scientific community, so you won't get journal articles. This is not a popular programming area so you won't get books. It's a dirty hands on working community that is left to its own resources and the denial of support for the community because it doesn't fit neatly into expectations goes against the Wiki spirit. The notability issue as presented for this deletion case is a failure. -- spin^control 18:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Since I'm not an expert, nor do I claim to be, could you perhaps point to which of those 12k google hits are sources that discuss the subject in a non-trivial manner? If we can then add them to the article, this can be closed in short order. I'm well aware that in certain disciplines, sourcing isn't straightforward. However, if your claim is that this subject has never been covered in any sort of book, academic paper, or reputable web publication, then why does it matter how many google hits there are? If it's popular in forums, but there haven't been any reliable sources discussing this in detail, then this might seem to be a case of future popularity. (Also, at present, your comment seems to be asking that OrangeDog prove a negative in an AfD. Am I misreading you?) -- Bfigura ^(talk) 18:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JWASM is in wide use in the assembler community now. It's not about future popularity. The 12k hits show that a software package for a very restricted field is being dealt with all around the world. The assembler community is a very practical one. Documentation is usually only supplied in code examples that come with the package. The notion of notability needs to be applied in the appropriate context and one's expectations of the signs of notability need to consider that context. -- spin^control 18:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So your argument is not that the subject is notable as defined by WP:N, but rather that the definition in WP:N shouldn't strictly apply since the subject is popular within its community? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but this sounds to be similar to what was proposed in Wikipedia:Software_notability. Since that proposal failed, I'm still going to ask you to point to a few reliable sources that discuss the subject in a non-trivial fashion. (I don't see any that jump out as reliable sources, but since I'm not an expert in the field, that's not entirely meaningful). -- Bfigura ^(talk) 18:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, my argument is that the notion of notability is not being considered reasonably. The issue is not simply one of counting signs from usual sources. You won't get them because it is inappropriate. Specialist material can easily be found on Wikipedia. Look for example at the article for Gutians: though this is a scholarly subject it is rather obscure. So obscurity is not an issue of notability. The Gutians are well-known in the specialist field of Assyriology. JWASM is also known in its specialist field. It's just that the means of demonstrating the fact is different. Notability is the same in both cases. -- spin^control 19:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gutians cites a number of books and academic journals in its references, thus satisfying WP:GNG. That is why it has not been deleted. WP:Other stuff exists. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 19:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have just proven my issue with your attempted use of notability. -- spin^control 19:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Now you've totally lost me. For the Gutians, you can find easily (if you have access to the proper books and journals, otherwise google books/scholar gives excerpts) reliable references that would discuss the subject in a non-trivial way. Are they obscure? Specialist, maybe, but they're still clearly reliable sources. Please point to reliable sources that do the same for this subject. Since we seem to be going around in circles here, I'll try to be more on-point: if your reply hinges on the words "popular" or "12k google hits" you don't understand what I mean when I'm talking about notability. -- Bfigura ^(talk) 19:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but did you read what I actually said? Especially: "It's just that the means of demonstrating the fact is different." I didn't say that that there were no scholarly references dragged out for the article. If you look into the issue you'll find that the actual references are very paltry. However, the Gutians are important in their field, a field that has standard means of displaying notability. However, in the practical world of assembly language programming the means of displaying notability is very different. You are not address this issue. You are just plowing on not dealing with notability appropriately in its specialist field. -- spin^control 19:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in fact I did. Atama sums the isssue well, in his reply below. You don't want us to judge the subject by the WP:GNG or anything in WP:N. Too bad. If you don't like policy, you should try and form a consensus to change it. However, that was recently tried and failed. Just because you don't like the criteria doesn't constitute an argument against us applying them. -- Bfigura ^(talk) 19:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See below regarding WP:GNG. -- spin^control 19:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Damn, I was going to tell Doktorspin that he has the notability thing backwards, but everyone beat me to it.Niteshift36 (talk) 19:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing the point of notability, as has the deletion proponent, OrangeDog. This can be seen in the inappropriate standards to measure it. -- spin^control 19:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I haven't missed the point of notability at all. There is no "right" to have an article here. Articles must demonstrate notability to be included. The notability of this has not been demonstrated. So, barring the sudden demonstration of notability through 3rd party sources, it will end up being deleted.Niteshift36 (talk) 14:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you still have missed the point. If you can't understand the issue of what notability can be in the assembly language community, then you shouldn't be posting uninformed opinions. The opinion based on the lack of knowledge of the issue displayed here should mean that most of the assembler articles would need to be deleted. This sadly is an expert area and people who know nothing about it should either leave it to those who do know or simply band together and remove nearly all the assembler material on Wiki. You seem to be incapable of understanding the notability issue and how to gauge it in this field, so you can resist understanding and be coherent or learn about what you are giving opinions on. -- spin^control 06:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has missed the point. You're trying to reinterpret Wikipedia policies so that your article, which does not satisfy those policies, will be kept. You can try to Wikilawyer and philosophize your way through this AFD but if the article cannot be made to satisfy the policy AS WRITTEN, then it will be deleted. No special considerations are given, and no, the topic will not be left to "those who do know" (that's not how Wikipedia works). And people won't be going around to delete all other assembler content either if/when this one is deleted. That's a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument that's as old as this website is. If you want the article kept, you need to demonstrate that the subject of this article has been covered in some form of mainstream or specialist media. Does the assembler community have a niche publication? That would help. See WP:RS for more information. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 18:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would the non-specialists please tell me what they would expect as notability in the assembly language programming community? I understand what you expect in scholarly communities, but not in the relevant field. People so far haven't shown any familiarity in the field. However, they want to remove an article which isn't self promotion or publicity, but which has a relevant interest base in a specialist field.

Is it that people want to discriminate against the assembly programmers by eliminating material that can be of help to these programmers? -- spin^control 19:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can make your point by adding one big comment instead of small comments under everyone's opinion. Friendly, Magioladitis (talk) 20:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:FAILN has not been read and its recommendations not applied.
Ask the article's creator or an expert on the subject for advice on where to look for sources.

This was not done by the editor who tagged the article.

If the article is about a specialized field, use the expert-subject tag with a specific WikiProject to attract editors knowledgeable about that field, who may have access to reliable sources not available online.

x86 Assembler is a specialised field.

Is there some reason why this was not applied before the deletion tag was added ?

Hutch48 (talk) 07:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Given that Hutch48 and other supporters have been unable to find the requested sources, it's a bit irrelevant isn't it. I'd just give this argument a rest. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if you bothered to read WP:FAILN you would not support inappropriate tagging of articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Splitting hairs much? You won't find any loopholes that let you keep this article. I suggest you start looking for media coverage. However, I agree with Elen in that if you and spin have spent this much time arguing semantics instead of actually providing reliable sources, there are likely no reliable sources. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 18:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be consistent among editors interested in deleting the topic that the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia WP:FAILN have not and will not be adhered to and that at least some of the editors prefer to avoid these guidelines to bypass the appropriate methods of review contained in the guidelines.

Hutch48 (talk) 05:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG[edit]

Let's look at WP:GNG ("If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article."):

1. Significant coverage: do you doubt that the article is significant coverage?

2. Reliable: you are free to check the annotated source code for the reliability of the material as the editor has done.

3. Sources: We have to go to where the information for the material comes from, ie the annotated examples.

4. Independent of the subject: the annotated software is our source of the useful knowledge on the package.

5. presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria: an independent software package in use among a wide specialist community. Shouldn't it be dealt with?

Where is your beef with WP:GNG? What am I missing regarding your attempt to use notability? -- spin^control 19:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My issue is that you're completely misunderstanding what the GNG means and what it applies to:

To quote the GNG: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". It has nothing to do with the content of the wikipedia article or the fact there are many google hits.
You're confusing reliable sources with primary sources.
You still haven't pointed to any reliable secondary sources.
Again, this refers to the references, not the article or wikipedia editor.
This means that if you met the above 4 points, the subject might be notable, but isn't necessarily. Quoting again: "significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion".

I'm not sure how I can be more clear: please point to 2 or 3 reliable references that discuss this in a substantial fashion. Otherwise, you're just arguing against WP:N being applied, which doesn't help you, or anyone else. -- Bfigura ^(talk) 20:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are starting to think of what notability would be for this community. Discussion is not frequent. People are just trying to use it. However, you do get descriptive mentions here and here, while a Copenhagen academic recommends it in this pdf book chapter. You'll find substantial discussion here, but it does feature the package maintainer. I still believe the widespread availability in several countries including Spanish, Russian, Chinese, Japanese and Thai sites (as the Google hits indicate) is a reasonable sign of notability in this specialist field. -- spin^control 21:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeepers Friend is available in several countries - that doesn't mean Wikipedia has an article on it. The book has possibilities, but who is this chap and is the book significant?Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it matters - it's a two sentence reference. And the rest of the sources are forums and wiki's, which don't usually count as reliable sources. -- Bfigura ^(talk) 22:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you can see that the issue of what is notability in this context is more complex than you had considered. People are using it as the worldwide distribution indicates, but you have no traditional way of tapping into the circuit. Nevertheless, the Wiki article would be a helpful introduction to anyone considering the package, which I doubt that you can deny. -- spin^control 22:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't make any difference how helpful it would be - unless it meets notability it won't be here. If there are respected sites within the 'community' where there are - for example - reviews of the product, or comparisons of it to other products, then a compromise might be possible. But all you've turned up so far is one line confirmation that it exists. It seems like you and Hutch are trying to write the first detailed appraisal of the product - in which case, Wikipedia is the wrong place for it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're not dealing with meaningful notability in the specific context. What I've seen is a matter of non-experts trying to project their own notability needs onto those of the assembly language community, which is as I have said inappropriate. The only reviews for this sort of product is that people use it. If it is found to work on a trial and error basis then they continue to use it, as can be seen in the Google hits. I have written nothing for the JWASM article and Hutch48 hasn't written an appraisal of the package, but an introduction to it, as per most Wiki software product articles. Agner Fog in the pdf I cited gave a brief appraisal and it was positive. -- spin^control 22:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're dealing with non-experts projecting Wikipedia notability needs, because this is Wikipedia. Perhaps there's a specialist Wiki out there that caters to such material that would be a more appropriate place for this info? In any case, because this is Wikipedia, you need to appeal to Wikipedia's standards, not your own or those of the assembly language community. We do have certain notability requirements for particular subjects that might show notability aside from what our general notability guideline has, see WP:BIO for some examples that pertain to biographical articles. There are no such requirements for software, however, so your only appeal is the general notability guide and per that guideline this article falls short. -- Atama頭 23:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem not to be dealing with the argument. Wiki has no problem with specialist material, as I've pointed out with articles about Endogenous Retroviruses and Gutians. The problem comes with your expectations as to notability. You are happy enough to have an expert cite expert journal material in the specialist field of retroviruses or obscure third millennium BCE people on the margins of Assyria, but in a situation where the notability cannot be measured through academic journal references (not appropriate), you need to consider other means of gauging notability that is meaningful in the specialist field. -- spin^control 00:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Afd isn't the venue for that discussion, but it is certainly a discussion you can have. If you want new notability guidelines for software, it could be worth starting the discussion with the software project to see what they might possibly be in the future. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't buy the argument from Doktorspin, because I look at comparison of assemblers and listed there are a number of assemblers that are properly backed up with independent published sources. If our notability criteria were such that articles about assemblers could never be included because we look for the wrong kind of sources, I might be swayed. But you're asking for an exception to be made for a particular subject, to allow it to be included. I don't see the need. I'm not opposed to software having some extra criteria outside of the general notability requirements, but as Elen stated this isn't the place for that debate. -- Atama頭 01:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously haven't looked closely at the material. I'm sorry you are mistaken about a number of assemblers with your claim that they "are properly backed up with independent published sources". If I agreed with the views expressed here, I would mark most of them as up for deletion. For example we must exclude all Microsoft sources from being used on the MASM page and of course we remove Hutch48 source materials and Randall Hyde another member of the same forum as Hutch48 and we say goodbye to the MASM article. Yasm goes for total lack of 3rd party sources as is the case for High Level Assembler. A close look at NASM and it's shot as well. POASM gone. TCCASM gone. You are opening up a very slippery slope which could destroy this whole area in Wikipedia. A lot more stuff would have to go, because of inappropriate criteria for notability. You could decimate the whole programming sector. Hutch48 seems to have left the discussion. You non-experts have driven away your only expert editor in the field. You've all done Wiki a disservice. This is because of an inappropriate application of notability. -- spin^control 01:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I agree that proving notability for obscure software is hard, and probably harder than writing articles about obscure butterflies. However, this AfD isn't really the best place to complain about that: doing so is unlikely to bring people to your side. If you think it's a big enough problem, propose a solution in the right place. -- Bfigura ^(talk) 02:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not obscure software: it's being distributed around the world. It's just obscure to you. If JWASM weren't a topic of the MASM forum, but merely of the upper year at Karlsruhr Hochschule, then you could talk of a lack of notability. Your application of notability is wrong, not the idea of notability itself. Should I now mark MASM for deletion to watch your reactions? I can do that. Then you can be good and follow suit with many of the other software articles. -- spin^control 03:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't try to quote rules to justify poorly thought out decisions. The precedent here needs to be understood. Arbitrary actions have consequences that can lead to folly. If one is not prepared to be either knowledgeable or coherent, one shouldn't meddle in Wiki affairs. -- spin^control 04:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spin, you keep dancing around and trying to confuse the issue of this AFD. ALL articles here at Wikipedia must meet the guidelines laid out in WP:RS and WP:GNG.--Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 05:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you must be a Wiki lawyer at least look at the reality and live with the implications. -- spin^control 12:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For "this" article we all want to know where are the trade magazine articles, news paper articles, book coverage, or even academic journal coverage?--Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 05:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have plainly skipped the whole section to ask this question. It's like people who come to the party when it's getting to the final stages. You've missed out. -- spin^control 12:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having read this entire section, I still do not see the reliable sources. Either provide them or stop implying that there are some. Cunard (talk) 07:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But you should be at the point perhaps of being able to say how notability might manifest itself in the assembly language community. Are you able yet? -- spin^control 13:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forget why you believe this software is the best thing since Fortran and why you believe the notability guidelines shouldn't apply and answer where is the significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the software would be.--Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 05:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please drop the unfounded assumptions at the door. You don't know my personal opinions of the software. You don't have a crystal ball and you haven't quite got the technique down to be a Wiki lawyer yet. -- spin^control 12:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Show us sources (independent from the source code) that have given significant print coverage to this software's notability. Where are the O'Reilly-like books on this software like "Programming in JWASM" or "Advanced JWASM Techniques" or "JWASM: Unleased"? If this is a specialist software there must be many books on how to program in this language.--Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 05:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further proof that you have not read this section. So please deny it in your own time. -- spin^control 12:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Either provide them or stop implying that there are some. Cunard (talk) 07:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No coverage? Then it fails Wikipeda's current standards and the article will be deleted. --Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 05:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you got there at last. It took a while, but you didn't need to say anything but the final "me too", meaning that you don't understand the implications of notability in the context of this material.

When confronted with an issue that doesn't fit the neat guidelines, instead of you all considering the implications all I've seen is legalism against the Wiki spirit, which would be sufficient to cite WP:IAR. You are getting it wrong folks, but you've lost it. You can delete this page and hack up that page and say in all ignorance that you've followed the rules, rules whose point you have ignored. You are not considering the benefit to Wiki in this process. You don't know much at all about assembly programming or the community that supports it or even what notability would mean in that context. You just know the law and it will set you free of your responsibilities to Wiki.

I did get something out of this discussion, the very cute od template and for that I thank Bfigura (mille grazie). Thank you all for your input. -- spin^control 12:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting an article that has no reliable sources is beneficial to Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Verifiability is a core policy of Wikipedia that overrides Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Please explain how deleting an article about an assembler that was released just over a week ago, "prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia". Cunard (talk) 07:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability is very easy. Look at the source code. The only problem is that it isn't easy to cite. People keep coming to this with their eyes closed not trying to deal the complexities of the field. You are failing Wikipedia by showing no adaptability of the guidelines. Consider notability for the assembler community, not your normal signs of notability. -- spin^control 08:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source code does not provide verifiability for the history section of the article. In order for JWASM to be included in the encyclopedia, outside publications that have reputations for fact-checking must write about the topic. Inclusion on Wikipedia is based on Wikipedia's notability guidelines, not those of the assembler community. Cunard (talk) 08:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are guidelines, not immutable laws. Worshiping the institution doesn't allow you to see its efficacy. Notability is about relevance according to the standards of the community which values or uses the the material. As I've already indicated, applying inappropriate standards simply means you will have to remove most of the recent assembly language material including the MASM article. All you are doing is limiting Wiki to your application of rules. -- spin^control 14:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I cannot see how the assembler community has taken note of this as you have not been able to produce any sources from them. Cunard (talk) 08:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you aren't up with the discussion. I have cited one thread from the MASM forum (there are others) which specifically deals JWASM and its usage. -- spin^control 14:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:RS -- "For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable.... Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Put this corpse out of its misery[edit]

While I have put this conversation behind me as a waste of space, developements elsewhere indicate the the current author of the JWASM project is less than interested in it being referenced or hosted by the Wikipedia organisation and this should function as a sufficient condition to put the remains out of its misery given the level of support among the non-technical contributors to this debate to delete the topic. I will not waste the time or effort on a fiasco of this proportion by chasing up any form of reference over this situation as I no longer have any confidence in the technical capacity of Wikipedia.

Hutch48 (talk) 10:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear that JWASM isn't important enough for you to help find reliable sources talking about it -- that makes our decision here much easier. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find Hutch48's post above remarkable. What is the relevance of the fact that the author of the JWASM isn't interested in it having a Wikipedia article? Why on earth should this cause Hutch48 to drop support for "keep"? The only sense I can make of this is that the support was, in fact, intended as promotion of the software. And surely the expression "hosted by the Wikipedia organisation" supports this interpretation. Wikipedia is not a web host, and articles do not exist to promote or "host" products.JamesBWatson (talk) 10:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should refrain from speculation and read the comment. The relevance of the author's lack of interest in Wikipedia IS that the author has a lack of interest in Wikipedia. It also indicated that there is no self promotion for the previous reason mentioned. i have no association with his project and in fact don't use it but in the interest of improving the seriously lacking technical content of Wikipedia in this specialised area I wrote the original stub for the article so that other interested parties could subsequently edit and improve the page. Perhaps you could attempt to exercise a neutral point of view WP:NPOV and base your decisions on the available evidence.

Hutch48 (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah Sarek, you are a hard man to put a smile on. I put the heading up so you could not miss it. I have advised you that the developer does not want his work on Wikipedia and encouraged you (and all the other editors) to remove the complete JWASM page from Wikipedia. I don't intend to document the origin of the character set for the spelling of the notification of the name of the author to make the reference for you as I simply could not be bothered. Now as the handling of this topic has been an absolute shambles, perhaps you could use your influence to make something useful out of this fiasco and convert the JWASM page to free disk space. Noting that such matters as a Wikipedia Author's conference on the deletion of a technical article occurs with all the fanfare of a gnat breaking wind, I wish you well in your endeavours.

Regards,

Hutch48 (talk) 13:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quit creating textwalls that distract from actual discussion. Unit Anode 06:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stop ignoring the discussion. -- spin^control 06:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stop posting non sequiturs. Seriously, though, the textwalling that you guys are engaging in is seriously damaging your cause. You should stop. Unit Anode 06:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of sufficient coverage in reliable sources. My searches for sources have not returned anything substantial. This topic fails Wikipedia:Notability. Cunard (talk) 23:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage from reliable sources, meatpuppet-supported. —Korath (Talk) 01:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your link shows that a reader on the MASM forum, who appreciated the work of the editor who extended the JWASM article long before the AfD came up, has come and given his opinion here. Please desist from libelous accusations about meat-puppetry and apologize for having done so here. -- spin^control 06:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't understand what is going on above in the thousands of words posted by apparently brand new editors, some arguing keep, others delete. There seems to be some brier patch here that I don't care about, and don't particularly want to understand. Moreover, the article itself is a bit of a mess with odd details other than actual description scattered about. Nonetheless, the product itself--especially its original incarnation as Open Watcom--seems notable enough. So keep it, but definitely clean it up. LotLE×talk 04:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which factors indicate that this topic is notable? I have been unable to find any reliable sources to establish notability per WP:N. Cunard (talk) 07:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, JWASM Macro Assembler is an x86 assembler. You know, that's kind of notable all by itself. Especially if you take a look at our comparison of assemblers . There's not many x86 assemblers around. And an x86 assembler is an essential tool somewhere along the chain when you build software for an intel or amd pc. So unless JWASM is very new (nope, been maintained for 2 years) , or very buggy (currently at >version 2, usually a good sign) , or not used much (which at 12K Ghits seems unlikely) it's going to be notable almost per definition, I'd think. There does appear to be a printed manual for open watcom, if you really really insist on a dead tree publication

Hmm, if we take open source projects and documentation as being publications, (RS does say publication in any medium, and that it depends on context, and use common sense, so CD counts too. Sourceforge possibly too. ), then notable projects using JWAsm might therefore also count as reliable sources.

Caveat: nwasm does not appear to be in the ubuntu or gentoo repositories (yet) ... <scratches head>

--Kim Bruning (talk) 05:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC) I'd suggest that the people building the JWAsm article quote some open source projects using JWAsm at this moment in time, and maybe scour some dead tree documentation for mentions. That should probably be sufficient to end the AFD (knock on wood)[reply]

This assembler was released on January 19, 2010. The lack of reliable sources is due to the fact that this assembler was released a little more than a week ago. None of the sources from SourceForge are reliable; most appear to be forums in addition to not being independent of the subject. If you wish for this article to be kept, please provide links to sources that have covered an assembler that was released only nine days ago. Cunard (talk) 07:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this location lists JWasm170b.zip 20-May-2008 15:06 312K . --Kim Bruning (talk) 07:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That download site provides no context about JWASM and thus cannot be used to establish notability. Furthermore, Japheth does not appear to be a notable organization and appears to be a website that could be qualified as a self-published source. Cunard (talk) 07:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this location lists JWasm170b.zip 20-May-2008 15:06 312K . (so at least 2 years ago, but that's version 1.70, where's the older versions?)
A cursory glance on SourceForge here shows a release on 2009-03-09, so even using only sourceforge as a source, I can't see what you're getting at.
Oh, I see a 2009 update even in the google search you link. So you clearly have not read your own link.

That said, you are searching sourceforge incorrectly. I would be looking for projects that cite JWasm as a dependency. --Kim Bruning (talk) 07:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article states that JWASM was released in 2010; evidently it is wrong. Cunard (talk) 08:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly didn't take any time to read the article before you made this blunder. Here, read this: "Its initial release is dated 05/20/2008 as v1.7. The current version as of 1/19/2010 is JWasm v2.02" -- spin^control 08:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concede that I did not read the whole article. The only parts I took note of were the introductory paragraph, the references section, and the infobox. When none of these showed promising signs of notability, I did not read the rest of the article. Cunard (talk) 08:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This carelessness is typical of the lack of seriousness shown by some of the commentators here. -- spin^control 08:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not look at most of the results the Google links I cited because I could tell, by their titles, that the links led to either forums or download pages, neither of which are reliable. I did look at this page because the title, Reviews for JWasm at SourceForge.net, hinted that it would provide reviews that were independent of the subject; but a look at the page determined that this was not so. The link you provided above is a download site, which does not establish notability. I have searched through SourceForge and have found no source which provides significant coverage about JWASM that is independent of the subject. If you can find some, please link to them, so that they can be evaluated. Cunard (talk) 08:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. No argument from me there, though I have my doubts about your sourceforge scanning skills now, of course ;-) . Ok ok, I'll get off your cae... Would you accept one or more significant projects applying this tool to be sufficient to establish notability? Application of the tool will also show up in such a project's published documentation (so we should be able to get a source that's in *english* at least, provided it exists ;-) ) --Kim Bruning (talk) 09:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep your views of whether to delete or not together above the double line before the notability section, thanks. -- spin^control 06:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not move the discussion out of chronological order. I have moved the votes back to the original place. Cunard (talk) 07:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My attempt was to keep the general opinions that state preference together as they aren't directly related the discussion that people insert them into. I shall forthwith leave it in chaos to appease you. -- spin^control 08:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for promising to leaving the comments as they are. Messing with the chronology of the comments will make the page more muddled than it currently is. Cunard (talk) 08:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you want the chaos and you have shown determination in keeping it all mixed up, you're welcome. -- spin^control 08:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The crux of the deletion arguments is the lack of significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. Are any of those opining keep able to provide any references — excluding unreliable sources such as download sites and forums — that can establish notability? Cunard (talk) 08:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cunard, the oldest copy I have of JWASM is the source for the Windows version with file dates of 20th May 2008. It is version 170b available on his web site. The oldest C file "tbyte.c" in the source dates 3rd July 2007. Hutch48 (talk) 08:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying the date, though it is not germane to this deletion debate. As I said in the comment above: Are any of those opining keep able to provide any references — excluding unreliable sources such as download sites and forums — that can establish notability? Cunard (talk) 08:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You shoot yourself in the foot when you deliberately make the false claim that certain forums are "unreliable". Where else do you get in contact with the assembler community? Where else do you contact the people who are the big names in that community, the acknowledged experts in the field? You simply aren't doing your job, when you refuse to consider reliable sources simply because they are from a forum. -- spin^control 08:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You would be more likely to get support for your case if you took a little more trouble to find out how and why Wikipedia policies are set out as they are. Most internet forums are not reliable because anyone at all can post there, just as Wikipedia is not reliable for the same reason. The fact that people involved in the relevant community post there is of course true, but that is not what "reliable" refers to in this context. Another point is that remarks like "you deliberately make the false claim" is not likely to win you support. Generally in Wikipedia it is considered best to assume good faith unless there is clear evidence to the contrary. In this case is there any evidence that Cunard was deliberately making a false claim? It seems to me far more likely that it was Cunard's sincere opinion. The fact that you disagree with that opinion does not make it a deliberate false claim. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What does Cunard, a non-expert in the field, know about the particular forum and its membership? And your repeating stuff about most internet forums and lack of reliability is all very fine cliche except that you too are in a similar position to Cunard. One of the earliest things one should learn is enough to know what you don't know. The particular forum features a number of experts, including a writer of a book on assembly language, a university lecturer in programming, maintainers of assemblers and disassemblers distributed through the world. Now people might be happy thinking about fora as being like the Britney Spears Fan Forum, but such a reductionist approach doesn't allow one to adapt to the realities of the assembly language community. Now Cunard's claim was false. I did not assume he made the claim fraudulently. He, like you, didn't know any better. I assume good faith, but it doesn't mean that I have to accept poor judgment, so please don't bother attacking me with assume good faith. It is not relevant and neither are most of the trivial evaluations of the material in this article. -- spin^control 12:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. You make assumptions about me. You imply that I know little or nothing about "the particular forum and its membership". Unfortunately more than one forum has been mentioned above, and you do not make it clear to which one you are referring. If, as seems most likely, you mean the MASM Forum, I know a good deal about it, and am myself a member of it. You repeatedly suggest that I know nothing about the forum, as in "He, like you, didn't know any better", and "One of the earliest things one should learn is enough to know what you don't know". Since your assumption about me was mistaken you may like to consider that last quote yourself. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have only talked about one forum and I assumed you had read the discussion. Yes, I did make an assumption about you. -- spin^control 14:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2. I don't know how to make this any plainer than I have already done, but however many "experts" post on a forum, it is not a reliable source if it is also open to absolutely anyone at all to join and then post, and this is the case with the MASM Forum, the Ubuntu forum, and the sourceforge forum, which, so far as I am aware, are the only ones that have been referred to above. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is where you needed an expert in the assembly language community and there are several on the MASM forum. -- spin^control 14:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3. You say "I did not assume he made the claim fraudulently. He, like you, didn't know any better." I do not see how you reconcile this with your earlier statement that he/she "deliberately" made a "false claim". JamesBWatson (talk) 13:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might have a problem if it had been a "fraudulent claim" "deliberately" made. Cunard was very deliberate in his claim. He was applying a guideline, as he thought, to the T. The result nonetheless was that he deliberately made a false claim. -- spin^control 14:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4. I am sorry that you took my exhortation to assume good faith as an attack: it was not intended to be one. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. I appreciate it. -- spin^control 14:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So where are the books about JWASM by this writer or the published papers on JWASM by this lecturer? OrangeDog (τ • ε) 13:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't keeping up with what has been said. You are confusing the credentials of forum members with your desires for stereotypical notability indicators. I was establishing the community of assembly language experts amongst whom JWASM has notability. You've already been told that you don't get popular books on assembly language these days. It's a commercial thing. Microsoft didn't encourage people to use assembly language, preferring to make money with shite like C++ and other slobs. But they kept up the assembler because they needed it. It's just that there were no nice books or glossy articles. Does that make sense yet? -- spin^control 13:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cunard, I will try and help you out here in relation to a forum that I run http://www.masm32.com/board/index.php The current incarnation of the forum dates from December 2004 which makes it over 5 years old. There is an earlier database from older forum software available for some years earlier. It has a source code database in excess of 100 megabytes and a level of expertise available across hundreds of highly qualified and experienced assembler programmers including University lecturers, teachers and many professional programmers.

Excluding myself even though I am detached fom JWASM and primarily use MASM as my assembler development tool (and don't get on very well with the author) the MASM forum easily exceeds any other source you can ::access in terms of technical expertise in the assembler arena and it has a massive online resource of source code going back 5 years. You can safely use information from the MASM forum as third party reference ::that is not directly from the author and is not self promotion material.

Hope the information is useful to you.

Hutch48 (talk) 09:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would this be the same forum on which you were soapboxing about how crap Wikipedia is? Kim Bruning above has come up with a potentially useful idea - do you have evidence of the use of JWASM in any major projects? Can the professionals and lecturers show where it is recommended as a solution, or included in courses? Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please act according to the Wikipedia requirement assume good faith and take note that external web sites are not subject to your approval or censureship. For editors who are interested in obtaining independent 3rd party reference the site is available and not run by the JWASM author. He is simply a member who posts in the forum.

Hutch48 (talk) 10:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Where is the failure to assume good faith in that post by Elen of the Roads? I don't see it? (2) Yes, but the problem with that forum as explained before' is that it is not a reliable source. Whether you agree with the policy or not, Wikipedia policy is that we have articles only on topics which have received substantial coverage in reliable sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard the assertion but with no evidence to back it up. The forum has the runs on the board, user base, database size, membership expertise and online technical data going back 5 years. You cannot provide a web site in the world that has comparable expertise in the MASM/COMPATIBLE assembler programming arena. I leave the matter up to editors who are interested to find what they need.

Hutch48 (talk) 11:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have had WP:N WP:V and WP:RS - the core policies and guidelines - cited at you numerous times. Perhaps reading them would help? Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You would be more than welcome to provide alternative reference material in the x86 assembler arena if you are able to do so. I leave the matter up to editors who are interested to find what they need.

Hutch48 (talk) 12:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean like these? OrangeDog (τ • ε) 13:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you forgot to include MASM and or COMPATIBLE x86 assembler in your Google search. Specifications and data availability as above and this is why I leave the matter up to editors who are interested to find what they need.

Hutch48 (talk) 13:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I got beat to the punch. OrangeDog didn't actually look at any of the Google scholar hits. Look at a similar search for MASM and he'll kiss this faux pas goodbye. -- spin^control 13:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is in fact somewhat more serious than just a simple mistake. The original search criteria at the beginning of the page produces garbage where an informed search using the following Google search pattern site:masm32.com "JWASM" -wikipedia produces a very substantial body of independent 3rd party reference material addressing exactly the topic that of this incorrectly tagged deletion attempt is attempting to avoid.

Hutch48 (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great. You can paste them in here, or add them to the article. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That may not be a responsible course of action as the page is already over 100k in size and adding some hundreds of links would make the page even harder to navigate. I doubt whether interested people will have any difficulty in pasting the Google search pattern into a browser and reading through the listings at their leisure.

Hutch48 (talk) 16:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, just add the best ones.

Comment. Open Watcom's WASM is actually a somewhat notable [21] assembler by Wikipedia standards. (By the way, it should not be confused with Erick Tauck's Wolfware Assembler, which is another historic assembler that uses the same WASM acronym [22].) The Watcomm products were bought by Sybase, and then open-sourced. JWASM appears to be a fork of that, and it does qualify for a separate article at this point in time by Wikipedia guidelines. But I suspect that most of this article applies to Watcom's WASM as well, so it could be reused/renamed for that purpose, and mention the differences that JWASM brings in due detail. Pcap ping 13:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would get us round the notability problems which are bedevilling JWASM at the moment, and would not inhibit the info being split into its own article as notability of JWASM develops (as commentators above have suggested that it will)Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a blurb-level independent coverage of JWASM as well (p. 13), so it can be mentioned to that extent (it looks like the main advantage is that it made the syntax fully MASM compliant). Pcap ping 13:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reference to Agner Fog's optimisation manual. Agner Fog is a qualified academic and very experienced x86 assembler programmer with publications dating back to the middle 1990s. He also mentions a number of sites on his optimisation page at URL http://www.agner.org/optimize/ which include the MASM forum (through its old URL) and the JWASM assembler under the heading of Useful assembly links.

Hutch48 (talk) 14:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he is a published academic in social sciences, and also wrote some articles for Dr. Dobb's. Although his geeky stuff is mostly WP:SPS, the writings on his site have a number of citations in mainstream computer science academia [23], [24]. Pcap ping 14:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks also for the link to the Open Watcom site for WASM. The reference to JWASM is clear as a fork derived from the original WASM code base under the identical Sybase licence and from reading the information specific to WASM it would appear that JWASM is a lot more advanced in its development than WASM at this moment.

Hutch48 (talk) 14:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we tackle this by widening the article[edit]

Ok, so if we move to a WASM/JWASM page, everyone agrees notability criteria have been met? In that case, I move to move, and then to close the discussion on that note. Is anyone opposed to that ? If so, why? We'll try to meet your (remaining) criteria. --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would support that. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 19:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finally! Someone bothered to provide some reliable sources rather than textwalling. I would still say that JWASM is not notable of itself, but suitable for inclusion in an article at Open Watcom Assembler. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 19:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or even Open Watcom Assembler. Gods, Dog! Your speelig is nearly as bad as mine :) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. I blame this tiny keyboard. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 21:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree too. Let's close this. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There definitely should be an article at Open Watcom Assembler or perhaps WASM (software), but this isn't it. Anything more than a paragraph about JWASM there would be undue weight. —Korath (Talk) 21:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting for Korath to apologize for an unfounded accusation of meat-puppetry. -- spin^control 00:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You won't get it, not even if you put it in capital letters and <big> tags too. —Korath (Talk) 00:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are required to maintain proper civility, as per WP:CIV. You certainly were not civil in the meat-puppetry accusation. Please act responsibly. -- spin^control 00:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's probably only about a paragraph of useful stuff in the article. A great deal of the code info is pure [[WP:OR (see Hutch48's description of researching the article by downloading the code). The idea would be to incubate key data about JWASM until it achieves the required notability level. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'm confused—I thought you were supporting moving this article there. That's certainly how I read Kim's proposal (which, to be explicit, I oppose vehemently). —Korath (Talk) 21:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to use an undue weight argument, you need to show how additional paragraphs about JWASM would introduce a viewpoint that could somehow hurt the NPOV position of the article. Seeing how there's not really many different viewpoints about assemblers out there, I have the impression that any kind of argument you could make along those lines is going to be a rather long uphill battle. Is there any kind of flaw in my reasoning, that you could think of? --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, undue prominence to JWASM, pushing the POV that is is better or more important than the actual notable subject, WASM. The Neutral Point Of View is that these things exist, the danger is in unduly espousing the point of view that they are more great/popular/useful etc. than they verifiably are. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 22:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know, somehow writing an article where WASM is truely super-prominent over JWASM seems kind of crazy, because I gather that JWASM is apparently the (more) active fork? I get the impression that it'd be a bit like saying that mentioning egcs in the gcc article would somehow be undue weight.

My ~~spidey~~ wikey-sense is tingling. But it could be a false alarm, of course. ^^;; --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter to these folks that JWASM is a current assembler that works for all x86 systems, while WASM is a dead product. It doesn't matter that people are actually using JWASM, while WASM is outmoded. What matters is literal interpretations of guidelines that are supposed to be, well, um, guidelines and not fossilized laws. Clutter Wiki with useless material, but forget about the useful stuff: it isn't set in dead trees. -- spin^control 23:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I actually meant "undue weight" more in the usual sense than the WP:REDIRECTINCAPITALLETTERS one—I'm worried about verifiability and notability here, not neutrality. If the preponderance of reliable third-party coverage is about WASM, and the article is ostensibly about WASM, then the information about WASM shouldn't be drowned out by that of its fork. —Korath (Talk) 23:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When there is a fork, the 2 forks tend to share a large portion of their codebase, so there will be a large overlap in the descriptions of the two projects. In this case, JWASM seems to be the current live fork, if I'm hearing things correctly. If I were writing an article for a programmer, I guess I would concentrate on JWASM, and mention WASM only in passing.

At the same time, an SME has actually offered to write a review of JWASM on Slashdot, so that the bureaucratic requirements are met ;-), so we'll have notability one way or the other soon anyway, I think. (provided (s)he keeps his/her word :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a one sentence mention at Open Watcom Assembler in lieu of outright deletion. This would avoid flooding that page with unsourced original research. Cunard (talk) 23:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't quite get to get away with that ;-) There are plenty of sources, the disagreement is on the interpretation of the reliable sources policy, imho. Would you be satisfied with that characterization? --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs, forums, download sites, and personal websites are not reliable sources. Please provide the "plenty of sources" that pass Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources. Cunard (talk) 23:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Your honor, I rest my case" ;-)

Alright, let's try this way: In general, if we just try to get the broadest impression possible: What can you tell me about JWASM, from your online research? --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is very little coverage in reliable sources about JWASM. http://www.japheth.de/JWasm.html, while not a reliable source that can establish notability, can verify the one (or more) sentence(s) mention at Open Watcom Assembler. Cunard (talk) 00:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard is misapplying Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources when he says, "Blogs, forums, download sites, and personal websites are not reliable sources." He hasn't read the guideline closely enough. What it actually says is that they "are largely not acceptable." And that difference is the one he has been ignoring in this discussion. The MASM forum features people who are established experts in the field, two of whom have published in that field, which the guideline specifically states as acceptable. Scratch that one, folks. -- spin^control 00:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Established experts discussing JWASM can be used for verifiability, not notability. That will suffice for a mention at Open Watcom Assembler. Cunard (talk) 00:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say that's actually a good analysis to use as your position to build consensus from. Just could have been worded more diplomatically. I guess Cunard thought it was good enough though, since he actually came a bit your way. That was quick. :-)

What do you still need from Doktorspin for notability, Cunard? Would that Slashdot article be sufficient? And we'd better take into account: what if the article isn't done before end of this debate, would you accept something in lieu of that for now; or could we agree to re-view the situation in a few weeks, say? --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In a subject that is likely to be notable only among experts, discussion among experts can be taken as evidence of notability. From Wikipedia:Reliable source examples

An Internet forum with identifiable, expert and credible moderators with a declared corrective moderation policy may, exceptionally, be considered reliable for some topics. In this sense, where moderators act as editors to review material and challenge or correct any factual errors, they could have an adequate level of integrity. This exception would only be appropriate to fields that are not well covered by print sources, where experts traditionally publish online. In cases where self-published material has been published by a professional researcher or other expert in the field, a source published in one of these media may be considered reliable in some cases.

In the case of something as obscure as assemblers, it is likely that the only sources will be Internet forums and similar. I'd take Slashdot, if it has anything to say on the subject Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Slashdot link is a download site; it provides no context about JWASM. To establish notability, Doktorspin needs to provide evidence of coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as reliable magazine/newspaper articles.

The article's content will be preserved under a redirect if we decide to merge it to Open Watcom Assembler. The redirect can be undone if/when sources that establish notability can be found. Cunard (talk) 00:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're talking about two different things here, however for some reason Slashdot is only currently loading for me in Kanji (I presume this is some kind of initiative test). Slashdot (and Sourceforge) routinely feature reviews of products written by technical experts which are subject to site moderation and so fall into the category of RS I described above. The difficulty was that Sourceforge doesn't have any reviews of jwasm. A technical expert has offered to write a review and post it on Slashdot, and that should be acceptable for other editors to cite once it has gone through the site's moderation process. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Technical note[edit]

While the tool in question is legally in the Watcom camp by weight of its licence, it is technically far closer to the Microsoft Assembler in its capacity and support. WASM is useful only in that its code base was upgraded to JWASM and there is no active development of that code base apart from JWASM. Treat it like a rename with the leading "J" and you have solved the problem.
Hutch48 (talk) 00:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a fun read, but cutting through all the words, the article still singularly fails to demonstrate notability as required by WP:N. ukexpat (talk) 01:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah we're sort of trying to build a consensus for a move. We've established notability for WASM, and we just got everyone who was here previously to agree that JWASM could be merged into there, (until a friendly local SME gets an article accepted on the subject).

So having read all the words, do you agree that we should move the article, so that we have enough sources to make things notable? Or do you think some of the mentioned sources (especially for WASM) are lacking, and if so, what is lacking about them? --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only real risk is if the JWASM fork is dumped as a dead listing attached to the old version of WASM then it will die where it gets dumped as it is doubtful that anyone competent could find it and it will not be upgraded or maintained. I would suggest exploring the identical legal ownership issue and the minor rename from WASM to JWASM and addressing it as the next version of WASM. The filename difference here is trivial but to simplify the entire procedure, use the logic JWASM = upgraded WASM. Makes the worlds a simple place, actually enhances Wikipedia in content terms and should keep everybody happy (except the author [nothing makes him happy]). :)

Hutch48 (talk) 03:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having read all the words, no I don't agree that it should be merged and I don't see a consensus for that here either. – ukexpat (talk) 03:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have made some assertions, but have not yet revealed your reasoning behind them; so respectfully (and imho), your statement is not yet complete. Would you care to complete it? The two pieces of information I am missing from you are A) Why does the merge not address notability concerns, according to you? and B) how are you coming to the determination that there is no consensus for merging? --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pending Slashdot Story/Review[edit]

OK, for all of the wind bags who are giving the Wiki admins/editors a hard time, perhaps you can offer the least assistance in sending this situation in the right direction and we can finally come to a mutually acceptable resolution. I've submitted a review/story to Slashdot regarding JWASM. Any positive/reinforcing comments/expansions of the aforementioned story, in conjunction with the other links provided during this AfD, should help establish sufficient notability. So, I recommend we put our egos and backyard-lawyer degrees aside for a moment and get this thing done right. Thanks. SpooK (talk) 05:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Color me unswayed by a Wikipedia editor attempting to make something notable by proposing to write a review of it for Slashdot. Also, you might want to go easy on the name-calling, as people usually don't respond well to being called "wind bags." Unit Anode 06:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they actually wrote the review already, so we're somewhat past the "offer" stage. If it gets accepted by the slashdot editors, I think we've nailed down that it would meet the minimal requirements for being a reliable source. And I agree we shouldn't call anyone "windbags", if only because everyone here is typing, so no one is actually exercising their lungs ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unit, the editor has proven experience in the x86 assembler field, is a member of the NASM development team and has been around in the x86 assembler area for long enough to write this review. If Slashdot are willing to accept it I see no reason not to cite it.

Regards,

Hutch48 (talk) 07:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keith, I have read your review and it is fundamentally sound. You have asked for feedback which I am happy to pass to you but this is not the correct environment. Where would you like to have any responses pointed ?

Hutch48 (talk) 14:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steve, anyone who can register/login to Slashdot and comment/reply to the submitted review/story in a positive/useful/reinforcing manner would probably be demonstrating the best course of action regarding this situation. I believe that the more people who reply/talk about a story while in "pending" status, the better chance that the story will ultimately be accepted to Slashdot... another case of demonstrating notability, if you will. However, there are no guarantees, but at least it is worth a shot. Also, I've posted a message at ASMCommunity requesting similar support from anyone else interested in JWASM. If you can do the same at the MASM32 board, and get even more people involved, we might just get accepted! SpooK (talk) 16:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So now you're canvassing to try to game the Slashdot system, in an attempt to turn the review you wrote yourself into a reliable source? The more I hear about this, the less savory it appears. Unit Anode 16:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<shrug> Out rules-lawyering the rules-lawyers? I like it! O:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, before people think I'm being nasty or so. Here's what happens if we work out our decision-and-outcome matrix, on the assumption that the Slashdot story gets published:

We follow the rules, in which case JWASM gets an article.
We follow common sense, which says JWASM gets an article anyway.
We do a bit of both at the same time, in which case JWASM definitely gets an article.
We do neither and do nothing, in which case we have a JWASM article by default.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 16:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a comment at the proposal, as to SpooK's attempt at gaming Slashdot's (and Wikipedia's) system. We'll see what happens. Unit Anode 16:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he could also submit his article to a magazine or journal, but that would take longer. I look forward to the day when a referee for an academic journal writes what you just wrote on slashdot. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, respectable magazines and academic journals aren't nearly so easily gamed. Unit Anode 16:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unit, it would be more appreciated if you would AGF in this situation. Referring to my story/review at Slashdot as "gamed" is rather insulting. I've made the effort to personally review JWASM and share it in a way that is positive. The effort in posting the story on Slashdot is a result of this situation, but only in that JWASM itself has piqued my interest. Whether or not Slashdot or Wikipedia ultimately accepts JWASM as notable enough to mention, will be determined by the due process of each place. If we are to find that Slashdot is ultimately not interested in posting this story, then we have our answer from them. If such a "no" answer from Slashdot sways Wikipedia to also say no, then so be it. However, to assume that an interest in posting to Slashdot is only to provide notability for Wikipedia is shortsighted, as both are places to learn and gather more information... there is no mutual exclusion here. So, in short, please desist with the slander/libel. Thanks. SpooK (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing someone of "slander/libel" is akin to a legal threat. Either remove that accusation, or you may be blocked under WP:NLT. Unit Anode 18:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As per example of Wikipedia's definition of perceived legal threats, I have not repeatedly accused you of libel. Furthermore, I never said I was going to pursue legal action against you, and to help clarify and put you at ease, I assure you that I will not. However, it may be interest of you that "It is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure that material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory" as per WP:Libel. I didn't see any claim that said responsibility was limited to any one section of Wikipedia. This Wikipedia policy is the primary reason I've referred your comment as defamatory/libel, in hopes that a 3rd party will comply with Wikipedia's "policy to delete libelous material when it has been identified." If this means I have to play a catch 22 between WP:NLT and WP:Libel, so be it. Also, Unit, I would like to ask what is it that bothers you so much about my efforts that you have to instantly attack me as a person? SpooK (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you're doing is textbook gaming, in my view. No one is going to remove that comment, because it's not libelous to say that. You will stop calling it "libel" or you may very well be blocked. Unit Anode 19:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Point in case, your view. You have made a presumptuous personal attack against me and/or my character. I can see how, based on the situation at Wikipedia, you could jump to such a conclusion. However, if I saw you on the street with a hypodermic needle in your hand, I wouldn't be quick to judge you as a drug addict versus, oh let's say a diabetic. Even if I was driven to, I wouldn't attempt to make such an accusation without all the facts in hand, not just with what I choose to see/believe with my own two eyes. So, in the aforementioned scenario, if you ran up to said person and scoffed/accused them of being a drug addict, how do you think they would react/feel if they were indeed otherwise? A bit confused and sore perhaps that some stranger ran up to them only to knock them down a peg? You've made no attempt to gauge my overall intention, i.e. ask me directly, and went instantly to posting an accusation both here and at Slashdot. Again, what would you think if you were in my position? This does not sound one bit like WP:AGF to me. SpooK (talk) 19:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's cool this down guys. Regardless of whether it falls into some legal definition, it's definitely BAD FAITH to assume that SpooK is doing this to game the system rather than to try to help.Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There really isn't reliable sources writing about this assembler. That's what it boils down to. -- Whpq (talk) 17:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unit, I have no beef with you but I suggest that you are actively attacking an editor at a personal level making a criticism that you cannot back up. When you use the term gaming you are directly accusing another editor of dishonesty and clearly did not assume good faith. SpooK has the runs on the board in technical terms, by your direct insult to this editor are you claiming technical expertise to counter his capacity to write a technical review ?

Hutch48 (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If an article on JWASM is published in Slashdot then we have to discuss if Slashdot can be considered as a reliable source. Hutch48 wrote that he is in communication with the man who created this assembler and discussed about the Wikipedia article. The article in Wikipedia on JWASM may be under WP:SELFPUBLISHED. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Magioladitis, you should withdraw this comment as its obvious that you don't read the submissions made by other editors. As a matter of fact I am not in communication with the JWASM author and am not part of his development group/supporters, he is simply a member of my forum who is allowed to post information about his assembler there. Note also that the JWASM author is not a Wikipedia editor and has indicated a lack of interest in having his project on Wikipedia.

Hutch48 (talk) 01:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hutch, we do not care who you are IRL, nor the author of JWASM, nor that you don't like him, nor anyone's lack or otherwise of interest. Your constant assertions that you don't get on are innapropriate for this discussion. All we care about is what reliable sources say, and that you avoid editing in conflicts of interest. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 14:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of accusations flying around in the discussion, such as co-ordination and meat-puppetry, now we may add conflict of interest. Backdoor Wiki-lawyering doesn't help Wikipedia.

Please drop this approach and get back to your effort of justifying your claims regarding notability for JWASM in the context of the assembler language community. Your consistent failure to do so should show you that you are in no position to judge notability in this case. Notability comes with the respect given in the relevant community. It's easy enough for you to point to notability in scholarly circles because there are institutions that leave a paper trail. The assembler language community isn't so into dead trees. You have been looking in the wrong places and you have no expertise in the field. You have not shown that you are capable of talking about notability in this case. -- spin^control 17:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, SpooK has written the Slashdot review from the viewpoint of a recognised expert, but hasn't contributed to JWASM. Hutch48 wrote more or less all of JWASM, and is reviewing the Slashdot review from the viewpoint of a recognised expert. Yes, it is a bit incestuous, but the pool of experts to call on is very small. It may be preferable to review the source at the relevant noticeboard after this AfD concludes, to get a focus in onto it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be more clear about my position/situation, I don't contribute to JWASM, but instead NASM. Also, I do not get along with Hutch48 or the author of JWASM... at all! Anyone who knows Hutch48 and myself, and our history, will take an initial look at this situation and certainly be confused that we could be standing on the same side. This goes to show you, that our interests are about letting people know about this particular tool is something that should naturally transcend any perceived "agenda" or former disputes. The same can be found in areas of U.S. politics when Democrats and Republicans work together for the greater good. In short, my interest in this is in JWASM itself as a viable tool, nothing more, nothing less. Thanks. SpooK (talk) 19:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Slashdot has posted the review of JWASM. FWIW, I find Unitanode's many allegations of bad faith above to be offensive and destructive of this discussion. The fact is, Slashdot is a pretty good source, and one that does exercise editorial discretion in publishing articles (maybe not as much as I would like, but that's even more true of, say Fox News or Washington Times). In any case, publishing there is no different as a principle than publishing in an academic journal... there's not "COI" in finding a topic notable enough to publish about. And there's no reason that someone who happens to be a WP editor is barred from publishing elsewhere (for example, I have personally published to a variety of WP:RS's on topics that are covered by WP articles I monitor... in some cases, I am one of the cited sources in some such articles... that's not bad faith, it is simply the areas of my expertise). LotLE×talk 20:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL, the Slashdot story links to this Wikipedia article. Now it's going to be deleted for sure! Pcap ping 20:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, that would be an amusing twist of fate! Overall, it seems as per WP:VER that as long as Wikipedia page that is referenced/linked and the Slashdot story don't consist of the same content, we should be good to go. At the moment, that holds true. SpooK (talk) 20:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have asked Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to take a look at this Slashdot source. Cunard (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Current consensus at the noticeboard is that it is an unreliable source. Cunard (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - Cunard's characterization of the Noticeboard discussion is inaccurate. No consensus exists there; rather, one editor who has been rather vocal in this AfD (if not outright belligerent) has continued the argument there. Prior threads discussing Slashdot as a source have also had a mixture of opinions on how to treat the source. The important distinction to understand is that Slashdot articles are subject of editorial review, while Slashdot comments are unmoderated (although such comments are ranked editorially). The source that has been raised here is of an editorially evaluated and accepted article submission. LotLE×talk 22:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Compliance and Conclusion[edit]

As previously mentioned, Slashdot has indeed published the review. I've went ahead and added it to the JWASM page as an external link. Aside from Cunard's mention of the pending Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard review, if there are any other currently valid objections in allowing the JWASM page here at Wikipedia, please summarize your points below and how they support/enforce the Wikipedia guidelines/rules. Any other advisement will also be equally appreciated. Thanks. SpooK (talk) 21:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Slashdot front page story. Samboy (talk) 21:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Aside from the issue Slashdot not being considered a reliable sources, I'd also point out that notability is establihed through multiple reliable sources, so pinning the notability to a single article on Slashdot isn't a particularly compelling argument from the point of view of quanitity of sources either. -- Whpq (talk) 21:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Whilst I considered a merge earlier, I have given it some more thought and am now against it. I agree with the third paragraph of what SpooK (talk · contribs) wrote at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JWASM (diff). This page undoubtedly violates Wikipedia's content policies/guidelines. Specifically, it violates Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Cunard (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree with Cunard's assessment. The JWASM page needs to be stripped of any content that violates WP:OR. Perhaps siphoning that portion of the page off to a third party site, and linking to it from the JWASM page would be a sufficient compromise? My overall thought is a page similar to NASM or GAS to start off with, and then just let the page grow naturally as an encyclopedic entry. SpooK (talk) 22:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not established by one Wikipedia editor deciding to write a "review", submit it to an unreliable source (and Slashdot is unreliable, evidenced by the fact that it was published within hours of submission -- no peer review, nothing), and then claiming that the article is properly-sourced. Things don't work that way here, sorry. Unit Anode 22:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot speak for the integrity or review process of Slashdot or its editors, as I don't have any facts or documentation on the entire process. Unless you are willing to claim firsthand knowledge on said process, and supply facts/documentation, your assertions aren't very reliable. Reliable sources have been reporting news, events, etc. in much quicker time than this review has been accepted, for well over a decade... its a sign of the times and technology available. Moreover, is it that difficult to concede that perhaps my review might be noteworthy to some, even if you don't think so? The overwhelming consensus based on replies to the published version, at the moment, is yes... it is noteworthy. It won't cure cancer, AIDS or any other large scale issues... but it is at least noteworthy, and therefore notable. I'm not claiming that my review will unilaterally meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, or even as a reliable (if only a supporting and not a referenced) resource, I expect such a conclusion as a result of due diligence in this entire AfD process. SpooK (talk) 22:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The promotion here is obvious. The slashdot story isn't genuine coverage because it isn't independent of this article. Wikipedia articles should be about subjects already notable, they should not be tools which subjects use to become notable. That's the key distinction, and this subject isn't notable outside of Wikipedia. Also I don't believe that slashdot is a reliable source. Popularity /= notability. Them From Space 22:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there's significant off-wiki coordination with regards to this article, see [25] and [26]. This is probably where all of the meatpuppets are coming from. Them From Space 22:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Off-wiki coordination?! I'm pretty sick of people making these cheap accusations of meat-puppetry. This is obvious tainting the discussion. The rule is Assume good faith. How can anyone think of your comment as made in good faith? I had a look at the threads pointed to and there is discussion regarding work on the JWASM page and a discussion about abandoning Wikipedia. You have to be out of your mind to construe meat-puppetry out of that. Please, please don't make this sort of accusation again until you have some substantive evidence. -- spin^control 22:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement to assume good faith, when clear evidence of off-wiki coordination is present. Unit Anode 23:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:AGF: "Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia: it is the assumption that editors' edits and comments are made in good faith. Most people try to help the project, not hurt it. If this were false, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning." So, show me the evidence where the intentions of the people, who want to see JWASM mentioned in more detail, are not in good faith and not contributory by helping the Wikipedia project. Please note, the one discussion about "giving up" on Wikipedia is not a valid example. SpooK (talk) 00:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also have read the threads indicated and I join SpooK with a challenge to UnitAnode or whoever else to show the asserted co-ordination. It just isn't there, so it seems that it is a wrongful assertion. -- spin^control 00:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There in lies the problem, the coverage is independent, as I have not authored any portion of the Wikipedia page whatsoever until adding the external link. Again my desire to submit a Slashdot review may have been invoked by this particular AfD, but it isn't the only reason I have done so. Even if Wikipedia rejects the JWASM page, I am more than satisfied in my contributions via the Slashdot review I've submitted. SpooK (talk) 22:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One source of questionable reliability does not satisfy notability (and looks very odd if the article pre-dates its only reliable source by a long way). We still need more. Until then, I still think deletion of JWASM and expansion of Open Watcom Assembler and/or Comparison of assemblers is the best course of action to create high-quality, well-sourced articles on notable subjects. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 23:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will a redirection from JWASM to a section/subsection of the Open Watcom Assembler page that highlights JWASM be available/reasonable? Please advise. Thanks. SpooK (talk) 23:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For experts in the field of I.T, Slashdot is considered more reliable than WP. --Humbersi (talk) 00:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is, it is mainly people who are not in the field of IT who are commenting here. -- spin^control 00:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's try to remember that Wikipedia is, more or less, an encyclopedia and therefore we should respect and appreciate the differences between how they and Slashdot operate. Each has its advantages and disadvantages, but both are good sources of technical knowledge and not mutually exclusive. SpooK (talk) 00:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't take technical expertise in IT to see that it hasn't received significant amounts of coverage in reliable third party sources. THAT is the issue here, not how cool/useful/whizbang/destined-for-greatness it is. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then under that presumption, let's get back to talking about how this should be taken care of. Deleting the JWASM page is all but obvious. The question remains, what is an acceptable means of leaving relevant portions of JWASM information on Wikipedia. So for, the best idea as been to include it as apart of the Open Watcom Assembler page. However, I want to know if a redirect from JWASM to said content will be acceptable. SpooK (talk) 01:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notes on Notability[edit]

To be just a little discursive here, there is notability and there is notability, the notability of the changing fashions of Paris Hilton easily exceed the notability of most of the content of Wikipedia yet it is hardly a viable category for Wikipedia. The criterion of notability changes from one category to another and to apply the notability criterion for the medical profession to the Britney Spears of the world is simply a mistake. Would a review in a perfectly respectable C++ programming journal addressing the ZEN of Japanes Floral Arrangements function as notability for such a category of art ? The drift here is that the topic like any other topic needs to be addressed in terms of an appropriate criterion of notability.

It is perfectly reasonable to ask the question as to whether this topic satisfies a viable and appropriate criterion of notability but it is not reasonable to try and inflict a deliberately inappropriate criterion of notability on a topic simply to improve the chances of deleting it. Computer programming tools will never make the front page of Pravda, the New York Times or the UK Independent and trying to apply criteria of this type to a topic of this type is simply an error of category.
Hutch48 (talk) 02:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A comment of Brian gives an idea of what it's expected from a computer program/language in order to be notable. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With no deference to Brian, I would be far more interested in a correct implimentation of WP guidelines in terms of an appropriate criterion of notability for an assembler.
Hutch48 (talk) 12:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the definition of wikt:notability is varied and open to interpretation. That is why we use the definition given in Wikipedia:Notability. Articles are judged, and AfD discussions operate on the concept of Wikipedia:Notability, not wikt:notability. Arguments based on wikt:notability are largely irrelevant if they do not follow Wikipedia:Notability. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 14:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then bother to read it, specifically WP:FAILN and explain why you failed to comply with the content when you incorrectly tagged this article. Hutch48 (talk) 14:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not ask the creators, as they had proven themselves to be uncivil and to hold some sort of grudge against me. I did not contact an expert on the subject, becuse the only other assembler experts I know on Wikipedia... (see above), and I am an expert myself on compilation tools. I did not place a {{notability}} tag because the last time I "graffitied" one of the author's articles... (see above). I made a search for reliable sources in good faith and could find none. Therefore I opened a discussion about the article's notability to seek community consensus, and notified other editors as specified in the guidelines. There, happy now? OrangeDog (τ • ε) 14:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then by your own admission you have failed to comply with Wikipedia guidelines and incorrectly tagged the article. RE: You attempted deletion of over half the MASM page, you are responsible for your own actions, I refuse to get into the type of edit war you were trying to start and fortunately another editor reverted your deletion. You have no excuse for this ommission, please act to fix the incorrect tagging of the original article. Note further that the search criterion you placed at the top of the page was unsound, you were not supposed to be using a search criterion that may have found Britney Spears. Hutch48 (talk) 15:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I detest wikilawyering and that is exactly what this section is. Either that thing is notable or not. Provide the sources showing significant coverage by reliable third party sources. This section is nothing more than an attempt to distract from that issue....oh look, a shiny object.....Niteshift36 (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Niteshift36, to save you any further distraction, read the Sybase EULA, ownership and notability proven. Hutch48 (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There first has to be an agreed definition of "significant" in this situation. Significant to whom? Significant to what extent? The problem with way "significance" is being implied by the deletionists is that it favors popularity more than actual notability. Point in case: "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below." and "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred." as per WP:Notability. Popularity is not an absolute requirement of Wikipedia notability, but it helps. Multiple sources are not an absolute requirement of Wikipedia notability guidelines, but again, it helps. In that context, we are back to the original problem of weighing the opinions of everyone's interpretation of the rules/guidelines and are no longer benefited by such absolute contexts. Half the time the deletionists state the rules, half the time they are interpreting them to meet their personal opinion. What you may see as "wikilawyering," I see as a cat and mouse game of one side keeping up with the other due to the use of red herrings all around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpooK (talk • contribs)

Please try not to get partitioning of editors into "deletionists" and "inclusionists" into this insanely long AfD as well. There is no partisan behaviour, nor wikilawyering here, just a couple of editors who refuse to get the point and continually skirt around issues with textwalling instead of actually producing sources. AFIK, "significant" is usually taken to mean more than a mention of existence (i.e. includes something that could go into an encyclopedia article). OrangeDog (τ • ε) 21:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And then we have come full circle as the Slashdot article I have produced is a source that is beyond the mere mention of JWASM's existence, as it also demonstrates what it is and could be used for. In short, the point has been made and now it has turned into an unfortunate matter of separating personal opinion from facts on the matter. WP:IDHT is a two-way street, and a prerequisite for maintaining a neutral point of view is the presentation and acceptance of the facts, not opinions. Now, I can't say that I don't agree with you in that others should just get to the point and come up with a reasonable compromise, say like merging. However, when further claims are being made without facts to back them up, is why this AfD really persists the way it does... that is just as much "textwalling" and "wikilawyering" as is being claimed. SpooK (talk) 21:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please act to address the ownership of JWASM by Sybase and its proven notability. You may wish to avoid the obvious issue but this is a disacussion page that you started and you are trying to label discussion as "textwalling" to distract from the topic. If you ceased wikilawyering you would not have tagged the original article in the first place. Hutch48 (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further Note[edit]

In the 150k+ body of text above there are a number of issues that have just been ignored.

1. Sybase is notable.
2. Watcom are notable.
3. WASM is owned by Sybase.
4. JWASM is an upgrade of WASM.
5. JWASM is owned by SyBase.

QUESTION Is the notability argument about the minor change in file name OR the file version ?

If so, does this criterion apply to any development tool being upgraded ? PHP, C++, PERL, Pascal, GCC, MSVC, VB, etc ....

If not, then it does not apply to JWASM either.

Hutch48 (talk) 13:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They have been ignored because they are irrelevant. Notability is not inherited. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 14:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the 5 listed point are true, it does not need to be. Notability is established by the ownership of the code and the Sybase and Watcom names are notable. Hutch48 (talk) 14:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then bother to read a dictionary and find out what inherited means. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 14:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wisecracks will not help you here, plaese maintain a neutral point of view. Legal ownership is determined by the Sybase EULA, correctly displayed on the original page that you tagged, not your opinion would you now be willing to correct this mistake. No inheritance required, Sybase own the software according to the EULA. Hutch48 (talk) 14:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hutch, your long missives aside, you haven't established anything close to notability for this article. That other articles exist simply doesn't matter to this debate. Your textwalls aren't helping your cause at all. Unit Anode 18:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anode, your comments aside, the EULA proves ownership and the owner is notable, ewhere is your argument? Hutch48 (talk) 22:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to WASM. The JWASM article has only one source that might count as secondary, an article on Slashdot; the other sources are all primary. There is a debate at RSN about the Slashdot article ( which IMO should stay in the JWASM article while both debates are in progress ), but even if it were deemed reliable a single secondary source is not enough. On the other hand there aren't that many assemblers out there, and this will likely be a useful tool. Nobody is debating that this assembler doesn't exist or that the article is wrong, and with some of the theatrics I've seen in this debate I'd be hard-pressed to toss an article because of it. A merge to WASM, another assembler on which this is based, would be the appropriate solution. If the syntax is similar, the merge should work smoothly and the final article could have a paragraph on the differences in JWASM, cited to primary sources. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Open Watcom Assembler (WASM (software) redirects there) now that that article got created. As I wrote above, there is a secondary source [27] which describes JWASM, and it is a WP:RS per discussion above, which got lost in all the slashdot back and forth. Pcap ping 19:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Originally posted on talk page: I would think that the reasons for keeping any page would be accuracy and usefulness defined as both "will/do people come here for this information?" and "will this information help with decision making or problem solving?" I believe that the answer to both is YES.

I arrived here because of discussion of alternatives to MASM in an online support chat room. If MSFT drops the assembler, or if people wish to develop in an open source environment such as Linux or BSD, this information on the provenance of the software is important, and should be continued. If editing is needed for some reason, then a notice to that effect would better serve.

While the Intel assembler is clearly going to stay available, many people writing low level code for speed or hardware control have done so under Windows using MASM, and the Intel assembler uses a different syntax, and is not a convenient replacement for MASM.

Finally, if wikipedia doesn't keep the information, who will. It would seem a project dedicated to increasing and distributing information would not consider dropping an article which is useful, accurate, and not readily available elsewhere. 70.109.112.48 (talk) 18:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's criteria are outlined here and do not include "accuracy" or "usefulness". If the material is deleted, there are plenty of specialist wikis or fora that could host the information. That it is not readily available elsewhere is almost exactly why it would be deleted. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 19:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OrangeDog, you have still faile to address the proven ownership of JWASM by Sybase with proven notability, as you are responsible for the original error in the face of correct notability on the original page, would you now act to solve the problem you put into place.Hutch48 (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The debate is over independent notability. Everything that's been brought out so far implies that there's not enough material for a separate article about this assembler. However nobody has suggested that this article is fake or spurious or not useful; there are enough sources to justify a paragraph in an aritcle with wider scope. Given that this is part of a larger whole, it makes sense to merge to WASM, not delete it outright. Squidfryerchef (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I risk inspiring another wall of text but how is proven ownership of JWASM by Sybase prove notability? As people have already stated, notability is not inherented. The proven ownership of Tinkerbell by Paris Hilton doesn't mean we should have an article on Tinkerbell. Nil Einne (talk) 17:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Open Watcom Assembler, give it its own major section in that page and make sure that JWASM redirects to it. Once JWASM becomes more notable as per Wikipedia guidelines, a separate page can readily be made from the JWASM specific portions of the merged contents. Further more, it should be acceptable to take significant portions of the current JWASM page information that are more technical and less encyclopedic, transplant them to a non-Wikipedia site/page, and reference it at the merged page. SpooK (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or merge to whatever is the best target is fine as well. Seems to lack reliable third party sources at least from what I gather from the article and the extremely long walls of text (I'm often guilty of that but this seems to have taken it to a whole new level) Nil Einne (talk) 17:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—no proper third-party sources. ╟─Treasury Tag►directorate─╢ 19:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mehrdad Shahshahani[edit]

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

I suspect this one may fail WP:PROF. I only found 20 publications on MathSciNet over a period of more than 30 years, citation counts are: 70,56,31,6,6,6,5,5,1,1,1. Ray^Talk 19:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 19:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was afraid that you overlooked Comp Sci papers because of the Vision group thing, but he has only 3 papers in DBLP [28]. Pcap ping 20:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The MathSciNet citation numbers are actually more impressive than they seem. MathSciNet citation data is very incomplete for now: they only include References/Bibliography sections for some journals (but probably less than a half of the math journals), and only from about 1995 onwards. Citations in other journals, older citations and citations in books, conference proceedings etc are not counted at all. The better cited papers (70 and 56) are from 1981 and 1994; for a 1981 paper 70 recent journal citations is not bad at all. GoogleScholar[29] give top citation hits of 228, 134, 96, 94, 52, ... He did not publish a lot, but the published papers are in pretty good journals, e.g. American Journal of Mathematics, Duke Mathematical Journal (particularly impressive, this is quite an elite journal), International Mathematics Research Notices, etc. So this is a serious mathematician. However, the five most highly cited papers are all joint with Persi Diaconis, a famous mathematician. For papers without Diaconis the citation hits are much lower. There is nothing else directly to point to, e.g. awards, journal editorships, significant invited talks etc (at least I did not find such info after a bit of google-searching). So overall, there does not seem to be enough here for passing WP:PROF. I may be inclined to make an exception on the grounds of rectifying geographical and cultural bias, but I would still like to see something more tangible than just the citation data. Nsk92 (talk) 20:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. As Nsk92 says, a few of his publications have good citations, but it's hard to find anything that distinguishes his own contributions in them because they're all with the clearly more notable Diaconis. So I'm not seeing a convincing case for WP:PROF #1 and I don't see what other reason there might be for keeping. And in any case there seems to be very little we can write about him (although he has taught at Stanford, not just in Iran). —David Eppstein (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. David makes a good point – all the top-cited papers were with Persi Diaconis, who was always the first author. More problematic is the fact that all of his papers together only show h = 7 (WoS) and he looks to be first author on only about 4 of the 23 total papers. I would say that the low citation impact, coupled with the difficulty in ascertaining what his actual level of contribution to this work was makes it difficult to vote to keep. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- I don't think you can infer anything from author ordering: this is an area where they are usually listed alphabetically. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Often true, but not always. Here, the author lists for about a quarter of his multi-author journal papers are specifically not in alphabetical order and in each instance, someone else is listed as the corresponding author. Of the remaining ones that happen to be in alphabetical order, he is not the corresponding author on another 13 of those, including all of the highly-cited papers with Diaconis. In fact, he seems to be the primary or principal author on only 5 publications listed in WoS, one of which is actually just an editorial. So, I think there is in fact a serious issue (doubt, more precisely) about his specific level of contribution and impact. I would say this simply underscores what you said up above. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:PROF. Abductive (reasoning) 22:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A few (more than enough) of his papers have high citations in Google scholar and they are some of the good contributions in the filed of research he chose. Also he has authored with a notable Persi Diaconis. Neither I'm an Iranian nor I knew him. I donot get it why you are trying to delete such mathematicians (has been in the field since 70's and has made substntial contributions in his field). One of his papers on Eigenvalues is very interesting one.--DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 00:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ultimatrix aliens[edit]

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

Unsourced speculation. Fails WP:SOURCE, WP:NOR ect.. Cannonbolt2 (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete "List of possible and rumored Utimatrix aliens" is not a suitable topic for an article. If nothing is known about them for sure how can there be an article? WP is supposed to be for reliable facts, not possibilities and rumors. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Information already exists for almost all aliens listed here and it can only be expanded. This page should not be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricthedratini (talk • contribs) 18:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC) — Ricthedratini (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Merge to List of Omnitrix aliens. The Ultimatrix (episodes of which haven't aired, and we only have the toy manufactuer's website to suggest it will be called Ultimatrix) is an upgraded Omnitrix. The vast bulk of the content already exists at List of Omnitrix aliens, the rest is total speculation. Even when it does air, there's no real point in having two articles that have very similar information on. Deleting will probably just lead to well meaning recreation; merging will take people to where the info already exists. Ged UK 13:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTCRYSTAL 'Possible and rumored' is just another way of saying 'We don't know yet'. HalfShadow 20:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. fetchcomms☛ 20:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arguments indicating that the subject fails to meet WP:POLITICIAN are far stronger than the arguments to keep. NW (Talk) 19:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Boss[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

An article on this person was previously deleted after an AfD discussion about one year ago resulted in a firm consensus to delete. The subject is a "9/11 Truth Activist" from New Jersey who has made several runs for public office as a fringe candidate (see here). Anyway, I believe that Boss failed WP:POLITICIAN back then and still does today, but since the AfD was a year ago and consensus can change, I suppose another discussion might be preferred to a G4 speedy deletion. So what's changed in the past year? Boss has placed a very distant third in a gubernatorial primary (although the article claims that he was a "major" candidate) and he's announced another longshot campaign, this time for Congress. I will reiterate: Boss fails WP:POLITICIAN, and while a perennial candidate can eventually meet WP:BIO, I don't think Boss has hit that point yet. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 18:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. —71.251.40.119 (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt Nothing has really changed from the last AfD —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sin Harvest (talk • contribs) 12:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Boss has been featured on TV, radio, and in newspapers in New Jersey. He is very well known in the state, and his good showings during elections make him notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenguy89 (talk • contribs)
Keep, press coverage indicates notability. Everyking (talk) 08:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everyking, I don't dispute that there's press coverage, but why do you think it amounts to significant coverage? I certainly don't think it does. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, he has been on the radio, newspaper, and TV. greenguy89 (talk) 04:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Greenguy89 created the article both times it was sent to AfD, and he already voted to keep above. Greenguy89, please don't add multiple bolded votes to keep; your vote will not be counted twice. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN by a long way. The press coverage is minimal or trivial; I don't consider it adds up to significant coverage. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Mkativerata (talk) 23:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mkativerata, coverage is not sigificant, does not meet notability guidelines. Risker (talk) 03:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Indonesia[edit]

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

Blank page, not necessary and appears to be a placeholder of some kind. Rasputin72 (talk) 06:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more careful. The author removed your AfD notice, but they also added content in the same edit that you removed by undo. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~~supported speedy action~~ - the Indonesian project has a notorious record of inadequate WP:NOT candidates in the attempts at articles regarding media - usually devoid of adequate WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS - and if any content - in most cases deletable Satu Suro 07:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC) - however similar articles exist - without anything that resembles a WP:RS - difficult - as either all the grab bag of links articles are in the same context Satu Suro 08:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC) If this becomes a delete then there are the other 12 or so grab bag articles as well at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Sports_television Satu Suro 13:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I note there is no actual information there, nor can I envisage much of an article being created. Also, fails notability. --Merbabu (talk) 10:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can see where a good article could be written, although, so far, this isn't it, so no keep !vote. The topic of which of a nation's television networks have contracted for exclusive rights to sports broadcasting is quite notable (see, for example, Category:Sports television in the United States). For English-language Wikipedia readers, one has to assume that we don't know anything about Indonesia's television networks, and that it requires the same explanation that someone in Indonesia would need to understand about ABC, NBC, and CBS. Truth be told, Americans know almost nothing about Indonesia, a nation of 230,000,000 people, fourth largest in the world, that gets almost no mention in the news. Mandsford (talk) 17:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for being entirely devoid of content. A single sentence that says nothing and a couple of templates is not an article. -- Whpq (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Maybe if the nominator had given the article creator more than 48 seconds to add content before slapping on deletion tags we would have a better article now. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - in view of the comments from Mansford and Phil Bridger - and that the nominator proceeded to become a blocked user - I believe this Afd should be closed as incorrect usage of the AFD process SatuSuro 23:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - But that does not address the fact that the article as it stands has no content. -- Whpq (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thats fine - just compare the lot at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Sports_television Satu Suro 23:38, 12 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 00:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's a start. Polarpanda (talk) 10:15, 18 January 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) 18:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy - Since the article was put for deletion, it has yet to see improvement. It could become a worthy article at some point but it's been a pretty much useless, obscure/specialized stub for 14 days.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A1, as this article/list provides no context, nor claim to notability, nor any sources to veryify its content or define its subject matter. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. While English language sources are preferred, that does not in any way shape or form invalidate non-English sources, indeed we should resist such systemic bias when evaluating an article. Also, the truth of this man's claims or the tone the article is written in are not reasons to delete. Failing to meet the bar of WP:N is a reason to delete, and that does not seem to be the case here. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andriy Slyusarchuk[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Andriy Slyusarchuk

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

Unscientific, untrustable mostly foreign language sources, lots of links to Russian and Ukraining webpages, npov, person not relevant, claims not true, misleading, stating world records that are not accepted (nor true) Memoryexpert de (talk) 17:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I do not think all these accusations are true. There's no PoV or my own original research in the info I add to the articles. The fragments I add about Andriy Slyusarchuk are based on press information, as well as the references to the official site of President of Ukraine ( http://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/14234.html ), as well as the Official Book of Records of Ukraine ( http://www.book.adamant.ua/akt/2slysar4uk/1.htm ). It's a person's own choice whether he/she wishes to participate in World Memory Championships or not. And if he/she does not wish to do so, or does not know about this Championship, or does not / can not participate because of some other reason, this fact is not enough to debunk any of the claims about his/her records, especially if these records were witnessed by numerous professors and scientists during numerous demonstrations (please take your time to translate and study the refs I included before making further conclusions). In any case, as I stated on the article talk page, the overwhelming amount of press information both in Russian and Ukrainian media (TV, Radio, Press, Internet) about this person is more than enough to make an article about him, even if he would have been a proven charlatan (which is not a fact, so far). NazarK (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CommentDear NazarK, I understand your opinion but stillt have two comments for others to judge: First Your main interest in Wikipedia during the last year is this guy. You wrote the article and set links in multiple other articles, which already got reverted on the Pi page. You state yourself, that you are from the same town as this person and know some of the judges of his attempts pretty well. This reduces your neutrality. Of course you are still allowed to have and name your opinion, but you just reverted changes, something that is not a good thing to do. The sources given are nearly 100% Ukrainian and Russian. But this is the English Wikipedia. Therefore those reference do not qualify, nor do poorly translated texts on small, unreliable English webpages. Of course noone has to take part at the World Memory Championships and that he does not is not a proof. But you can see, that many people with proven superior memory abilities to part in these controlled tests and the best of them all memorized 405 digits in five minutes. Then using your common sense you can see, that Andriy Slyusarchuk did not memorize 5100 digits in two minutes. I am sorry for the Ukrainian president, if he believes this guy. Memoryexpert de (talk) 09:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the World Memory Championship, my best guess is Andriy Slyusarchuk simply does not know anything about it. And he's not a very rich person, as far as I know. I'd suggest you to send him an official invitation, challenging him to participate (you can contact him, for example, via L'viv State University of Modern Technologies and Management http://www.ldi.lviv.ua/navtchalnyj_proces/r2_np_kafedra_zahalnych_jurydytchnych_dyscyplin.php ). I'd expect him to come, especially if you offer him travel and participation costs reimbursement. In any case, you'll have an opportunity to reliably debunk his claims, or we'll get a brand new champion. :) NazarK (talk) 12:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And about my neutrality... The judges of his claims are the respectable scientists, professors, and academicians of my city (the city of L'viv, which is about 1 million population and one of the major scientific centers of Ukraine). They are well known not only by me, but also by tens of thousands of students, other scientists, and general public, as these people are the heads of departments of major National Universities and Institutes, located in my city. I don't think that gives you enough reason to say I'm not being neutral enough...

The trick about his memory abilities, as I was able to find out, is that he does remember only the image, and his memory does not include any logical analysis or processing of the information he remembers. In fact, it requires a significant effort for him to successfully restore and read out from his memory the right fragment of the image he recorded into his memory. That is why, in my opinion, he's not able to read out from his memory very quickly, and that is probably the reason why this photographic memory does not help him to successfully learn numerous foreign languages. I think it is unlikely that he is a total charlatan, in light of the very large number of independent highly educated witnesses, who verified his abilities.

In any case, I did my best to create a neutral encyclopedic article about this person. I don't mind if someone finds out and reliably proves that he is a charlatan (though personally I do not believe this to be likely). I'm sorry many links are Ukrainian and Russian. I did include some English links too, as far as I was able. I believe the phenomenon of the person (either a possible charlatan or a gifted eidetic) is unique and deserves its place in the English wikipedia. Thanks. NazarK (talk) 12:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The absurd claims in this article have been of concern to me for some time, but however much I disbelieve them (see Andriy Slyusarchuk and 30 million digits of π) I think that he passes the notability test. The article is in better condition than it was a few months ago, but it still needs a lot of cleaning up. I think that improving the article would be a better option than simply deleting it. BabelStone (talk) 19:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please also check the article talk page and this discussion on my own talk page -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NazarK#Andriy_Slyusarchuk . Thank you for your patience and understanding. NazarK (talk) 19:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CommentWhat criteria let him pass the notability test? There are about no English sources. There are many people, who have been on national TV programs in their countries, but that does not make them interesting for Wikipedia, exspecially not the English one. If I claim to be able to name 1 bllion digits of Pi and do a fake performance, I will most likely find some TV programs and internet "news" to talk about that - is that enough to make me notable? Is a fictional CV given by himself enough to be notable? Where are the proofs of him passing high medical schools tests by the age of 12? Do I have to add some more abstruse claims and say I can read peoples minds? Mabye his claim, that he is pretty good in using hypnosis and can make people believe everything is actually substancial. Just spotted following discussions: User_talk:Amilnerwhite, User talk:World citoyen,User talk:66.114.10.106,Talk:Piphilology. Memoryexpert de (talk) 09:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Please also note the very high ammount of foreign language links on this article. And then tell me, getting outside links to Ukrainian and Russian pages was not intended by the authors. Without those links, there is about no source left. Memoryexpert de (talk) 09:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is no prohibition against non-English sources in WP:RS. The article does need a massive clean-up, preferably by editors who speak Russian, but the person appears to be notable. Wine Guy Talk 02:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. By the time that an article gets to this stage it is required to have demonstrated notability explicily and manifestly. I can't see that this has done in this case. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep: per Naz. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The problem is: People read his records and that some Ukrainians approved it and believe it, because they do not know, that they are not possible. Those who actually know about memory records know, that this records are not possible. His "Pi record" is 250x better than the real one, his "speed-digits record" still 32 times better. If any Ukrainian claimed to have run a marathon in 3.8 minutes (32 better than the real world record) and some Ukrainian Webpages say its true, still noone would allow an article with this claims to exist in the English Wikipedia. Just because not so many people know the real memory records does not change the issue. His claims insult the real record holders and are riddiculous. Therefore they should not stand. Some people already deleted his claims where everbody know they are not true (see articles history), f.e. mind-reading. But his other claims are not at all more reliable. 145.253.118.83 (talk) 08:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-comment. If you check the internationally registered records of memorized Pi digits over the last few decades ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PiDigits.svg ) you can see that the registered record number has increased over 100x since 1970's. It can not be compared to the physical performance in a marathon (which has obvious limitations), because it is commonly known (and also scientifically confirmed) that we use only a very small fraction of the actual abilities of our mind. We don't really know the limits of what we can memorize and perform with our minds. Thanks. NazarK (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's also a little synthesis of what I've read on various forums and other published reports of people who contacted Andriy Slyusarchuk and tried to learn his methods (I don't add this to the main article, because it seems too close to personal analysis of the case). As I said before, the guy is strongly weird. There's not much logic in what he does. He's irrational (and, accordingly to him, that is one of the main keys to an outstanding eidetic memory; btw, he says that in order to memorize the smallest details of what you perceive you have to stop analyzing it; your analysis is what steals your attention and limits your memory; he compares his memory to the memory of a person during some catastrophe, or a terrible, shocking accident, when people are able to perceive the flow of time very slowly, and with very high intensity, memorizing every smallest detail; he says his perception has been like that continuously and permanently since his very early childhood). He supposedly has a few students, who are working on mastering his memorizing techniques. One of them (his name is Oleksandr Chervonyy, he's a student of National University "L'viv Polytechnic") is said to be rather successful, in that he was able to memorize a substantial amount of Pi digits as well, though not as many as A.S. himself... NazarK (talk) 19:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn by nominator. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:06, 25 Jan 2010 (UTC)

Knowledge Generation Bureau[edit]

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

Sources do not indicate sufficient notability. Promotional. Various implausible redirects such as "Комитет государственной безопасности" have been created, indicating a deliberate effort to generate as much traffic on the page as possible through search engine crawlers. Cs32en Talk to me 17:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The redirects in question were created by a malfunctioning bot. I just reverted its actions. — Rankiri (talk) 18:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! However, given this and similar edits, I don't think we should blame the bot. Cs32en Talk to me 19:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Aside from Bot problems identified by Rankiri, the company does not seem to be notable on its own (some of their products may be more notable if we could eventually find citations, but that's for separate articles). I agree with the original nomination.Mattnad (talk) 19:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Please, when nominating due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist. Google News^[30][31] immediately shows a number of WP:RS sources—including a lengthy review from TIME—that cover the subject in detail. As for WP:PROMOTION concerns, I don't think that the problem is so serious it can't be solved through less drastic methods.

http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1874375,00.html

http://durangoherald.com/sections/Features/Southwest_Life/2010/01/10/Special_agents_answer_questions_about_everything/

http://www.gadling.com/2009/01/23/product-review-knowlege-generation-bureau-kgb/

http://hamptonroads.com/2009/09/textmessage-answer-man

http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=98228

http://www.620wtmj.com/news/local/45359222.html — Rankiri (talk) 19:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have first added a PROD template to the article. The template was deleted without any significant changes to the article's content. The article needs to be based on sources such as those that you have given. I don't have any particular interest in this company, so I don't think it's my job to find the sources and to rewrite the article. Instead of looking for sources, the editors of the article have spent their time trying to associate it with the Russian KGB. If this changes, the article will probably be kept. Cs32en Talk to me 20:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Does it hurt to do some basic research before nominating for deletion? As seen above plenty of sources for the company, the company has a major national advertising campaign (featuring Kirk from Gilmore Girls, which is quite amusing), and I'm not seeing an overriding promotional bent to the article besides a basic clear explanation of the service. I would suggest however that the article be renamed as KGB.com or KGB (service) with this title (used as sub-branding) retained as a redirect as "KGB" is the more used branding. Nate • (chatter) 20:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer you kept it as far away from KGB as possible. There was already a page-move fiasco when someone decided that KGB should be an entry about Knowledge Generation Bureau, not about the Soviet intelligence service. Those waters don't need to be muddied again. Hairhorn (talk) 22:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep If someone is disruptively trying to drive traffic to a company's Wikipedia page, that can and should be dealt with, but deleting the company's article due to that is silly, and akin to throwing out the baby with the bathwater (even though it usually irritates me when people use that phrase, it's pretty apt here). The notability concern seems plausible since there aren't really any independent sources in the article; but I have to think some must be available, if only due to the substantial advertising campaign (which included a super bowl commercial). For now I think the article should be kept and tagged for its notability issue. I'd have trouble endorsing deletion of a company that everyone's heard of; I think that's the spirit of the notability policy, even if not "to the letter". Edit: Didn't notice Rankiri's comment above. It appears independent sources do exist, so changing to plain keep. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:29, 25 Jan 2010 (UTC)
Withdraw I am withdrawing this request for the deletion discussion. I would like to thank Rankiri for finding sources for the article, and I would like to encourage the editors who are working on the article to actually use these sources. It's not sufficient that an article can potentially be sourced properly, the sources need to be used in the article, and independent secondary sources should be used in preference to self-published sources. I hope that the editors who are working on the article will spend more time sourcing the article properly, rather than constructing infoboxes, quarreling over the addition of "alternative services", moving the page etc. Cs32en Talk to me 01:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Batman Project[edit]

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

Article is unsourced, and consists largely of speculation. RadManCF (talk) 16:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree. Too speculative at this point; the info here is better suited for a fansite. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 16:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing but rumors and speculation. I don't think this supposed movie has even been confirmed (yet alone started pre-production already). TJ Spyke 16:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt the earth, also create protect all of the titles listed on this page. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record Knightfall, Gotham City, The Dark Knight Returns and The Caped Crusader are already pages or redirects, but I would suggest all four with (film) should be protected, along with The Shadow of the Bat and The Legend of Batman. User:Miki123456 has also created Terminator 5 and Spider-man reboot pages, they are either a time-traveller or just have an obsession with making edits concerning future films. Darrenhusted (talk) 18:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, completely fails WP:NFF and WP:CRYSTAL, and Wikipedia is not a rumor mill which is all this article contains. Also agree with Darrenhusted's to salt it and all speculated titles. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all reasons stated above. Particularly the title which is both temporary in nature and unspecific, it could also be a comic project, an animated series, a game, etc. Anything can be an "untitled project".--70.80.234.196 (talk) 18:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely unsourced speculation. --Michig (talk) 18:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:CRYSTAL -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 18:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice toward recreation. The project is getting some "buzz" [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37]... but not quite enough in reliable sources to meet WP:CRYSTAL. No need to SALT, as considering the money filmmakers have made on the sequels, it is more likley than not that the project will continue. Wikipedia can afford to be patient, and need not be bitey. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:CRYSTAL. Warrah (talk) 00:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per 70.80.234.196 and WP:HAMMER, projects are almost (but not quite) never notable before a working title is leaked to the press. If/when this is farther along an article will certainly be appropriate, but not now. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anita Thigpen Perry[edit]

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

Finishing the nomination on behalf of an IP user (User:86.40.214.5), who wrote in their edit summary: "Nominated for deletion; because notability as a relation of a politician is not inherited, it's a biography with one external link that's not independent, not reliable and certainly not multiple." I am neutral myself at this time. Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am not a fan, but she's got hundreds of thousands of Ghits, and a nursing school is named in her honor because of her Philanthropy. This we can rescue. Bearian (talk) 00:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A school is named after her. Joe Chill (talk) 02:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep, spouses of US governors usually become notable despite themselves. Plenty of sources here. -- Banjeboi 15:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have to go with Joe. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Easy Keep --Milowent (talk) 21:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not inherited, and the article is completely unsourced. Either source it, with multiple sources offering non-trivial coverage of her (not her husband) or delete it. Unit Anode 18:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. A unanimous keep and clear consensus that the subject is notable. (non-admin closure) Mkativerata (talk) 03:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Curran O'Malley[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Catherine Curran O'Malley

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

Creating this debate page on behalf of User: 86.40.214.5 who did not complete all steps for the AfD. Reason given was: "because notability as a relation of a politician is not inherited, it is a biography with one source which is not independent, not reliable and certainly not multiple" DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Although I helped complete this particular AfD as an editing process, I have no vote. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A state first lady with an established legal/judicial career prior to that and tons of Google hits. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – While the article has a current "stub" status, it is not due to a lack of available secondary sources. —ADavidB 22:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 23:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rescue. Bearian (talk) 00:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep between her being a judge and consort to a state governor, the sources are there to write an article about her. The WP:GNG can prove notability when the specific guidelines strictly would not confer it. There are dozens of reliable sources out there on her- but some are listed as Katie O'Malley. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 04:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep, you're kidding, right? The wife of a US governor, even if she weren't a judge is likely to be notable or at worst covered in the governor's article. Deletion unneeded here. On Google News I get 200+ hits so sources also certainly exist. -- Banjeboi 15:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - At first I was staying neutral because I was simply completing the required AfD process for an inexperienced user. But now I certainly agree with the votes above. Ms. O'Malley has plenty of notability not just as a first lady but as a professional in her own right. The sources are plentiful and easily located. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, As the creator of this article, I obviously support keeping it. While I acknowledge that simply being related to a politician does not necessarily meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for biography articles, in this case Catherine Curran O'Malley has her own legal career for which she has some notability. Furthermore, I agree with the other contributors to this discussion that being the First Lady of a U.S. state does give her some degree of notability, and that expansion of the article using the sources quoted would improve the article.--TommyBoy (talk) 10:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sahara Club (Pokhara)[edit]

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

Contested PROD deletion, reason was "If you search for "Sahara Club Nepal" in Google, you'll realise the club is notable wrt the number of news items. It's just that the author perhaps hasn't added citations. I'll do so in the next few days". Non-notable youth football club that fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. --Jimbo^[online] 13:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep Google news archives search for Sahara Club Pokhara is here. Google current news search for the club is here. Pretty much notable. Mention in some third party sources is neither trivial nor incidental but on the club. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 15:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I disagree with the above assessment. Most of the Google News Archive hits are simple mentions/scores of them participating in the Aaha Gold Cup. The cup does not appear to be related to the organization (I can't tell from the article). The other sources are at FIFA.com and a couple South African online news sites. At least two of them are duplicates[38][39] and another[40] is within a couple of days of the others leading me to believe that it was some sort of PR campaign. Those sources do give some good info though. If they are considered significant enough then I could see keeping it. If it is kept, it needs to be reduced to a stub to trim out the fluffy writing and good inline citations will be needed to expand it. Cptnono (talk) 09:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification I want to tell everyone that the Sahara club is a renowned club in Nepal and is a organization helping children. The clubs' academy has produced many nepalese national footballers and is recogniszed by ANFA. The cup is held by the club yearly and is major tournament in Nepalese football.--Glantiwehene (talk) 10:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does the club sponsor the cup or only participate in it? (source would be appreciated)? I'm assuming they are more notable for their work over their ball but what level of do they play?Cptnono (talk) 23:49, 19 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 15:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per Wifione's comments. IconicBigBen (talk) 22:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lori Singleton-Clarke[edit]

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

Biographical entry that breaks the one event rule. Her legal case might be notable enough for an entry, but she isn't. Hairhorn (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Information would be better presented in an article about the event she was involved in. RadManCF (talk) 16:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:BLP1E. Joe Chill (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am the creator of th article. I believe that this person and the event in question should be included into Wikipedia. I believe the case will create precedent for all future generations. If the article should be changed to an event name and/or re-written, I am all for it, please help me on it as I am new here. My vote is re-title, work on. PamelaBMX (talk) 17:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete nothing in gnews [41]. LibStar (talk) 00:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sang Kyu Moon[edit]

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

From contested prod: Can not establish the existence of such a tennis player. Did not place eighth, or compete, at the 1978 Australian Open according to http://www.itftennis.com/mens/tournaments/tournamentoverview.asp?tournament=1020000068. Her name was added to 1978 Australian Open – Women's Singles in this 2007, which stated she was a finalist (clearly incorrect). 66.57.4.150 (talk) 06:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC) Completing for IP rationale copied from Talk Page ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 13:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Searches for "Sang Kyu Moon" tennis -wikipedia turn up absolutely no hits, which makes this article unlikely, even if she was supposedly active before the dawn of the Web. Fails WP:V. Deor (talk) 15:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:V, WP:A, WP:NOHOAXES, and WP:BLPDEL. This is very clearly a hoax article; the creator of the article ought to be sternly warned. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 17:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 21:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 02:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DDRUK[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Wikipedia is not a collection of fansites, and even then this is not notable beyond the niche community. Citations are predominately trivial facts. "In the Media" mentions do not point at the site proper as being notable and makes those resources moot. Example: 1 tiny article note from the BBC is one quote happening to be from a DDRUK member, not about or covering DDRUK itself; Thus saying "covered in a BBC article" or in The Times is false. 1-time guest appearances on certain medium-audience shows discussing the broader topic (DDR) and not DDRUK cut off any notability claim. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 12:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: I know this is third nomination, but the key for me here is the media "mentions" which were the hinge of the 2 keeps. They do not cover DDRUK itself as an entity but discuss DDR with a quote from member or passive link. Coincidence of being at an event with a BBC reporter and being solicited for a quote is not notability for the site. Not for the person quoted even, so certainly nothing larger. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 12:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This website fails WP:WEB and, more broadly, WP:N. This is the most promising potential reference that a Google News search turned up – a short take in a British newspaper in which DDRUK.com was selected as "Website of the Day." Alexa rank is approximately 682,000, for what it's worth. All things considered, the subject falls below our bar for inclusion when it comes to websites. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: If it is as you claimed User:Datheisen, then why isn't articles on forking software, niche blog and -cast (podcast, webcast), mods like Multi Theft Auto deleted. No, that is is totally an and invalid bias excuse. You don't discriminate any content as long their have a significant impact on the subject, which in this case, DDRUK has. (notability is enough to be considered as a note for impact on the game). Though the article may need to be re-focused on the version, impact, culture affect of the game, rather than focusing insignificant sitemap (WP:NOTADIRECTORY). --173.183.102.184 (talk) 06:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saying other stuff exists that needs to be deleted is not a grounds for a keep. Those articles have significant coverage, that much has been established. Slightly off topic - I took some time to clean up this article, as it was really difficult to sort through it and make a realistic consensus on it. --Teancum (talk) 18:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The essay on otherstuff and mention at WP:ATA repeatedly state that it's not meant as a rationale for a keep or delete. It's a philosophical talking point on articles typically to rebut a stubborn minority of supporters unable to fall back on anything else and a reminder that WP:N as a guideline trumps. You did correctly summarized my view in almost the exact same manner, and I admit that your interpretation is a reasonable view, and I might use similar if the "community" we're talking about were larger in an industry sense. It might suggest "importance" or "significance" but those are lower standards than notability. Having used the site before a lot of helpful things and spending far too much time on sim file perfectionist edits, it still doesn't sit well with me to keep since precedent has been pretty consistent on deletion of fansite articles. Improvements are of course great but I have to stay set on it just plain being non-encyclopedic. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 11:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - some of the "trivial" mentions actually talk about DDR UK in decent context. Article needs major cleanup to be encylopedic, and could probably use some cleanup, but the sources cover the content. Source #5 particularly talks about DDRUK and the community. That being said several of the less reliable links are broken. --Teancum (talk) 12:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Per Teancum's comments and the fact that a Google Test reveals a pretty good degree of popular reference and thus a very crude demonstration of importance. Obviously that's not saying much, but I'm usually willing to give something that fails the Negative test a second look at least. If there has been participation with the Expos as claimed, then this seems fairly notable to me. Some of the pages linked to DDRUK also make claims that if true seem to be potentially notable. Finally it should be noted that several of the "broken links" are either still up under different addresses or are available via WayBack Machine. In fact, I'll go ahead and fix those links now. -Thibbs (talk) 01:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Morten Knudsen[edit]

Now mentioned on OWS squad list —Preceding unsigned comment added by CrokeyBoy (talk • contribs) 18:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Has not played a match. Not mentioned at Colchester's squad list or at Soccerbase. Geschichte (talk) 11:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He is mentioned on the Colchester website, but this quote - "has previously represented sides in the second and third tier of the leagues in his home country (Norway)" - shows that he doesn't meet the Wp:FOOTYN guidelines. The only fully pro Norwegian league is the Tippeligaen, and he wasn't even an unused sub yesterday. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 14:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to be fair, he hadn't received his international clearance in time to feature in that match...--ClubOranje^T 09:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He fails WP:ATHLETE. --Carioca (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lee Shaver, Jr.[edit]

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

Self-confessed mass murderer whose charges were dropped due to a complete lack of evidence. Seems like a case of WP:BLP1E unless we're going to have an article for every American criminal, in which case start the fundraising for the new server farms we will require... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 10:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not all murderers in the U.S. are notable. People kill and are killed all across the world every day. Sad to say, but let's keep the bar high for inclusion of crime victims or purported perpetrators. Will Beback talk 12:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:BLP1E. Joe Chill (talk) 21:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This needs a lot more reliable sources to show he's been in the news longer than one news cycle. Sorry, but delete per Will Beback. Bearian (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC) P.S. In my criminal justice classes that I teach, my students and I discuss frequently why some men confess to false crimes. This is a "textbook", but non-notable case, because such confessions are more common than one would care. Bearian (talk) 00:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete whilst he has committed several different crimes that in itself does not warrant an article. there are literally millions of people who have committed multiple crimes and had a little media coverage, we don't create articles for all of them. LibStar (talk) 10:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NN criminal. JBsupreme (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep building of Berian's argument, if this is one of the example cases for the concept, then he is notable. DGG ( talk ) 04:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. does not meet notability requirements per WP:PERP. Wikipeterproject (talk) 01:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The promotional part seems to have been addressed by StAnselm. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vision Forum[edit]

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

Entirely promotional - no assertion of notability or reliable sources, only two scant references (one of which is tagged as unreliable, the other of which is a brief reference in an evangelical Christian source). Not encyclopedic. SuaveArt (talk) 09:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added references from the Richmond Times-Dispatch and the Catholic News Agency. -- Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – per Eastmain's new sources and many other that are available on Google News. It may need some cleanup/better wording (per nom), but the topic is clearly notable and the writing isn't even all that bad to begin with. American Eagle (talk) 19:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and improve references. StAnselm (talk) 11:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet the requirements for WP:ORG (in neither its non-profit nor commercial guise). The given references are little more than promotional/PR pieces promoting debates/film events etc. and such "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability." (NB One of the ref links opens a malware/phishing pop up window) Without any serious discussion of the subject itself from reliable sources the article can only be seen as a promotional piece as per nomination. Lame Name (talk) 15:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've added a criticism section to address the above concerns. StAnselm (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G12 copyright violation JohnCD (talk) 14:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The shadow incident[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The prod was contested. Fails WP:NOT#NEWS. Joe Chill (talk) 08:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to wikipedia. I have read a lot of how to edit pages but I'm still unsure what exactly I need to do in order to prevent this from getting deleted? I just don't understand how it's "not news" if I linked to a news website?

Any pointers?

Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theshadowincident (talk • contribs) 09:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Click on the link. The link says "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews. See also: Wikipedia:Notability (events)". Joe Chill (talk) 09:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Please read this to learn how to start your first article. "not news" means Wikipedia(not the article nor the site) is not a place for news. News event should be notable for it to be included. Also, since you seem to be associated with the site, you are probably not the best person to create the article - please read this. Have a nice day! :) Cheers, Blodance the Seeker 09:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Possible copyvio. Compare http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/ACS_investigates_photo_of_headless_dog.html - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Since the product is now widely reported to have been released as iPad, the nomination rationale is moot. Sandstein 18:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ISlate[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Nonencyclopaedic and unverifiable information in violation of WP:BALL. Likely also falls into either WP:HOAX or WP:ADVERTISING. Egnalebd (talk) 07:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Delete this article after January 27th —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.178.123.39 (talk) 15:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Egnalebd (talk) 21:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At least some of the predictions are attributed to unambiguously reliable sources, such as the Baltimore Sun. By keeping this article, Wikipedia isn't offering any predictions of its own; it is simply reporting that others have made some interesting predictions. On January 27, when Apple is scheduled to make a major announcement on an unidentified topic, this may turn into a speedy keep.- Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good papers, yes, but speculation nonetheless. One good indicator of how clueless the journalists are is their contradictory illustrations---I'm pretty sure one of them is a a Game Gear. Supposing now that the thing is real, this article is either an outgrowth of online Slashdot-style hype (and not encyclopaedic) or an Apple-style astroturfing (and not encyclopaedic). Egnalebd (talk) 10:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are no reliable sources that say the event will be about a tablet and you yourself acknowledge the event is about an "unidentified topic", and so shouldn't be used as a basis for arguing to keep the article. Andareed (talk)

Delete Everything in here is speculation (the reliable sources in question all appear to admit this), as per the first phrase which states "a rumored upcoming tablet computing device". Assuming the name is correct and the product is in fact a tablet, the article as it currently stands will need to be entirely re-written once there are actual facts. Random name (talk) 11:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not an article, but a collection of speculations. We don't even know for sure the name of this device, should it be released. An encyclopedic article is not there to collect speculations and predictions about a rumoured product. As soon as it is on the market and we have facts about it, this article will have to be rewritten anyway.--Sylvia Anna (talk) 13:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indecisive Another 3 more days, we will know whether to keep this article or delete/move this article. By the time this deletion wait time of 5 days is over, there would be some concrete evidence which will suggest to either keep or delete the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mugunth Kumar (talk • contribs) 14:55, 24 January 2010
Delete. Speculation/rumour page. When this thing comes out, this entry will need a total rewrite anyhow, and there's no guarantee that "iSlate" is even the correct name. Hairhorn (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nomination. We have the odd situation where there's a lot of 3rd party coverage, but where it's all based on rumour, and so cannot be a Reliable Source. Just because we would normally consider a paper a Reliable Source when they say "This has happened" doesn't mean it's a Reliable Source when all they say is "We think this is rumoured to happen, maybe, this is just speculation". Wikipedia should be responsible and not join in the speculation - we do not want people pointing to the Wikipedia article and saying "Look, it's going to come out" - or worse, the embarrassment if the rumours are not true. Whilst vaporware can be worthy for an article, e.g., Duke Nukem Forever, the point is that there we know there was the actual product being worked on, it just wasn't released. Theoretically, the media coverage phenomenon itself could be considered notable, but (a) the article isn't written from that point of view (instead it's a collection of speculation on what might be released, what some random people think of a hypothetical product, etc), and (b) we'd need 3rd party reliable sources that report on the speculation phenomenon, as opposed to simply joining in the speculation (do any exist?), otherwise we'd be doing Original Research. Mdwh (talk) 16:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Defer AfD - Until the offical Apple press release on the 27nd of January. Deleting this article now would be stupid. Message from XENU^{complaints? leave me a message!} 18:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are no reliable sources that say the event will be about a tablet and you (and others) are simply guessing. Hence the event is irrelevant to this article's future. Andareed (talk)

Delete - The current article is based solely on rumours and speculation. Andareed (talk)
Keep - I read a recent article that predicted there was an approximately 80% chance Apple would debut this so-called iTablet on the 27th. Apple's event is only 3 days away. Deleting the article now would be counterproductive. el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 20:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but what part of the entry is going to be relevant after the 27th? Hairhorn (talk) 21:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which article is this? Wikipedia is not the place on reporting as fact things that one article predicts might have a chance of happening. And this article is ISlate, not ITablet, surely we should delete this, because the real article and product should be ITablet? Mdwh (talk) 22:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Whether the iSlate is going to be released is not a factor. We have dozens of reliable sources that have commented on the imminent iSlate release, and those sources will not be overridden by the opinions of a few Wikipedia editors. White 720 (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are zero reliable sources that say the device exists, so how is your point about WP:V relevant? Andareed (talk)
What on earth is being verified, then? That there are rumours about a device? Hardly notable enough for an entry. Hairhorn (talk) 21:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter whether the iSlate exists. I'll put that in bigger type: it does not matter whether the iSlate exists. Wikipedia is not a catalogue solely of things that exist. We have verifiable information that the iSlate is going to be announced. It is not relevant that the device does not yet exist. What matters is that the device is being commented on by reliable, verifiable sources, and as such it is notable. White 720 (talk) 22:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to the reliable source that the Islate is going to be released? And how do I verify it's existence, today? Yes, the commentary might be notable, but as I say above (a) this article isn't written from that point of view, and (b) we'd still need 3rd party sources that document the commentary and rumour phenomenon, otherwise we're just engaging in original research. Mdwh (talk) 22:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend starting your search for reliable sources at ISlate#References. Regarding "it's [sic] existence, today," I'd like to point out that it does not matter whether the iSlate exists. Wikipedia is not a catalogue solely of things that exist. We have verifiable information that the iSlate is going to be announced. It is not relevant that the device does not yet exist. What matters is that the device is being commented on by reliable, verifiable sources, and as such it is notable. White 720 (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can write this as big as you want. That doesn't make it more plausible. It does matter if it exists or not. All you have by now is verifiable information about a rumour. --Sylvia Anna (talk) 22:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:N and WP:V. They do not mention that existence of an article's subject is required. The very denunciation of this article, despite dozens of articles corroborating its subject is (in a font size you prefer) based on original research and is not acceptable. White 720 (talk) 22:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, you're supposed to do research in an AFD, the ban on OR applies to entries, not to deletion discussions. An AFD with no research on the part of the posters is not much good. Hairhorn (talk) 23:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that what you mean is not "we have verifiable information that the iSlate is going to be announced" but rather that there is verifiable information that Apple will announce something, and that people are assuming at this point that it will be something like the iSlate that people have imagined. I think it's a moot point though - it's clear that if the page were deleted, people would immediately re-create it. Might as well leave it until Wednesday. Random name (talk) 23:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article's very existence posits that Apple will be announcing some kind of tablet at the press conference. Temporary or not, it flouts WP:NPOV and embarrasses us all---and doubtless will embarrass us further come Wednesday! Egnalebd (talk) 09:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"We have verifiable information that the iSlate is going to be announced." No, we don't. There's news that something might be announced, but we have no idea what that is, be it an iSlate (sic), or whatever else. This article goes far beyond that statement, by giving speculation on features and so on. By all means edit the Apple article to say "Apple will announce something" (though I'm not sure that announces for announcements are particularly notable). I've already covered the issue about the notability of the news coverage in the comment you replied to - that's not what this article is about. Mdwh (talk) 00:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per my reason before in the first AfD. —Terrence and Phillip 00:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for the reasons stated above. The coverage and rumors floating around by the future announcement may be notable and verifiable, but there is as of yet no conclusive evidence to show that anything called the "iSlate" will be demonstrated on the 27th. And even if there was, much of what is stated in the article is not even directly related to the apple release (the copyright and trademark info). will381796 (talk) 01:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL. I quote: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." While I do not dispute that if this device is launched, it will become notable, right now, for all intents and purposes, it does not exist. Nothing in the world makes it exist; it's merely speculation, and Wikipedia is not the place for such, even if it's a collection of speculation from outside sources. C628 (talk) 02:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hold and delay AfD by a bit, since Apple's announcement will be soon, either, this article will get renamed, let where it is, or deleted, depending on that imminent announcement by Steve Jobs. 76.66.192.206 (talk) 04:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if the device is announced on Wednesday, how much of the article do you expect to keep? Right now it's essentially just a list of current rumours... Andareed (talk)
Keep - I think its pretty clear from the article that all the points made are not definitely true, but what the article is documenting is the fact that many people and news agencies think the Apple Table will be released soon, which in itself is worthy of an article. It's well referenced - its not as if someone has just written up the results of a chat they had with their friends about what they thought this product would be like - what is said is representative of a genuine widespread speculation that is taking place in society, and that should have an article, even if the content is not necessarily factually correct. What we need to do is ensure that nothing that is speculative is stated as being true - the article must make it clear that any features of the Apple Tablet listed are only widely speculated to exist as opposed to definitely existing. If we do this, the article is perfectly valid. Unnachamois (talk) 12:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of instances of runaway media speculation and innuendo that do not, and will never, deserve an encyclopaedia entry. This is no different. Egnalebd (talk) 13:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hold and delay AfD wait and see on Wednesday at the event. Even if there are major changes to teh articles certain parts will still be kept.KiasuKiasiMan (talk) 14:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep until tomorrow's announcement (yes, it's *that* close now) - show some respect for human time people. The subject (whatever it's called) is verifiably notable and would still be even if it proved to be a hoax. -- samj _in ^out 00:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's worth adding that the first AfD (which had far less supporting evidence) resulted in a keep. -- samj _in ^out 00:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hold Please wait until the event to continue the event. -- iBen^talk/_contribsIf you reply here, please place a talkback notification on my page. 03:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a reliably sourced and encyclopedic report on the wave (avalanche?) of media speculation and innuendo. The speculation and innuendo exists and there is a lot of it so we should report it. After tomorrows announcement it might be appropriate to keep this page and rename it iSlate media speculation just to keep a permanent record of the media hysteria. 85.133.32.70 (talk) 17:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete full of rumors and original research. Python eggs (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep good source of sourced information regarding the product before its release today. After Apple announces the name of the product, we should move this article to that space to preserve the article lineage. Mac Davis (talk) 19:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - Agreed that while the device itself is not anything more than rumour. The pervasiveness of the rumour, the legitimate news coverage of the rumour, and the business effects (Apple's stocks in relationship to said rumours), is as pervasive, tangible, and historically worthy as the chaos caused by the [| non-existant Alien attack on Grover's Mills, NJ.] Lordandrei (talk) 22:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - You are deleting an article about something that is not released yet, give it a chance!--It's my Junior year in High School! (talk) 01:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)Chris[reply]
Neutral / comment - If no such product is officially announced after 27 Jan then the page could be deleted then. Right now, however, I'd say that deleting is a bit too early. --96.21.156.229 (talk) 02:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - While the product is still the rumor and speculation, there is so much news and talk about it in mainstream, reliable sources (for instance, 2672 google news articles on 2009-Jan-27) that makes it worthy of inclusion. Even if the product turned out to not exist, it would still be worth an article purely because of the coverage that it received (i.e., something like "iSlate was a non-existant device that was widely speculated and reported on ..")--S-1-5-7 (talk) 03:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a significant rumoured product with plenty of sources for that speculation. The rumours and speculation does not originate on Wikipedia. With the number of sources, I don't see how it can be not notable? —Pengo 04:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This AFD isn't premature, it's too late. Remember that this can't be deleted until the 29th. By then there will be reliable information one way or the other, since Apple will either announce the product or not tomorrow. Even if it isn't announced, there's sure to be tons of stories on how all the media got it wrong. So this debate is pointless, unless someone wants to do a rogue speedy deletion in the next few hours, while they still have the chance... 140.247.250.34 (talk) 04:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done - And everyone, we may as well hold this speedy until the announcement in just a few hours. Egnalebd (talk) 10:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I might be too late, and you might already actually know this (but the link is nowhere up there), but the BBC published this item on a new product by Apple yesterday, which I think is relevant to this case. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 08:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's really a moot point now - the announcement is in what, eight hours? Still I checked the article, and once again it just says "One thing we do know for sure is we are going to see some sort of new device or category of device." Random name (talk) 09:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May as well keep, as by the time this AFD is due for closure, the announcement will have passed. Stifle (talk) 13:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article should be kept, though rewritten. At the moment it's purely following the speculation of the supposed Apple Tablet. The fact of the matter is that there has been rumors and speculations for years. Pretty much ever since the death of the Newton. I think that rewriting the article in question, adding all the sources from the speculation that provide some evidence to support that Apple's R&D department has actually been working on a product of this type would be a more suitable article on Wikipedia as it would give into the history of the possible device as well as some of the speculation. --Emoryu21 (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not the place to break news or product announcements Wikinews exists for that. The whole article will need to be rewritten after the product launch in a few hours anyway. andyzweb (talk) 17:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to iPad. Newly announced product from a major company, not crystal ballism. --173.13.202.121 (talk) 18:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC) (Sigh. My computer logged me out. Sorry.)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Maillard (actor)[edit]

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

reverted prod on an unsourced BLP. The externs on offer are not reliable sources. Jack Merridew 07:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 07:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:HEY, either source or delete. Hipocrite (talk) 10:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage found from Google, Google News or Google Books. Simply working as an actor isn't enough for notability.--Michig (talk) 13:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this actor. Joe Chill (talk) 21:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom and the above comments. Unit Anode 00:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:BARE; he's had several recurring roles on TV shows, which I think allows him to pass WP:GNG. I removed the ProD to get a broader range of opinions. I'll try to source it, but I can't make much of an effort here, as I'm working on three or four others. Bearian (talk) 00:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - can find no significant coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate that he meets notability guidelines. I'm not sure that he quite meets WP:ENT for "significant roles in multiple notable ... television shows" (30 episodes of Viva Piñata (TV series) - this appears to be a significant role. 10 episodes of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2003 TV series) - not sure this is a significant role since neither he nor the character are mentioned in the article.) Regardless, serious lack of good sources is pointing me to delete.--Beloved Freak 01:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since it is an unreferenced BLP for which we have tried to find reliable sources and failed. Also, I don't think his credits are all that notable. Them From Space 04:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is virtually an unref'd BLP article, and IMDb cannot be used as a reliable biographical source. JBsupreme (talk) 20:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A review in the New York Post mentions him: "The best of the singer-actors is scrawny, dynamic Brian Maillard..." referring to his role in the production of a musical called Summer '69: The Musical Happening. (July 28, 1999; page 76). That on its own is not enough to keep this article. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Here's his Saturday Night Live audition tape on Funny or Die. Only 22% of people say he's funny. I don't know if we delete people for not being funny, but I'm sure WP:FUNNY gives some guidance. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 07:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jujutacular ^T · C 20:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gohar Markosjan-Käsper[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. 2 hits in gnews which includes Estonian newspapers [42]. gbooks is limited. [43]. would reconsider if someone can search this in Russian. LibStar (talk) 14:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the references in the external link section, in particular the high-profile article on Deutschlandfunk are enough to establish notability. Pantherskin (talk) 09:05, 18 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 07:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a translation of the Deutschlandfunk article mentioned by Pantherskin. The fact that references aren't in English is never a reason to delete a article. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The references included in the article confirm notability of the subject. --Vejvančický (talk) 10:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 23:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Justin de Deney[edit]

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

I was not able to confirm that this person meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. The cited sources don't verify notability, and I couldn't find better sources with my own search. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He's running yet another website giving shopping advice with links to a retailer (yawn). He'll photograph your wedding for a reasonable fee; nothing wrong with that. And I do like this series; unfortunately others don't seem to have noticed it. The little article on him is modest and informative; I hope somebody can dig up some sourcery. -- Hoary (talk) 00:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The New Sporting Britain link appears to be yet another of Justin's web pages and not a show. This article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Dethlock99 (talk) 15:25, 18 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 06:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some of the article appears to be original research. The two citations are merely to photographs by Justin de Deney. The external links consist of a photograph by Justin de Deney, a homepage, an office page and an advice "blog". There are no secondary sources. In newspapers and magazines all I found were photographs credited to Justin De Deney, there was no coverage of the person. --Bejnar (talk) 07:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I have looked far and wide for some references for the notability for his photography. He has had one exhibition and shoots for some magazines, but I can find nothing that independently reports on his notability although I feel there might be something out there one day. Jenafalt (talk) 16:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lay Lady Lay (album)[edit]

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

This article is about a single not an album so is inappropriately named. As a cover version it is adequately detailed in the Lay Lady Lay article at Lay Lady Lay#Ministry version. Article previously prodded and restored by request. Tassedethe (talk) 06:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable song, fails WP:NSONG; incorrect (and highly unlikely) dab rules out a redirect. TheJazzDalek (talk) 21:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails [[WP:NSONG] no significant 3rd party coverage. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 21:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The original song has its own article, and a well-sourced description of the Ministry cover version is already provided there. No need for this separate article. Gongshow ^Talk 18:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Abu Talib ibn ‘Abd al-Muttalib. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ammarah ibn Walid[edit]

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

Non-notable person from Islamic history. Only claim to fame from article is that he was offered to Abu Talib ibn ‘Abd al-Muttalib as an adoptive son in exchange for Muhammad to be killed. Well, the offer was not accepted and I do not think this person is notable at all. Cannot find any source that hints at his doing anything else that is notable Raziman T V's Alternate account (Talk - Contribs) 13:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —Raziman T V's Alternate account (Talk - Contribs) 15:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Son of..., brother of..., adoptice son of... but utterly non-notable. Debresser (talk) 18:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if the significance can be developed, otherwise merge with Abu Talib ibn ‘Abd al-Muttalib. --Sainge.spin (talk) 06:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we can't keep an BLP article in the hopes that one day the person will become more significant or notable. As it stands no notability. The article can be re-created at a later date if significance or notability changes. Nefariousski (talk) 22:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is not a BLP (Biography of a Living Person), this article is about a person from Islamic history who lived 1,400 years ago. Wine Guy Talk 00:34, 26 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 06:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. Really this article doesn't say much. It shouldn't be deleted but a merge may make sense. -- Banjeboi 06:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This person is "part of the enduring historical record" (see WP:ANYBIO) of Islam, and has been for more than a millennium. The article needs expansion, that is not a reason to delete. Wine Guy Talk 00:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. In making this decision, I have had to consider the reliability of the sources, if they are not reliable, the verifiability requirements have not been met. The issue over the online reviews makes up most of the discussion. What appears clear to me is that the reviews are written by gamers. While I have every reason to believe that those reviews represent a sincere view of that gamer, it represents only one person's opinion. If the person is a noted expert, this may be forgiven, but in this case we have no information on the reviewer's credentials. I therefore find that the reviews must be considered self-published though hosted on an external website, pretty much along the lines of book reviews on Amazon.com. Such material may usually not source articles, save for a narrow range of exemptions; even then the article cannot rely on such sources exclusively. Concerning the awards, "user voted awards" (that is, awarded by those who choose to participate rather than by professionals) can be a notable achievement (many TV contests are decided in that manner), but when the voting pool is limited to a relatively small group on a website, the award will most likely not qualify. Because all the sources the article relies on fail to meet reliability criteria, I am closing this discussion with a "delete" result. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shaiya[edit]

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

Article deleted numerous times over last few years, always recreated soon afterwards. Just before it was deleted the last time I issued a challenge to the article's editors to find even one reliable source giving the topic significant coverage, a challenge that went unheeded. Needs deleting per WP:N and salting to prevent its recreation again. GDallimore (Talk) 13:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Game has been relaunched as far as I know and is on the rise (user wise). The article needs tidying up for sure, but is of some relevance to Wikipedia. - mtr4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtr4 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per [44], [45] (click on review button), [46], [47] (won multiple awards), [48], and [49]. Joe Chill (talk) 14:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jeez, you would have thought after three years that some editor would have added these into the article. I'm cutting all the crap from the article and will introduce a couple of those links - the ones that aren't just press releases. GDallimore (Talk) 16:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Right. I've done some editing of the article to make it look at least passable. However, I still doubt whether the topic meets the notability guidelines so am not withdrawing my nomination. Basically, I think only one of those links is a reliable source that is independent of the topic and gives significant coverage. The awards the game has won appear incredibly minor: reader's choice award anyone?! I've nothing more to say, but will leave the decision to other editors now. GDallimore (Talk) 16:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Perhaps we can take a moment to vet those links for reliablility:
- xaluan.com - no idea, will come back to this.
- MMOhut - Not currently accepted as an RS at WP:VG/RS (discussion archived somewhere)
- LJM Pacific Epoch - is citing Sina.com; would be useful to trace this back to see if it is a press release or not. As presented, this is not significant coverage.
- Ethiopian Review - A wordpress blog. Not usable. It cites GameBorder "Best MMORPG", here (Reliability is dubious[50]) and mmosite.com ([51] - not sure yet.)
- online-artikel.de - Press release.
- safe.cnews.ru - Press release.

So at the moment, I'd be looking at a redirect to the developer or publisher, per WP:PRODUCT, and writing a little about it there. Marasmusine (talk) 19:56, 17 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 06:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, salt and redirect to the publisher I can find no sign of reliable sources in the above links, in the article or on the web from a search, without which the article cannot be verified and neutral, let alone notable. If constant recreation is a problem then please salt the location. Unless there's a massive upsurge in the quality of MMOG-centred sites, or the more established gaming media put a hell of a lot more effort into looking at MMOGs which aren't World of Warcraft, we're going to be unable to cover more than a fraction of the MMOGs doing the rounds. Someone another 21:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Was published by a notable game publisher and received some positive feedback, which is sourced. Brand[t] 12:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the statement that "the game publisher is notable" is dubious. You'll notice that the sources in that article, as with all but one of the sources found for the article in question, are press releases or non-reliable. Even if the company is notable, it's irrelevant to the fate of this article. GDallimore (Talk) 12:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - As an uniterested user, who don't play video games anymore, I think the article meets basic notability criteria. There's even a Shaiya Wiki and one of the game's characters, Etain, was ranked among 50 hottest video game characters. Brand[t] 15:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Slightly bemused at your reading of the notability criteria. The first link is a fan website, the second is fan art. How are these reliable or providing significant coverage. GDallimore (Talk) 16:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - The fan resources just attest the popularity of a particular video game, plus there are several related YouTube videos. Among independent sources, that I picked, are overviews from GameSpot, Game Daily, GameZone, Metacafe and Game Trailers (that is a sufficient coverage imho). Brand[t] 17:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        The GameSpot review is a player review, so it's not reliable. The GameDaily download is just a download, probably provided to the site by the publisher. The GameZone overview is just an overview, with no coverage. The Metacafe video is from MMOLife/MMOHub, a site that I'm unfamiliar with but has been rejected as a reliable source by WikiProject Video Games. And the GameTrailers videos appear to be from the publisher. So it doesn't look like any of those count for reliable third-party sources. Sorry. Reach Out to the Truth 19:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Pardon the intrusion, but may I ask what would be a 'reliable third-party source'? 130.85.53.211 (talk) 21:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See the reliable sources guideline for exactly what is being asked for - something like this article from Eurogamer, basically. The likes of MMOsite etc. (the ones who consistently have anything on these games at all) are not up to the journalistic standard of the likes of sites which cover PC or console games in general, who in turn do not have the time to review a fraction of the MMOGs available. Massively is another example, as part of the Weblogs, Inc. stable, which is itself part of AOL, it's a lot closer to a 'reliable source' for use on WP than say some random self-published MMOG site. Even then, Massively does a lot of press-release parroting, anything truly useful would come from a piece where the writer actually takes the time to investigate and form an opinion. The whole problem with coverage of MMOs boils down to there not being enough days in the hour for journalists to cover them, once the copy-and-paste MMOG industry really cranked up it became impossible and as a result coverage is totally random. Someone another 22:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why GameSpot, GameDaily and GameZone are unreliable? They are websites, specifically dedicated to video games, just like the mentioned Eurogamer. I can't understand why a player review is unreliable. And the fact that the game was featured on GameTrailers just adds more notability. As long as we don't have criteria for video games, general principles should be applied. WP:RS allows the usage of reliable non-academic sources in such areas. Or we need to dig for non-existing academia? Brand[t] 06:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Player reviews are self-published sources from random gamers, that they're probably passed through a word-filter before being posted on GameSpot etc. doesn't change that, I could go and write one tomorrow after spending a few hours playing Shaiya. It's no different than anyone showing up to a game article, inserting their own opinion and adding a footnote "cos I said so". That falls afoul of verifiability, which is a hell of a lot more serious than the notability guideline. Game Daily, GameSpot and GameZone are reliable sources, certainly, but the pages you've found are not articles, reviews or anything which contains any kind of neutral/analytical info to actually use to build the article. A couple of articles like the Eurogamer one I linked to alone are the basis of a solid article, a hundred like this would not verify anything more than can be found from the game's homepage. These are just copy-pasted or typed up details, stuck on a game listing page to give the illusion that the site's actually actively covering that game. It's a hollow promise. They're not the analysis of gameplay and journalistic opinions needed to actually write a neutral article, have a reception section etc. Someone another 06:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand WP:SELFPUBLISH. Such sources are created by the author him(her)self or paid for the creation. The sources like GameSpot and GameZone are independent, although I withdraw Game Daily reference as extremely short. And who is more qualified to review the video games other than gamers? IT experts, law professors or some other guys? A reviewer of any authoritative game magazine is a gamer, more or less. In this case the independent coverage is not striking, but it exists. Brand[t] 08:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm pointing out that there is no practical difference in terms of WP:RS between someone posting a review on their personal blog, GeoCities etc. page or on YouTube than there is posting a user review on a game site. By definition it remains a user review, not an article by a journalist, they are labelled as user reviews to distance them from pieces written by the site's staff and they are not subject to anything like the same level of editorial control. User reviews such as that are routinely removed during clean-up of video game, film and music articles. As far as who is most qualified, video game journalists, which is what video game articles are built from. The journalists are gamers, but only a handful of gamers are journalists. If you're unconvinced then I'd encourage you to bring this up at the reliable sources noticeboard, where someone more articulate than me can discuss it with you. Someone another 11:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think any detailed review on such sites as GameSpot is useful in establishing a threshold for inclusion. Btw, GameSpot's rating is used in Quake III Arena, Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots and several other games. Some registered long-time users on such sites may actually produce good info. I have also found GameStats and GameFAQs references for Shaiya: [52] and [53]. And the fact that Shaiya is a free-to-play MMORPG boosts its popularity to some extent. Brand[t] 16:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with GameSpot as a source when it comes from GameSpot's staff. Player reviews are just player reviews; using them is no different from just inserting your own opinions into the article. GameStats is incorrect in this case. It's not a review from GameSpot, it's a view from a GameSpot user. It even says as much in the URL. Look to the right of that review at the section that says "GameSpot Score". "N/A". "No Rating". GameSpot did not review the game. You can also confirm that from the GameFAQs link, which always includes a link to the GameSpot review if it exists. It doesn't. And it provides no links to other reviews provided by the GameRankings review aggregator either. Neither GameStats nor GameRankings lists any reviews. I just checked Metacritic and there weren't any listed there either (Metacritic doesn't have a page for the game). There are no reviews correctly listed on the most popular game review aggregation sites, and the other sources you've provided don't appear to meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources. They certainly prove its existence, but that's not the issue here. I know it exists; I've even played it. We're debating whether it's notable, and without any significant coverage by reliable sources it isn't. Reach Out to the Truth 19:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the box to the left on GameStats, Shaiya received a press score of 10 and a gamer score of 8.0 (overall 8.8), while GameFAQ indicates 8.0 (from 20 users). Besides, right now I've spotted a quite detailed reviews at IGN ([54]) and MMORPG Reviews ([55]). A review at Examiner.com could be left aside because the website is blacklisted on Wikipedia, but that would suffice for inclusion, I think. Brand[t] 22:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The press score of 10 comes from the 9.5 GameSpot review. I'm not sure how they got a 10 out of a single 9.5 score, but that's not important since the GameSpot review isn't valid anyway. The IGN reviews are user reviews as well, so they're not acceptable either. I'm not familiar with MMORPG Reviews, but it doesn't look like something we'd accept as a reliable source. Reach Out to the Truth 12:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that the game is ranked at all of those sources (albeit I have learned that GameStats is IGN's subsidiary). I believe the users's score at GameSpot and IGN are important, especially when the staff's score is absent. The advantage of the users' voting is that multiple people express their opinion, whereas the staff's rating may come from one or two persons. Brand[t] 14:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the staff of a site have not posted a review, then no review from that site should be used at all. There is no peer review process, no editorial oversight. Anyone can post a review on those sites, and have them published immediately without anyone so much as looking at them. You may like user reviews — I like to use them too sometimes — but they're not reliable by Wikipedia's standards. Reach Out to the Truth 03:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The staff may not rate the game because of three reasons: it did not notice, it 'forgot' that or it did not find that worthy. In the last case there is no disputing about tastes — one may disregard some game, whereas several others adore it. As long as there is no scientific stuff here, material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications as per WP:SOURCES (in this case GameSpot, GameFAQ, GameZone and IGN, which are not questioned). We have both rankings and reviews, that is a verifiable objective evidence per WP:NRVE, which is better than nothing. Brand[t] 08:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The user-written reviews on GameSpot and IGN are not subject to editorial oversight, and therefore unusable. If there's no stopping me, a visitor to the site, from registering and submitting some convincing comments and a score despite having never played the game (except I have, but you know what I mean), then we're missing the "reputation for accuracy and fact-checking" caveat of the verifiability policy. Marasmusine (talk) 08:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's their policy to allow users to rate and review the games and I don't believe, that the scores and reviews generally come from the persons, who never played the related game. As long as such reliable sources permit that, especially when there's no staff's feedback, the users' reception may constitute a threshold for inclusion and could be mentioned in the article. Such reception comes from a much wider audience, than some particular staff, which consists from a limited number of persons. Brand[t] 13:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're saying we can examine at the overall response of users then we have original synthesis. If you want to just cite the average user score, this is not significant coverage. If you're saying we can cite a specific, unchecked user review, then we have an unreliable source. Marasmusine (talk) 10:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I ignore such assumptions, add the Aeria Games newsletter, which confirms that Shaiya received the title of Best MMORPG of 2007 (which is the first award given to AG) and 2007 Readers Choice Award for Best Graphics by MMOSite: [56]. So I see no formal violation of general notability criteria to justify the deletion. Brand[t] 11:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing that can't be cited at the proposed redirect target (if the awards are indeed notable). There's still not enough coverage to justify a seperate article. Marasmusine (talk) 19:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? Just click 'Shaiya' in the content box there. And how the Best MMORPG of 2007 could be a non-notable distinction? Brand[t] 07:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Depends who awarded it. Having found the award, I see it was user voted and therefore not contributory to notability IMO. I don't know enough about the site to know if any award from GameBorder.com could contribute to notability - that's up to someone from the relevant gaming wikiproject to decide. Also, IAR doesn't apply here in my opinion because I do not see how having an article on a topic that has not had sufficient reliable coverage to write a detailed and balanced article can improve wikipedia. That was my motivation for the nomination in the first place. GDallimore (Talk) 10:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the intrusion again, but what exactly is the definition of 'enough coverage'? Liu Tao (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources must provide "enough coverage" that detailed information about the game can be extracted from the source in order to be able to write an article. Something that merely identifies that the game exists is not significant coverage. Something that essentially copies and pastes the description of the game from the game website or from a press release is not significant (independent) coverage. GDallimore (Talk) 10:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Aggregate of all of sources establish notability.--Pink Bull 20:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry. Please would you explain how even 100 unreliable sources that do not provide significant coverage would establish notability. All I'm getting from the sources and the observations above is that there is a large and devoted fan base. GDallimore (Talk) 07:37, 1 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) 23:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harith ibn Harb[edit]

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

Non-notable person from Islamic history. Did little to be notable, and the fact that he had notable relations doesn't make him notable Raziman T V's Alternate account (Talk - Contribs) 13:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —Raziman T V's Alternate account (Talk - Contribs) 15:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Son of..., brother of..., married to wife of... but utterly non-notable. Debresser (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Genealogy is significant information ~~but a merge is probably more appropriate than keeping an independent article.~~ --Sainge.spin (talk) 06:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is ,more than just genealogy--these articles being nominated are on some of the key figures in the origin of a great religion, & what they need is expansion. The proposals are sort of like keeping the article on Washington but removing the ones of the other generals. DGG ( talk ) 03:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are a few more sources on Google books [57]. I'm not yet convinced Harith ibn Harb merits an independent article in the same way some of the other figures at issue here do, but I am voting a strong keep to allow further work to be done. The readiness to simply delete this set of articles without better research disturbs me. --Sainge.spin (talk) 05:32, 19 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 06:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per DGG, add context so the notability is more evident to all - that is regular editing thus deletion is not needed here. -- Banjeboi 07:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of JoJo's Bizarre Adventure characters. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of JoJo's Bizarre Adventure antagonists[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of JoJo's Bizarre Adventure antagonists

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

Antagonist is subjective, without a source listing each of these as a antagonist CTJF83 chat 06:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of JoJo's Bizarre Adventure characters 76.66.192.206 (talk) 06:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 16:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a pretty obvious merge to List of JoJo's Bizarre Adventure characters. Why was this not suggested before bringing it to AfD? —Quasirandom (talk) 17:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess I didn't do my job of searching for such a page. CTJF83 chat 17:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is in the navbox at the bottom of the page ... —Quasirandom (talk) 19:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now Antagonist is not a subjective term. They are the character, or group of characters, that oppose the main character(s) of a work. Villain, on the other hand is a subjective term as antagonists are not always villains. Now this list contains a lot of characters listed on it. Since I'm not familiar with the series, I can't tell if the characters on the list made any significant contributions to the story or if this is one of these "list every character that makes a single appearance" cases. A quick scheme shows that this may be the later. So I will suggest a cleanup of the list with a possible merge to List of JoJo's Bizarre Adventure characters, which should receive a similar cleanup. —Farix (t | c) 17:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm willing to change to keep and open a merge discussion. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Don't delete, or replace it with a redirect after cutting it down a lot and merging a small amount of information. When a character list is too long, its common place to divide it, with the enemies getting their own article. The two list would be too long together. Dream Focus 21:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge clear merge of the major antagonists from the list to List of JoJo's Bizarre Adventure characters per general handling of such lists. If they are mislabeled, this can be addressed in clean up. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of JoJo's Bizarre Adventure characters. Edward321 (talk) 02:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rogue Planet (novel)[edit]

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

Contested Prod, Fails WP:BK no significant 3rd party coverage found via Google and Google News. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 03:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I could only find one 3rd party review of this book and have added it as a ref to the page. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 03:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Greg Bear is hardly an unknown author, and the Star Wars universe is hardly non-notable. In searching for some sources, I did find [58]. I'd say there's probably more out there, as well. Umbralcorax (talk) 04:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note that notability is not inherited see WP:NOTINHERITED and we are discussing the individual notability of the article in question. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 14:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My point was not that notability was inherited, rather a statement of disbelief that a work by such a notable author, within such a notable universe, could possibly have so little information available to render it non-notable. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. RP was on multiple bestseller lists, for months

And sold over 200,000 copies[59] in multiple editions[60].

Its coverage was relatively light but with the sales, I think notability is assured even if specific sales and best-seller longevities proved too controversial to gain consensus. People wishing to search for further sources may find my search engine helpful. --Gwern (contribs) 17:27 25 January 2010 (GMT)

Keep - based on what Gwern found. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 14:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Large number of reliable sources showing notability. Edward321 (talk) 02:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 19:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"norwegian association for legal philosophy"[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/"norwegian association for legal philosophy"

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

Contested prod. No evidence of notability, and Google provides nothing. Not worth the trouble of moving to a title without the quotation marks. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability provided and Google suggests that little would be found. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 03:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is a learned society operating on a national scale. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ...and you can prove this exactly how? Please provide references, substantiation, or additional information. --Ouro (blah blah) 10:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am the guilty person, it seems. I am sorry of that - the reason is that I am new to the Wiki. Please see my comments about that on RHaworth's page. Additional comments: (a) The quotation marks should be removed and the title capitalized into Norwegian Association for Legal Philosophy. (b) What is stated above about notability is wrong. If you google "Norwegian Association for Legal Philosophy", you DO get several hits, though their web page is new, not yet fully indexed by googlebot. The information about the Association at www.ivr.no is provided by scholars at the University of Norway. The Association has existed since the 1980s, but they got an operating web page only recently. (c) Eastmain's comment that the Norwegian Association for Legal Philosophy is a learned society on a national scale, is correct. It is the Norwegian department of the IVR, please see the tab "Norway" at http://ivr2003.net/bologna/sections.htm, which also contains a link to their web page www.ivr.no. (d) I personally think the links to Jørgen A. Stubberud and Alf Petter Høgberg in the article are not worthwhile, they are not that important persons to legal philosophy (which I can tell since I am Jørgen A. Stubberud). But if you choose to keep them, this is the home page of professor Høgberg: http://www.jus.uio.no/ior/english/people/aca/alfph/index.html and this is an internal link to the Norwegian Wikipedia entry about professor Høgberg: http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alf_Petter_H%C3%B8gberg 3) (e) At the article "International Association for Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy" I think the external reference to the Norwegian Association for Legal Philosophy (www.ivr.no) whould be re-inserted, since that page contains a unique collection of very useful links to free, online, browsable journals, philosophy dictionaries and encyclopedias. Best regards, KelsenRoss —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelsen Ross (talk • contribs) 14:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC) Kelsen Ross (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent coverage to suggest that this national chapter of an international scholarly organization is notable. Indeed, the article doesn't even assert notability. __meco (talk) 20:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are many references to it in Norwegian, see http://www.google.no/search?hl=no&source=hp&q=%22norsk+forening+for+rettsfilosofi%22&meta=&aq=f&oq= and http://www.google.no/search?hl=no&q=%22norwegian+association+for+legal+philosophy%22&meta=&aq=f&oq=.Kelsen Ross (talk) 00:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC) and I found a reference here: http://www.materstvedt.net/page9/page9.html Kelsen Ross (talk) 00:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There aren't even any references on http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norsk_forening_for_rettsfilosofi - I hoped I could copy some over. I can't really see this organisation being of any great note outside Norway. I'm not even sure about it being particularly notable IN Norway.... You are welcome to prove me wrong. Peridon (talk) 00:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Comparing to similar organizations found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Norwegian_organisation_stubs one cannot say what notability or references these organizations have that the Norwegian Association for Legal Philosophy is lacking. I have problems understanding by what criteria a non-professional like Peridon would judge what "note" this Association has in the academic community. That kind of information is not browsable. I rest my case.Kelsen Ross (talk) 02:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as argued above, knowing about this activity is useful information.Kelsen Ross (talk) 02:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should have been posted earlier, but for those unfamiliar with Wikipedia's notability requirements for organizations, they are outlined at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). The main gist of that page is that "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." Such coverage should include a narrative description of its activities and significance. I don't believe we have any such sources. __meco (talk) 09:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I conducted a search with Atekst, a closed search engine for online and offline newspapers in Norway since 1946, and the only hit to "Norsk Forening for Rettsfilosofi" was a single article where the leader (Høgberg) was commenting on the involvement of Freemasons in the Finance Credit law suit. The mention of the organization was a single sentence, simply stating that Høgberg was a PhD-student and leader of the organization. This is way short of the criteria in WP:N and WP:ORG. A regular web search finds nothing else to reliable, independent secondary sources either. Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Thanks you, Meco. After Meco's comment I now agree that the Norwegian Association for Legal Philosophy is not as per today sufficiently "notable" (as that term is defined in the Wiki regulations). I propose that some one deletes it. But I will re-insert the link to the Associations unique collection of browsable legal theory material into the page "philosophy of law" (="juristprudence"), which was deleted by RHaworth, based on the Wiki rule which says that "non-notable organizations do not receive separate articles in Wikipedia about themselves. They may, however, be included in Wikipedia in other articles whenever information about the non-notable organization is appropriate" I hope and believe that the rest of you will agree to this.Kelsen Ross (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 23:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shimon Green[edit]

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

This article was written in 2007 and has had edits over the months but still look non-notable. Just another rabbi. If the same non-notable standards apply, tens of thousands of pastors and rabbi and imans would qualify and Wikipedia is not a directory. JB50000 (talk) 07:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure, but he is a founder of a notable organization - Bircas HaTorah. Google News Archives offer several articles in English, and the search in Hebrew could give us better information about him. --Vejvančický (talk) 11:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk) 11:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk) 11:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added a reference from the Jerusalem Post. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep only if severely trimmed to eliminate all unsourced opinion. I am prepared to accept that a Rosh Yeshiva is likely to be notable, but there needs to be some way of writing sourced articles. This is a good counter example to those who think adding a source to an article solves all of its problems. DGG ( talk ) 03:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG, and with trimming. From practice, if not written policy, I have seen articles on Roshei Yeshiva, and I believe that anyone who holds that title in a medium or large Yeshiva is notable, and I believe Yeshivas Bircas Hatorah is such. This is a subjective opinion, but I know something about this world and an opinion is better than not having one. I did a Hebrew search and saw Rabbi Green's name on lists but no full-length articles about him or authored by him. Still, I disagree with nominator's concern that keeping this article would rationalize thousands more because there are not thousands of people who hold his rank of leadership. Chutznik (talk) 06:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Much of the article was copied, almost word-for-word but not as a copyvio, from this biography page. It's not a neutral source, but I have no reason to doubt the facts stated there, and with the fluff removed, the "what he did when" type content can stay in an encyclopedia. Chutznik (talk) 06:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 23:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

World Organization for Islamic Services[edit]

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

I removed the {{db-corp}} tag because notability is asserted by the external links. Furthermore, because this is an Iranian publishing company, there may be sources in Iranian. An AfD will allow editors who know Iranian to search for sources.

A Google News Arhive search returns no sources to establish notability, while a Google Books search returns mainly books that are published by the company or passing mentions in other books that cite books published by it. This company appears to fail Wikipedia:Notability (companies) and Wikipedia:Verifiability. I will withdraw this deletion nomination if reliable sources are found to establish notability. Cunard (talk) 09:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a fairly important publisher . About 250 of their publications are in WorldCat, which is a pretty good showing as almost no WorldCat library collects in this area. the lack of references is another example of cultural bias. DGG ( talk ) 03:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Fall[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSIC; no significant coverage in independent, third-party sources; no releases at all on notable labels. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find in-depth coverage for this band in reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 19:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 03:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; only given links are myspace and the band's own webpage. Chutznik (talk) 06:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Service request management[edit]

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

Non-notable term and an unnecessary content fork of ITIL. Could redirect to Service Desk (ITSM). —Ash (talk) 14:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable concept covered by many books. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Weak Keep. Article needs expansion & sources but is a valid fork. Eddie.willers (talk) 00:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dorothy Malone (writer)[edit]

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

Cookbook writer with no independent reliable sources about her. I created this article almost four years ago when I was less familiar with the notability criteria; no significant expansion has happened and no sources have been found. There is a blog post (not reliable, of course) that mentions that Malone was one of William Randolph Hearst's "Prudence Penny" writers, but as that post points out, a recent article in the LA Times on Prudence Penny does not mention Malone. Mike Christie (talk) 14:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent, third-party, reliable sources to help establish notability under WP:N. Cheers, CP 18:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Her most important book "How Mama could cook!" is in about 50 WorldCat libraries, which is pretty good for one published 60 years ago. It was reviewed in the NYTimes, [61] and other papers. Her Cookbook for Brides, was similarly reviewed. The prebuilt G news search above is a fine example of how not to search. DGG ( talk ) 03:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That review only contains four sentences about the book, and nothing usable about Malone herself. If the book is notable, then an article about it could give what information is known about the author without requiring a separate article for her. If the book isn't notable, then Malone probably isn't either. Mike Christie (talk) 13:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It appears that the book mentioned by DGG above may meet WP:BK and could be a suitable article subject. WP:CREATIVE criterion #3 is probably not met, as that would require the subject to have "created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." In the absence of evidence in reliable sources that Malone's book is considered significant and well-known and has been subject to such articles or reviews, deletion is proper. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 17:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

she did create a whole body of work; I mentioned only a representative one: there are also Cookbook for Beginners. , N.Y.: Ace, 1947 and Cookbook for brides. New York, A.A. Wyn [1947], The NYT times review makes a book notable, and an author who writes several important books is notable . As a general strategy, we'd do netter to have the article about the author, rather than the individual books, which are best mentioned in the article on the person. (One of the usual reasons for that does not apply here, that the author of one successful book will generally write more--she's no longer alive). ` DGG ( talk ) 16:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Dedrie[edit]

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

Delete unnotable person. Maashatra (talk) 17:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've checked him on google and he appears to be notable enough as an sculptor to keep the article, although it has to be enlarged. --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly did you find that is notable about this person? Being merely a sculptor isn't a reason to have an article. Either way the article isn't saying much more than that about him.--Maashatra (talk) 23:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NOTABILITY no assertion in the article that he could pass. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 00:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. I love when you all nominate for deletion such interesting people. In this case I added a ref (in a language I don't read) that refers to "Cultuurprijs Raymond Majean" which he won; I can't quite parse it but it sounds notable, at least within Belgian regions, and I'd follow the notability to .be sites. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 02:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good find. Since the webpage you found seemed to be on a company which employs him I looked and managed to find some newspaper articles, also in Flemish, about the prize - I've added them. Two comments: first, the sources say that the prize is biannual and that, in 2008, Dedrie was the last winner; I've therefore said in the article that he won it in 2006, but if you view that as synthesis feel free to revert. Second, and more relevant here, I have no real idea how significant this prize is - if it's a major one he'll meet WP:CREATIVE but my Flemish isn't good enough to go searching in depth. I'll drop a note at WikiProject Belgium asking if anyone knows about it. It would be nice if this AfD could stay open long enough to get some reply. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I suppose it's WP:ANYBIO rather than WP:CREATIVE, but you know what I mean. Also, my impression is that the award is significant so I'll go with weak keep unless/until someone with knowledge about it comes along. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. It seems on further reflection that this is a local prize given out by the government of Schoten, a municipality with some 33,000 residents. That seems distinctly non-major, so I'll change my !vote to delete as he doesn't seem to meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Olaf Davis (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable. Per DasallmächtigeJ (talk · contribs) smithers - talk 17:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 23:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Archaeological Recording Kit[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 17:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 17:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, weakly. Interesting and useful software, to be sure --- apparently a database tailored to cataloguing archaeological sites. But if it rated an article, for a project of this nature, I'd expect Google Scholar not to draw a blank on it. (Spelling "Archeological" also fails; I tried.) - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not hard to find 3rd party sources, e.g. [62], [63], [64], [65], [66]. These mentions indeed tend to be more "notices" than "in-depth reviews", but it still seems like plenty for well-used software. LotLE×talk 19:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per LotLE’s refs. Samboy (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Those sources all show that the software is used by various firms, but they are trivial mentions that do not constitute significant coverage in reliable sources. And one of those sources is a page at The Free Dictionary, which I do not believe constitutes a reliable source. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 17:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 23:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Die[edit]

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

Does not appear to satisfy notability. Also this entire page is a copy and paste of his profile on freebase.com Freikorp (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 20:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All that I can find for significant is [67] and [68]. Fails WP:MUSIC. Joe Chill (talk) 20:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a copy-paste; freebase.com copies its content from Wikipedia. Holly25 (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected, the freebase article was one of the few articles I could find on him. Freikorp (talk) 22:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He was co-founder of one of the first notable drum and bass record labels, Full Cycle Recordings (from his Allmusic profile [69]: "The founder of one of drum'n'bass' leading promoters, that of Full Cycle Records, is dance guru DJ Die"); as part of Reprazent he won a Mercury Music Prize in 1997; as part of Breakbeat Era there's plenty of coverage in newspapers (archive search; examples: [70] [71] [72] (NY Times: "two master drum-and-bass producers, Roni Size and DJ Die", the Albequerque Journal: "British DJs Roni Size and DJ Die have made plenty of waves on their own", Toronto Star: "Notwithstanding the higher profiles of her Breakbeat Era collaborators Roni Size and DJ Die..."). Meets WP:MUSICBIO as a musician part of two independently notable ensembles, one of which as mentioned also won a major award and had the album hit #8 in the UK charts [73]. Holly25 (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources found are sufficient demonstration of notability.--Michig (talk) 13:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Latin Americans in the United Kingdom. JForget 00:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mexicans in the United Kingdom[edit]

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

Subject hasn't received significant coverage in reliable sources, other than population figures from the census. Adequately covered by Foreign-born population of the United Kingdom and Latin Americans in the United Kingdom. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. —Cordless Larry (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Cordless Larry (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Latin Americans in the United Kingdom Polarpanda (talk) 22:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above unless article expanded with more encyclopaedic information. There may well be notable information about this topic, but there's little point in an article whose sole function is to duplicate a paragraph in another article. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and that applies to the Mexico-UK article. I'm going for Neutral on the Cuba-UK article because that one does at least have some stuff that makes sense in a stand-alone article. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The first sentence reads Mexicans in the United Kingdom are people of Mexican ancestry living in the United Kingdom [...]. But then it switches suddenly and with no explanation to The Mexican British community is fairly small compared to other British ethnic groups (my emphasis). What's the relationship between individuals and community? I fear that the authors simply assume that if you are of ancestry X in nation Y, you thereby automatically belong to a "community" of such people. I suggest either that (a) the automaticity is a delusion, or that (b) the concept of "community" has been drained of virtually all meaning. -- Hoary (talk) 16:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's also a stretch to define Mexicans as an ethnic group, given the ethnic diversity of Mexico. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to whichever happens to be blue among Latin Americans in the United Kingdom, North Americans in the United Kingdom, Native speakers of Spanish in the United Kingdom, Mexicans in the European Union, and Mexicans in Europe. Nothing substantive is asserted in this little article aside from a single statistic, while it does manage to insinuate that Mexicans in the UK constitute a "community" (on which weasel word please see Unspeak) and (as cordless Larry points out above) that Mexicans in the UK or Mexicans in general constitute an "ethnic group". -- Hoary (talk) 02:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. The information is already in the Latin Americans in the U.K. article. Mandsford (talk) 16:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David J. Young[edit]

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

Delete no clear evidence of notability. Prod removed by creator, 'Daveyoung12' no reason given. Boleyn2 (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep work with Sega, Keith Emmerson, and in advertising is obscure, but not non notable. RadManCF (talk) 21:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page has been reviewed and edited in accordance with suggestions. Emphasis in editing was creating as neutral a presentation as possible. Biographical sections that were not as notable have been removed. Anything that could be taken as promotional has been removed. External links have been reduced. More references and citations have been added. Overall length has been reduced. Sega elements were focused on as they are the most notable. Keith Emerson and advertising sections may be added in a future edit, once proper wording and citations can be found. Daveyoung12 (talk) 02:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Daveyoung12, what is your connection to David J. Young? Boleyn2 (talk) 06:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We keep articles about seiyu with the same kind of notable credits. JBsupreme (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry for the delayed response, I got swamped with work and forgot about this discussion. David J. Young is my father, so yes there is a direct relationship to the article I created. I realize that this may be seen as an issue, but I attempted to be as neutral as possible in the article and backed it up with reliable sources. Thank you for your time and comments on this entry, it is great to have all this input. Daveyoung12 —Preceding undated comment added 22:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 23:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Area Roadskaters[edit]

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

Not notable. Niegrzeczny (talk) 01:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There is enough information on a cursory Google search to indicate this article could be expanded, that the organisation existed as early as 1987 and that further searches may produce reputable media sources. Article should be marked for clean-up and removed if standards do not improve. Rotovia (talk) 02:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk) · @146 · 02:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk) · @147 · 02:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No doubt a worthy and fun organization, but no secondary source coverage to establish notability. All I could find in a Google search was their own publicity; the only media reference I could find was in the "coming events" section of the Washington Examiner. --MelanieN (talk) 05:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The gnews and gbook hits appear to be a mix of self-promotion and incidental coverage. Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and salt. Overwhelming, stable consensus among established Wikipedia editors. People who want to continue campaigning for this article are warned to knock it off. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Church of Reality[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is actually the 3rd AFD nomination for an article on this subject; it was previously discussed twice in 2005, and deleted both times (first AFD, second AFD. It was also discussed at Deletion Review in 2006, where it was decided to keep it deleted [74]. This version of the article was created in 2008, and is sufficiently different to the previous versions that it's not eligible for speedy deletion, but I believe the notability issues still have not been resolved.

There is virtually no mention of this organisation in reliable sources; the only one I can find is the Oakland Tribune article here [75]. All other mentions appear to be in blogs and other non-reliable sources. If further references in reliable sources cannot be found, this organisation should be considered non-notable and the article (once again) deleted. Robofish (talk) 01:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note. It's not entirely fair to say this was discussed twice in 2005. It was brought to AfD twice, and the second time it was speedy closed (by me) as CSD A4. I think I made the right call there, but it's not quite cricket to hold that up as a second example of consensus being reached. Also, for those of you who want to go dig through the history, note that this article has appeared under two different spellings (with the "r" in "reality" either upper or lower case). It's pretty confusing until you discover that. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Longer, but no better. No evidence of notability. This time, salt. DGG ( talk ) 03:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't see how they are notable. Just because the IRS allow them to be a non-profit doesn't make them notable enough for Wikipedia, in my view. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 06:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Real but little evidence that it is notable. Capitalistroadster (talk) 07:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt; I noted at the Drv that this has wasted enough time; now even more so. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then salt. Not covered by reliable independent sources in the depth required.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to keep up with the socks/spas but just gave up (probably stupid to try). It's a pretty impressive display of that sort of game.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the website in questions splash page [76]. "The online encyclopedia Wikipedia is deciding to delete articles about the Church of Reality from it's database. you can participate by voting to keep it here. We would appreciate it if you would contact Wikipedia and let them know you don't like censorship. Jimmy Wales email address is (redacted -- not that it's really a problem, but...)."Bali ultimate (talk) 19:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt: Fails WP:CORP. Joe Chill (talk) 16:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and at the next sign of appearance of this article re-delete promptly and id the ip number.This article is obviously not notable, its backed up by some website. Thanks--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 18:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mass "keep" !votes from new editors, obvious external campaign

Keep Delete this, delete all other fairy tales sites too, christian junk, muslim junk, hindu, wicca, anything dealing with religion of anysort cannot be allowed. Selective censorship is wrong, all or none.

Keep I can't believe there is so much hate in the world that I can't even believe in my own religion freely because it is not famous enough or more likely...does not have enough monetary value. You people make me sick. If one LEGITIMATE religion is deleted then out of fairness should we not delete them all? May I suggest after deleting this we delete Judaism, Christianity, and Islam from Wikipedia and see if there is a problem then? I think all religions should be mentioned. If that's not how it works when are we going to be allowed to vote the Jews off Wikipedia? I didn't think so. Removing any religion should be a hate crime. --Darkrom (talk) 14:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)— Darkrom (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Remove because it is not popular? What a ridiculous reason. Cosmic Ray76 (talk) 16:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)— Cosmic Ray76 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep All these "men" came before Jesus and have similar stories as Jesus: Buddha, Krishna, Odysseus, Romulus, Zoroaster, Attis of Phrygia and Horus. So every reference to them must be deleted along with any reference to Jesus if article from the Church of Reality are taken out because of religious bigots. Why should Christians be able to keep their myths on Wikipdedia and not the others? They have no more proof of their "gods" than Muslim, Jews or any of the war-inducing religions we have now.Digitalpug (talk) 16:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitalpug (talk • contribs) 15:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC) — Digitalpug (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

"Keep" so, in a few months when it is proven beyond doubt that jesus is a composite character created in the fourth century by Eusebius and Constantine in order to keep the population stupid, in fear, and docile (until they're needed to kill non-believers)--you're going to delete Christiatnity too??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsect (talk • contribs) 15:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC) — Dsect (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

comment Wikipedia is about knowledge - not 'worthy' knowledge. So if no one likes Hitler, delete him? If it is not like or dislike, is it important? Cabbage page kids seem pretty unimportant... It is clearly about offensiveness - Faith is belief in something DESPITE the evidence against it, and seeing something that brings even the slightest possibility of someone perhaps possibly realizing that the world might not be flat after all... Now that must be removed quick fast and in a hurry. What, running out of hard drive space? Gotta clean up the database? Grow up and except that not every one believes in the tooth fairy!! If you leave it no one will care except some religious fanatics who can never be pleased anyway. What is next? Document the possibility that evolution might not be true even though the entire scientific community accepts it, And there is so much evidence for it it is ridiculous to challenge it with stories of magical spontaneous life? How about that grand canyon crap and how bush removed any mention of how long it took to form because the freaks who think the world is only 6k years old might get offended? The dark ages call you, but do not take us there with you.

Comment No-one is saying you can't or shouldn't believe in it. What is being said is that it may well not be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. You will not win your case here by ranting, by claiming other articles should not exist because yours is threatened, or by otherwise ignoring the rules and guidelines here. Just because Wikipedia is open to editing doesn't mean that ANY edit is acceptable. It's our ball, it's our field - it's also our rules. Read the notability guides. You need reliable independent outside sources to establish this notability. Not self-published, not blogs, not forums, not press statements, not your own site. The Oakland Tribune ref looks the sort of thing - but more is needed. Reliable sourcing for the IRS decision might help - as I'm in the UK I don't know how widely they give this recognition to 'religions'. Please note: I'm not attacking you - I'm trying to help you. It's up to YOU to show notability by OUR standards. We don't have to do it for you, and if you don't or can't, well, tough. Peridon (talk) 15:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response to comment - People can vote how they choose. It seems that some people here define "reliable sources" as being in print media like the Oakland Tribune. I would remind people that this is the 21st century and that Wikipedia itself is a web based medium. Deletionists have their set of standards as to what should be deleted and we have ours. People should not be discouraged from voting to keep just because a deletionist tells them how to vote. The Church of Reality invented the term Reality-based community and we own the trademark on the word Reality.--Marcperkel (talk) 15:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have a trademark in the USA for the word in connection with religious and counselling matters. (I'm in the UK and we already have a Reality Group Ltd who deliver things.) I say again, it's our ball. Read the guidelines and come up with the goods. Or, start your own encyclopaedia. Don't class me with deletionists or inclusionists. I'm trying to get the true picture - and to help you to keep your article. If you don't like being offered help, that's up to you. Peridon (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to new visitors Please sign your posts with four ~ s. This is not a vote based on numbers. It is a discussion based on reasoned argument, and in particular on references - or the lack of them. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a directory or free web space. Also, if Christianity is shown to be a hoax the article will stay with the new information added. It has plenty of notability whether a hoax or not. Notable hoaxes do have articles. Peridon (talk) 15:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- True - the decision to delete the article has already been made like it was the last time. This is just a way to create the illusion that there's some kind of due process so as to justify a decision that has already been made. Your input doesn't really count.--Marcperkel (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My input has counted on more than one occasion where an article has survived against the initial odds. If you think we are a cabal of robed and hooded assassins who secretly discuss and decide these matters, then I'm afraid we're entering the realms of conspiracy theory. I for one am part of no group of conspirators, and on more than one occasion have changed my initial !vote. I haven't !voted here yet. Peridon (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a growing religion and in ten years you guys will have missed the boat on a growing movement to look at reality, not 2000 year old writings. 98.222.51.81 (talk) 15:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)— 98.222.51.81 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. JTHartke[reply]
KEEP the Church of reality! It is a viable alternative to the spoon fed dogma that is pervasive in many religions! Frederickus (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)F.Kann— Frederickus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
References, references, references! Sorry, folks, but your personal opinions may be sincerely held (and may even be correct), but they are not encyclopaedic evidence. Peridon (talk) 16:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. I appreciate the thoroughness of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.103.40.196 (talk) 16:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI am unclear on what encyclopaedic evidence entails. Does that mean empirical scientific evidence? If so, how can a talking snake religion be encyclopaedic evidence more than Reality. Keep this religion on Wiki so that others may know the power of Reality. http://www.churchofreality.org/wisdom/content/blogsection/72/101/ Cbgb2112 (talk) 16:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)— Cbgb2112 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
"Read the notability guides. You need reliable independent outside sources to establish this notability. Not self-published, not blogs, not forums, not press statements, not your own site." Quoted from me above. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability Peridon (talk) 16:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Google Hits on Church of Reality in general are about 13,000. Does 13k Google hits make you notable? Google hits on "Church of Reality" and Wikipedia together are 1330. These about past conflicts between Wikipedia and the Church of Reality. --Marcperkel (talk) 16:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is in the best interest of Wikipedia to have a broad and thorough reference site. Otherwise, the website that Wikipedia recommends we start could overshadow them.
Here is an article Wikipedia might be interested in. Is reality real? Does reality have merit? Should we believe in reality? Wiki thinks so... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosmic Ray76 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC) — Cosmic Ray76 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

KeepThis is a perfectly valid organization which has the potential to improve the appearance of humanity. Why delete it? Afraid of running out of space? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flatshare (talk • contribs) 16:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC) — Flatshare (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Unless Wikipedia proposes to begin sorting religious sects into "real" and "unreal" or "acceptable" and "unacceptable" [a highly ironic undertaking under the circumstances] to promote or not promote, then we need to keep this page active. To remove this page would be narrow minded at least, and not in the interest of those seeking information on this topic. I don't think we really want to get into the business of passing judgment on other people's religious beliefs here, do we? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerberus1949 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can we get published, encyclopaedia on the existence of Wikipedia? You know, outside sources from outside your own site? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JTHartke (talk— JTHartke (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. contribs) 17:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. See Wikipedia. Peridon (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is much that goes on and the Church of Reality is part of it. There is no good reason to remove this. Why would corporate media (what the removers call "legitimate media") report on another challenge to their corporate "God"? But plenty of people have talked, a fact that can be confirmed by googling "Church of Reality" (with the quotes) and that fact alone has conferred legitimacy. Owlswan (talk) 18:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)— Owlswan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep The reason for deleting it is that information comes only from "unreliable sources," such as the Internet? What about Wikipedia itself--is it such an unreliable source? I personally know a number of members of the Church of Reality, and it has been recognized as a church by the U.S. Government; what more is necessary to show that it is real? I visited the Apostolic Temple Church in South Bend, Indiana, yet the only newspaper mentions of this church are in the South Bend Tribune. Does that mean it doesn't exist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Russtms1 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC) — Russtms1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep It is a tough topic from the point of wikipedia. Church of Reality is a relatively unknown and new religion. This religion could not have been established a 100 years ago, it requires 'modern' thinking. Wikipedia could argue that it is not notable enough en thus using wikipedia to get more attention. On the other side, this is a religion that fills an empty spot in 'religion space'. In order to have full coverage of the different types of religions available, this religion should be mentioned. It has encyclopedic value in my opinion. Eecolor (talk) 19:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)— Eecolor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep* That the Church of Reality exists is reason enough to keep it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.151.225 (talk) 20:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC) — 98.71.151.225 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Are you serious? (*cough*) - Wikipedia can have a "legitimate" page on Flying Spaghetti Monsterism [77], but not the equally well-fleshed-out and comparatively serious Church Of Reality? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.93.105 (talk) 20:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC) — 75.83.93.105 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
"Keep" Why would Wikipedia not give the Church of Reality the same consideration it gives other churches? We need more not less rational thought in this country! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srauer08 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC) — Srauer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Wikipedia denies REALITY? --Noahveil (talk) 20:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC — Noahveil (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep I have an Encyclopedia Britannica from 1965. There is no mention of Wikipedia. Perhaps it should also be deleted? Why is this even an issue?72.226.60.238 (talk) 20:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)— 72.226.60.238 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep It is recognized as a religion by the US Government. It is my opinion that any legitimate religion is "notable" or "important" enough to be included in wikipedia. Besides, there are numerous articles about topics less important or notable (ie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goatse.cx) ELITE B MAN (talk) 21:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)— ELITE B MAN (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep I am a member of the Church of Reality. The CoR deserves all the considerations given to other churches. Much of my world view comes from my adherence to the principles taught by the church, such as those found at http://www.churchofreality.org/wisdom/the_sacred_principles/ 70.90.129.9 (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)— 70.90.129.9 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep I vote keep. The web site/ forum exists and has active members. They espouse a growing concept. Is there some bias going on here that only wants to back established large scale religions?? Just a thought. en Eldernorm (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)— Eldernorm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep The Church of Reality is a real organization and deserves a mention in this rag of a pseudo-encyclopedia... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.124.22.60 (talk) 21:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC) — 68.124.22.60 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep""" As with any other valid, accurate information, the information regarding the Church of Reality should be kept on Wikipedia. 2010.01.25 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.165.141.254 (talk) 21:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]
I vote to keep the Church and quit the cencorship attempt by Wiki.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Renodave (talk • contribs) 21:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC) — Renodave (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Inbound Links Go to GOOGLE and search "Link: churchofreality.org" and you will see that the Church of Reality is linked to from 34,300 web pages. If that isn't notable then Wikipedia is dishonest. --Marcperkel (talk) 22:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The arguments to delete fall into to reasons. One the lack of "notability" and two the supposed lack of lack of reliability attributed to Marc Perkel. If notability means the willingness of people to support the Church of Reality then one need look no further than the number of responses to this attempt to kill the article. There are more Keep post and those posts are more lengthy and varied than the single lines given by those who want the article. As far as Mr. Perkel's reliability, the man has had a web presence for at least 15 years; as far the WWW is concerned his behavior is an open book. If the poster who alleges that Perkel is unreliable was able to provide proof of that he certainly could have provided specific citations.
The Church of Reality deserves the same respect that other minor religions deserve.
I am not a member of the Church nor do I plan to join. I am a frequent user of Wikipedia and one of the reasons is because of the breadth of articles. Deleting an article needs a higher burden than those who wish to delete have shown.Buzzcook (talk) 00:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)— Buzzcook (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep: I am new to this however I felt a need to speak. I currently "work" (unpaid) as a Rev for the Church of Reality here in south west Mo. I see no valid reason to delete this entry. However I do understand that this is not a vote to keep or delete the article, I just wanted to add a short note. And I hope I have done it right... Rev Dr Alan (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)Rev Dr Alan FCD Prime— Rev Dr Alan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

KEEP: Prove to me that any other religion is factual, or just delete them all. Is Wikipedia now in the business of only publishing accurate facts? (I applaud monitoring posts that pertain to real subjects and tangible facts, but all religions are simply "belief"-based, and therefore all should be allowed. Then you can censure for historical facts, influence, etc., but to not allow one? That's absurd.)

KEEP: If we need to publish more material, I for one am willing to publish... but just how much material is needed?

KEEP: The Church is informative, and entertaining. It would be a shame to have it go away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.212.40.5 (talk) 22:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Wikipedia is supposed to be a collection of facts. The church is a fact worthy of noting, it is not listed as a popularity contest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.47.19.161 (talk) 23:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Church of Reality is a real church. Are the moderators at wikipedia so threatened by a new religion they have to ban it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.100.192.247 (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're still not getting it YOU don't need to publish anything. Anything published by you is not independent. It's stuff like articles ABOUT (not just mentioning) the Church in reliable sources that are not editable by you (or me, unless I happened to be a staff writer there). "Is Wikipedia now in the business of only publishing accurate facts?" Weren't we from the start? That's what encyclopaedias are for. "all religions are simply "belief"-based" - yes, but if there is little or no independent factual coverage of them, how do we know they're not something made up one day? Some Scouts I knew created a religion (Nevillism) to use for a My Faith Badge. Does Nevillism deserve an article? It's got a belief system and a theology, and the Scouts claimed to be believers - quite convincingly (they got their badges...). I'm not saying that's what the Church of Reality is - but it is up to YOU to PROVE it isn't. At the moment, all we're getting is personal opinions from people we don't know - who might be different people or just one with a bike. I've looked for references. So far I've found self-published or bloggy things. And I've also found The Christian Church of Reality - which doesn't have an article here. Not all religions do. Please do realise that this is not a head count. It's a discussion based on facts or lack of facts. Produce the facts about your beliefs. Independently sourced. Not forum or blog, or self-published. By the way - we're not trying to ban any religion. Just make sure that all articles are properly verifiable. You are quite free to have your religion. Having an article is another matter. Peridon (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it is you who aren't getting it. If you Google "link: churchofreality.org" you'll see 34,400 sites linking to us. Surely out of 34k web sites there is SOMETHING that you consider to be a "reliable source". Maybe you should define what YOU mean by reliable sources? --Marcperkel (talk) 22:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N, WP:BURDEN as a part of WP:V. For those who don't like alphabet soup, N is the notability policy, and V is for verifiability. BURDEN is where it says "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." This means the creator of the article in this sort of case, but friends and colleagues are also welcome to assist. Believe me, if I found a suitable reference I'd put it on the table here. I just thought I'd found one but it just contained a comment by mperkel. That was the only one in the first 100 ghits. Peridon (talk) 23:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that anything touched by mperkel makes it not reliable? --Marcperkel (talk) 23:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two classes of people It seems that there are two classes of people here. I don't understand who it is that finally decides this. Are any of you in this discussion some sort of Wikipedia editors? I'd like those with more than normal priveledges to identify themselves so that we know who it is that gets to make the call. Or is the all for show and the back room has already made the call? I'm asking you to reveal the process and the players. --Marcperkel (talk) 23:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. The process is described at Wikipedia:Deletion process. As for the players, pretty much anybody can contribute to the discussion. At the end of the discussion period (nominally 7 days), an administrator (see Wikipedia:List of administrators) will come along, read the debate, and figure out what consensus (if any) has been reached. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Or else start deleting articles about soccer players in obscure teams in out of the way towns. The Church of Reality is a legitimately new idea and it does have a membership. I am a member of the Church of Reality, and I am not Marc Perkel, in the sense that most people understand that statement (my name is Tom Buckner, and I occupy a physical body in meatspace in North Carolina on the other side of the North American continent). Peridon, above, says "Not forum or blog, or self-published" evidence suffices. But such organizations and social movements always start that way. It has ever been thus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.36.76.176 (talk) 23:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And will be thus. But until they achieve the level of sourcing Wikipedia calls for..... Or until Wikipedia moves the goal posts - you are all welcome to become regular editors and then move up to places where you can influence policymaking. Takes time. By then, the CoR will have the refs it needs anyway. Peridon (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response So far as taking part in an AfD is concerned, there is one basic class. Anyone is welcome to make a serious contribution. Whether we are regular editors or admin people or SpAs (single purpose accounts), we can contribute. Exceptions are when apparently separate accounts turn out to be run by one person - that's sockpuppetry if done directly, or meatpuppetry if using other people as puppets. When the discussion period had run its course, an experienced admin will weigh up the arguments and either make a decision based on them, or relist for more discussion. If an admin's decision is thought to be faulty, there can be appeal. (Don't ask me how - nevewr done it.) I will admit that when the arguments are weighed up, SpAs do carry less weight - usually because they do not contribute much (or anything at times) to the discussion. Me? I'm a regular editor approaching 6000 edits, and working mainly in the edits by new accounts area, AfD (Articles for Deletion), and improving articles by doing copy-eds. I also sometimes translate from French, and have edited on the French and Norwegian Wikipedias. I prefer to save an article if possible, but if there's no willingness to listen or help from the supporters there's often little I can do. I also hunt spam - but am willing to help people turn a spammy advert into a proper article - if they will ask me to. BTW, I rather like the sound of your church, but already have a religion I am happy with - and I'm not saying what it is. It doesn't conflict with knowledge and investigation, like so many of the holy book bound ones do. Peridon (talk) 23:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I'm interested. What is your church? --Marcperkel (talk) 23:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I never say. (I never give my real name(s), either.) It doesn't affect my neutrality, anyway, and it isn't Nevillism. Now, about those references - get your supporters digging. With all those ghits, there could well be something there. AfD usually lasts a week. Peridon (talk) 23:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is obscure. I can't find a web site that explains it. As to references I gave you 34k references. I have no idea what you are looking for. --Marcperkel (talk) 00:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You pointed to 34k of mentions of a set of words. YOU (that is, the creator and supporters of the article) have to sift out the ones that fit in with the policies I gave you. Filter out all the blogs, forums and so on. Look for the newspaper articles - not just mentions - or magazine articles (not your inhouse mag, of course, or ones where they print anything sent in that's not actually obscene or libellous), or television reports (but beware of CNN - much of their site is user submitted and regarded here with suspicion). Do look at the Flying Spaghitti Monster article. It cites 68 references, enough of which are considered reliable and independent for the article to survive. You won't need that many - you do need more than the Oakland Tribune one. Peridon (talk) 13:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MarcPerkel Would it be possible to try and get other news organizations to document you? It seems Flying Spaghetti Monster Flying Spaghetti Monster is notable enough... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.32.10 (talk) 00:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not here to prove anything. I didn't write the article and I don't have to defend the notability of the Church of Reality. The Church of Reality has come under attack before by Delitionists and it's a flaw in the wikipedia system. When you point out the obvious and they don't get it then there's no point in continuing to do so. --Marcperkel (talk) 01:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a flaw; these are policies and guidelines. You may disagree with them and that's fine, but if you want Wikipedia to have an article about this organization you'll need to find us some reliable secondary sources. No one here is trying to deny its existence, just its notability. If all those Google results really turn up nothing that we can use then sorry, it's just not notable by Wikipedia's standards. Reach Out to the Truth 20:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia; I'm curious about this "Nevillism". I may have heard about it from a young scout. I may have heard about it from some very unknown website. Never-the-less, I'm curious. Small as the religion is, I want a source to learn about what the hell I just heard. Do I agree with it? Do I want to have it banned? How would I ever know? I would turn to a reliable source which has a broad base of knowledge. Wikipedia. I will judge for myself and not try to supress information like a third world leader. Its like the Ebay of information. Whatever IT is, its on Wiki. Except Ebay doesn't delete pages designated for dolls with purple dresses for the simple reason that the website owners do not like dolls with purple dresses. Of course this is just a metaphor. Wikipedia MUST maintain the high standard of a broad base of information to keep their high standards and broad source of information. If I cannot find the things I am looking for on Wikipedia, why would I ever bookmark it? Why would it ever be my go-to source for info? I caould always replace Wikipedia with Google. They are not prejudice. To maintain respect as an open source of information, you must keep it open to information! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.0.113 (talk) 01:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google reveals quite a few Nevillisms, none of which appear to be the one I mentioned. I think it's a name that begs to be picked on. Peridon (talk) 13:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Church of Reality is bigger than you think. I've been a member since Marc Perkel explained his ideas on BartCop several years ago. I live in New Hampshire, and if anybody calls me a meat puppet I'll sock him! Wikipedia claims to be unbiased and serious, not a free advertising forum. How about this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rover%27s_Morning_Glory I think it looks like blatant self-promotion, for some sick radio shock-jocks. What is their significance in the big picture here?64.222.179.187 (talk) 01:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)— 64.222.179.187 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep! If Wikipedia wants to eliminate all references to any religion, then delete the Church of Reality. If Wikipedia wants to eliminate "unpopular" knowledge, then delete the Church of Reality. If, on the other hand, Wiki wants to live up to its mission then KEEP these pages. Just say "No" to ignorance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RSS-666 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC) — RSS-666 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep! It's only fair to include it since there are those who would like to be members who should be able to find information here and those of us who are members can contribute information here.Leftcoasttoo (talk) 02:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)— Leftcoasttoo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
keep I would argue that no religion has started out as a "documented" entity. Since the church of reality is probably one of the few religions to begin after the advent of the internet, I could probably safely assume that it is at a disadvantage with religions which may be hundreds or thousands of years old. Keep it to see if it "evolves" and decide later. By the way, it is a very unusual take on religion since what is "believed" must in effect be real. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kroc7333 (talk • contribs) 02:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC) — Kroc7333 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep what's wrong with believing in what's real? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.207.24 (talk) 02:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC) — 72.234.207.24 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Nobody's trying to tell you what you can or can't believe. Feel free to keep on believing in what's real, and maybe some day you'll receive significant coverage that qualifies the organization for a Wikipedia article. The Church of Reality won't cease to exist just because its Wikipedia article is deleted. Wikipedia doesn't dictate reality. Reach Out to the Truth 20:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP The Church of Reality is an important part of human evolution. It is the beginning of the realization that we are crippled by our need for religion, when we have to use religion of the meta-physical, and it says, "Why not use the physical world we have as our religion?" It is beautiful and necessary for us to understand this. I have read it online, which is where I read my news sources. Not in physical papers, not on TV stations. Wikipedia is online, which is where Im reading and writing this now. Not in physical papers, and not on TV stations. The fact that the Church of Reality is a new entity is part of the point here, and keeping the information suppressed just continues it to be less known. I believe the attempts to delete this are religious bigotry, wrapped in the bureaucratic code of Wikipedia editors. Many people have pointed out many sources that only exist online and are written up in Wikipedia, and many little-known items that are left in Wikipedia. Do your job and leave content that people want to learn about in Wikipedia. GeoffHowland —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.75.77.65 (talk) 04:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC) — 209.75.77.65 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
keep it's what free speech is all about. Support the USA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.250.243.17 (talk) 05:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC) — 149.250.243.17 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Wikipedia should accord the same deference to the Church of Reality as to other churches. D.Boldt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.238.20.6 (talk) 05:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC) — 69.238.20.6 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Why would you want less diversity on your site? The beauty of wikipedia is the mystery of where your personal exploration of the site might take you. If you delete this page, that's one less avenue of discovery. On another note, I found and joined the Church of Reality through wikipedia. That may not me notable to you personally, but it's notable to me. To delete this page would be notable as well, as I will personally write and submit an op-ed relating my views regarding your deletion policy and submit it to as many news outlets as I can. Thanks for your consideration. Noah Kerwin (talk) 07:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC) — Noah Kerwin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Why is this even being challenged?...If this is to be deleted, 99% of the crap on this website needs deleting as per your policy. Im gonna have to start cleaning house here if this gets deleted. 69.171.160.69 (talk) 07:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)— 69.171.160.69 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please note: you are very welcome to start nominating crap for deletion - right now. I would ask you to read the relevant policies first, however. Just to be on the safe side. Peridon (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If Wikipedia is to be a comprehensive repository of information surely it would to better to keep as much information as possible in the interest of providing as much information as possible on any given subject. Knowledge should not be a popularity contest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tipua (talk • contribs) 08:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KeepI've heard of the church of reality before, it's not something new. 174.21.210.110 (talk) 08:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)— 174.21.210.110 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep I'm not a regular contributor because I believe one must be absolutely sure about what one contributes to this knowledge-site, but knowledge is what this site is about. Why delete the information about a philosophical group ? If you do so you must delete all information about any sect at all... about any philosophy that ever existed. This is not good. Information should be available. If you insist, add a caveat. But let the information exist.--Babetheke (talk) 15:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)— Babetheke (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Wikipedia is full of absolutely worthless nonsense, but this is a reasonable addition tot he Wikipedia ouvre, so keep the Church of Reality. Why keep pages with stuff about magic creatures that walk on water or raise the dead but delete something that describes reality? Seriously, Wikipedia people, you should show more sense than this.

Keep Church of Reality seems to be at the same stage as the Church of the Subgenius in 1988, except not as publicity-seeking. I'm not a member of CoR or any organization but it seems to me that if CoR is notable enough to attract my attention to edit one of these pages for the first time to try to prevent a regrettable case of censorship they are notable enough to occupy a small space in Wikipedia -- perhaps with more original research as in the case of the Church of the Subgenius 12.74.22.70 (talk) 17:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - People look to Wikipedia for accurate information about anything. The primary question for any article under review should be "is this accurate?” If an article is accurate, full of facts, and not just self-promotion then there's no reason to delete it. If your goal is to delete useless crap from Wikipedia, you might want to begin with anything that starts with "List of". Advocating the deletion of a purely factual article about something that goes against the establishment is simply censorship. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a purely establishment encyclopedia. If you value history at all then this article is already notable enough. There needs to be an article here, whether it is about the church itself or a chronicle of it being targeted for deletion from Wikipedia. Forbidding any article about it, whether a contemporary or a purely historical account, is simply not acceptable at this point. Coupdeforce (talk) 15:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)— Coupdeforce (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
~~Keep:~~ The Church of Reality has now been mention in "Courthouse News Service" http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/01/28/24162.htm This was in regard to The Church of Realities court of appeals case about use of marijuana.
"(CN) - Members of the Church of Reality, who say the Drug Enforcement Administration is stifling some "really good ideas" by refusing to let them use marijuana, lost their appeal in the 9th Circuit."
CN is a reliable news organization and a case that reaches the court of appeals is notable in itself.Buzzcook (talk) 21:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)— Buzzcook (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (y'all !voted above, Jack Merridew )[reply]

Keep I agree with Catherineyronwode Three notables -

Oakland Tribune

Court House News

Public Record

Disclaimer: I am a CoR member. marklhessel —Preceding undated comment added 17:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC). — Marklhessel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

DISMANTLE WIKI CABAL I have followed this discussion from the beginning and I am very concerned by what I have witnessed here. It should be obvious to anyone that editors with more 'pull' on this site have already made up their minds to remove the CofR page and that they really aren't interested in having a constructive discussion. The language by proponents of keeping the page have been respectful. By comparison, opponents have been abusive to the extreme, using language that I have found deeply offensive. I would suggest that the behavior of opponents resembles a cabal of overlords striking down comments that they feel don't reflect their own views. Bad form wiki. I have lost much respect for your site. Noah Kerwin (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)— Noah Kerwin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Moving Target "Significant coverage" is vague enough that it leaves open the possibility of 'editors' constantly raising the bar on what might qualify. The COI test is flawed as well as it leaves open the claim that any 'expert' on a subject whom edits a page may be considered to have a COI. The SPAM test doesn't hold up either as I would challenge you to prove that the CoR actively pushes it's data on anyone who doesn't voluntarily seek it. Maybe you consider dissent or any opposing views to be spam? Noah Kerwin (talk) 20:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- It appears that Editors of Wikipedia do not believe in Reality. I am a Church of Reality member and am sick and tired of "religious" folk trying to ram their beliefs down my throat everyday yet you (Wikipedia and other religious zealots) can't seem to understand - this is it, this is reality, you do not get a second chance at life (be reborn), this is REALITY, yet you allow every other sky fairy story (religion) to be promoted on this site. Truly unbelievable! --Jamminjoey (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)— Jamminjoey (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Semi-protected: At this point I have semi-protected this AfD to stop the ridiculous sockpuppet / meatpuppet show. Sandstein 19:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Free Speech Are you calling Realists meat puppets and sock puppets? I formally must insist you apologize to the membership. Wikipedia put it out there for comment and voting and that is what people did. How do you expect people to act in the face of religious bigotry? --Marcperkel (talk) 23:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The IRS have registered The Church of Reality as an organisation that is tax exempt which means they where satisfied with it's status as a church. The fact that it's credibility is disputed by Wikipedia where the organisation has nothing to gain, while the IRS accepts it's credibility when there are tax dollars involved makes me wonder whether that we are dealing here with religious discrimination by Wikipedia's members (the many against the few), more than credibility. Surely a document from the IRS can be considered an acceptable "source". See http://www.churchofreality.org/wisdom/irs_tax_exempt_status/ Ms730111 (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it sounds like the IRS is not satisfied that CofR is a church, but they are satisfied that it's a charitable organization. Quoting from the cited page: So I changed the application to be a charitable organization which got rid of the church test and it sailed right through. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected RoySmith. However it was still granted exemption. So by deleting the article you are attempting to delete it out of existence as if it does not exist which is also not the case. Ms730111 (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Technically the IRS status of the CoR is charitible/educational/religious organization. In the IRS language a church is a brick and morder building. For example, Baptists is a religious organization. The First Baptist Church of Possum Trot Arkansas is a church in IRS speak. --Marcperkel (talk) 23:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm agnostic but I also respect everyone's beliefs. That said, where are the new stories about your church? Where are the mentions in published books, newspapers, TV news coverage, magazines, or other media? Sure there are other articles that fail this test too and they are being dealt with (or will be in time)...just look at the rest of the Articles for Deletion page and you can see we are not 'picking' on this article or saying because the article lacks sources that somehow the religion is invalid. We are simply saying, if you want an article on Wikipedia, show the 3rd party media sources that show it is notable. Instead of rallying against the rules, how about looking for ways to satisfy and meet the rules? Just saying "Keep" and some nonsense about censorship isn't going to stay this articles execution. Instead, look for sources to force the admin to keep your article. As of now, the article looks to be headed to the electric chair. --Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 05:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of reliable source mentions, and sock flood. Stifle (talk) 10:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and WP:SALT. Ugh this is just giving me a headache now. JBsupreme (talk) 11:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt per WP:ORG, and the fact that this AFD has such a ridiculous number of socks/meats (possibly an all-time AFD record?) strongly suggests this is an attempt to use Wikipedia as a means of advertising. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Section break to make editing easier[edit]

I've unprotected this, in the hopes that rational discussion can continue with everybody having an opportunity to add to the consensus building. Hopefully things won't get out of hand. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Roy--Marcperkel (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Objection to the term Meat Puppet to describe Church of Reality members - If you want a rational discussion I suggest that your editors stop referring to Church of Reality members as meat puppets. These are people who strongly object to the idea of deleting the CoR. They are not familiar to some of the bizarre rules and cultural nuisances of the Wikipedia editor community. Meat Puppets mean that I control them as if they were mindless cult followers and the term is both insulting and demeaning. --Marcperkel (talk) 17:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a relatively long-time editor here (almost 4 years, anyway), i see no reason to delete this entry. I am an inclusionist and believe that Wikipedia can spare the bandwidth for all sorts of odd things. The question of "notability" is at issue, and this brings up some fundamental principles. If a group has, say, 10,000 members but is not mentioned in a printed newspaper or book, is it "notable"? This church has been mentioned in at least one newspaper article. Some might interpret that as "not notable" while others might say that the church is "not publicity-seeking" and a third group (to which i belong) might see this an example of the failure of the decaying print media in an increasingly onine world to function as test-beds for Wikipedia notability. But all that aside, is it really the function of a church to seek publicity? Isn't having a large member-base sufficient, for a church? After all, a church is not a commercial enterprise. Anyway, i say keep it. Catherineyronwode (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The accusations of meat puppetry and sock pupptry are highly offensive. The accusations that the Church of Reality is using Wikipedia for "advertising" is even more offensive. In my opinion, those who make such accusations ought to take a good, long, hard look in the mirror and ask themselves what they are doing here, contributing to "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit." What part of "anyone" do they not understand? Catherineyronwode (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- the shift to web-based news is commonly understood as inevitable and this ought to be consolidated into Wikipedia's notability quotient. The San Mateo County Times also covered the Church of Reality. I am a Church of Reality member in good standing and do not like the resort to sabotage which insulting claims of meat-puppetry constitute.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 22:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plea for sanity. I've been watching this debate since it started, and I'm not happy the way it's going. There is much heat and not enough light, and the problem is not confined to one side or the other.

To the people on the keep side, please be aware that nobody here is trying to put the CofR down. We're not bigots, or censors, we're just a bunch of people trying to write an encyclopedia. Like any other encyclopedia, we have guidelines for what's appropriate to include and what's not. There is, amazingly enough, nobody who's in charge. Some of us (like myself) are administrators. We have the ability to delete articles, but we don't decide which ones to delete. That decision is made by consensus, in discussions like this one. An administrator simply carries out the will of the group. And, no, the decision is not pre-ordained. I have no idea who will close this AfD, but I am sure that whoever it is, they will spend a good long time reading everything that has been said here and make as fair a decision as they know how to do.

To the people on the delete side, please be equally aware that the WP:SPA editors here are not evil people. They may not know our rules, but that means they need education, not abuse. I totally agree with user:Catherineyronwode that the terms sockpuppet and meatpuppet are offensive, at least in this context. I have no problem applying them to people who have been around wikipedia for a long time, know how things work, and are intentionally trying to game the system. But that's not the case here. If I were to walk into, say, a Catholic church, or a Shinto shrine, I would be woefully ignorant of the rules and customs. I would hope if I accidentally transgressed something I didn't understand, I would be treated with a certain amount of courtesy as it was explained to me what I did wrong and please don't do it again.

With all that said, let me remind people that there really is only one thing which is to be decided here; does this article meet the criteria laid out in Wikipedia:DEL#REASON? That's it. I would hope everybody taking part in this discussion would re-read that section and try to frame their arguments to address those issues. Looking over the list right now, it seems that the most applicable questions are, Have all attempts to find reliable sources failed?, and Does this subject meet our notability guidelines? That's what the debate is all about, and that's what will weigh in the decision when this AfD is closed. Everything else is just noise.

-- RoySmith (talk) 02:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roy, your side has called us meat puppets and sock puppets. Your side has accused our side of using Wikipedia for advertising purposes. In the past your side took the Church of Reality down because your side determined that we had one single member. The problem in this argument is that the problems are on your side. Your side has been insulting to our side and your seem to be harboring ill will towards us. And you cannot come here and complain about the behavior of people who have a much more of a firm grasp of the obvious than your side does. The bottom line is - we're right and you are wrong. This process is exposing a flaw in the Wikipedia system and I see it as an opportunity to change and improve yourself. Wikipedia is a great resource and I think it is up to those of us involved, as I am an editor myself, to preserve and improve it. After all, do you want history laughing at you 20 years from now talking about how Wikipedia took down the Church of Reality. I don't think so. --Marcperkel (talk) 03:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia can't "take down the Church of Reality". This is just an encyclopedia; it lacks any real power. The ones with the power are those that are writing about (or not writing about) the Church of Reality. We don't delete things just because we don't like them. We delete them because they don't meet our standards for inclusion or violate some other policy. So please don't interpret this as an attack on you or the Church of Reality, because that's not what it is. Reach Out to the Truth 21:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems less than notable and the SPA swarm is really creeping me out. - Schrandit (talk) 15:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as said by others - no evidence of notability - really! - Josette (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - To Mr Perkel and others who have come here with a specific agenda, I suggest you read WP:COI as you seem to have a conflict of interest here. COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for advertising or self-promotion, or a vanity press. - Josette (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You know that one of your rules says that if Jimmy Whales intervenes that he can override decisions to delete and he has already done that. So if you are going by your own rules then this process wouldn't be an issue. --Marcperkel (talk) 18:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's Wales, not Whales. Your reply, above, is non-responsive (and unlikely). Happy editing, Jack Merridew 18:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the typo. Maybe you should do some research. Jimmy Wales did intervene last time to reestablish the Church of Reality entry after it was deleted. So for those who are quoting rules you should verify this. --Marcperkel (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm good at this, really; I've looked. a) Jimmy's not opining here. b) he won't. c) you've evaded the COI issue, again. d) this will be deleted. e) let me know if you take it to WP:DRV, ok? Happy editing, Jack Merridew 22:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If Jimbo wants to restore it, he can go ahead and do that. We're not stopping him from doing whatever he wants. Reach Out to the Truth 21:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and promotional; Per DGG; salt it this time. 3 points IRL for POINT re Religion. Impressive SPA vote stacking; who canvased y'all? ;) Jack Merridew 18:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt with the Salt of Truth™. Groovy name, cool tax scam, unfortunately quasi-religious organisations designed specifically to separate the gullible from their dough are commonplace. pablo_hablo. 19:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's nice to see that it does have a few third-party references, but if this is a notable religion surely there must be more than that. Reach Out to the Truth 21:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another article in Leagle - same subject.--Marcperkel (talk) 11:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an article. That's the automated search result of a robot indexing court records. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admission by Conduct By collapsing and trying to hide the KEEP votes Wikipedia editors are admitting by their conduct that their position is invalid on the merits. When one has to cheat to win then one is a loser. --Marcperkel (talk) 08:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought you said jimbo was going to come down from the heavens in his magic helicopter and force us to ignore all our content guidelines and keep this spamotional article for you... so what are you worried about?Bali ultimate (talk) 13:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Section break to make editing easier[edit]

Delete. The only real issue here is notability, which would be demonstrated by significant independent third-party coverage. I see no evidence of that. The Oakland Tribune and San Mateo County Times are both reputable third-party sources, but between the two of them, there's a single article (one reprinted it from the other, or they both got it from a wire service), which falls into the category of "local interest". The Courthouse News Service is a niche publication which publishes, daily comprehensive reports on new appellate rulings. In other words, they publish something on pretty much anything which comes through the court docket (in this instance, a report that the CofR lost an appeal of a Drug Enforcement Administration ruling). Fails WP:N. Fails WP:COI. Fails WP:SPAM -- RoySmith (talk) 19:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt I agree with RoySmith (talk · contribs)'s comments about why the coverage provided by the "keep" opinions is insufficient to establish notability. Cunard (talk) 06:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jujutacular ^T · C 20:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Petro Rabigh[edit]

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

Article does not assert why this plant is notable or significant. Sources only mention this plant in passing, and in any case, the mere existence of a power plant of all things does not merit an article. Rasputin72 (talk) 08:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added a reference from The New York Times. Petro Rabigh is a petrochemical plant rather than a power plant, and it is a company listed on Tadawul, the only stock exchange in Saudi Arabia. This is a huge plant which cost about $10 billion to build. - Eastmain (talk) 09:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 09:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 09:44, 10 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) 00:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as this article fails WP:CSD#A7, since it makes no claim to notability in accordance with WP:CORP, nor is there any significant coverage to support such a claim. Although this company is the subject of some routine press releases, these are not evidence of notability in accordance with WP:NTEMP.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk) · @092 · 01:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. It's a freaking 400 million barrel per day oil refinery, says Google Finance, which would put it comfortably in the top 10 largest refineries in the USA if it were in the usa. [78] It's also a publicly traded company on the Saudi exchange. Just the downwind stream of pollutants would make it noteworthy, let alone the sheer number of dollars of oil that go through it. Per WP:LISTED we should expand on this before we delete; also, we need WP:PRIMARY sources from petroleum industry trade publications. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 02:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the sources are fully adequate for notability , and they were from the beginning. DGG ( talk ) 03:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "400 million barrel per day capacity refinery". Yeah, that sounds like a notable company to me. Clicking on the Google news search, I see it mentioned plenty of times in the press, and a company wouldn't be talked about if it wasn't notable. Dream Focus 13:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 23:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

B.D. Goenka[edit]

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

Fails to address the notability requirements. Being the son of a newspaper baron is not an automatic guarantee of notability. Searching Google News shows that the award named after his death may be notable but he is only mentioned tangentially. This article is a content fork of The Indian Express and this trivial mention of B.D. Goenka can be merged back to that main article. Ash (talk) 16:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 16:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 16:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given the age of the subject (died circa 70s) and the Indian nationality, sourcing this is likely to be difficult. Yet there seem to be a number of gbooks hits that indicate this guy was not merely the son of someone notable: see here. For example, he has been described as the inveterate foe of the Nehru family. I think this is the kind of article that with a bit of expert attention and full access to sources would very clearly establish notability. --Mkativerata (talk) 16:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- —Ash (talk) 17:02, 15 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 00:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep The newspaper he managed seems to be so highly notable that he probably is also, but it would be good to have some more specific information about his role DGG ( talk ) 03:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (clarification) The reason I nominated this chap was due to the lack of reliable sources specifically about him. If I were re-writing the nomination, I would base the rationale on the article being a trivial content fork rather than strict notability, however that point is made by the current text. If the article is kept then there is every reason to expect that there can be no improvement for that reason. Ash (talk) 06:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 23:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Campusano[edit]

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

Non-notable free agent minor leaguer who is 27 and never played above AA. Alex (talk) 09:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is my belief that any level of professional baseball, even Minor League Baseball in the U.S., is sufficient to pass WP:N.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:42, 10 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, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A simple google search reveals enough RS coverage for this to be a clear keep.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Epeefleche above, a Google search does provide enough significant coverage (i.e. more than just stats). Additionally, it appears that he did play at least one MLB game during spring training with the Chicago Cubs in 2009.[79] This appears to meet the baseball notability essay WP:MLB/N; while I'm not certain they intended to include spring training games, they are not specifically excluded either. I've left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Notability asking for clarification. Wine Guy Talk 07:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'd say delete as non-notable, but he was a Rule 5 pick, and that might be enough. --Muboshgu (talk) 18:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to McMaster University. NW (Talk) 19:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

McMaster Integrated Science[edit]

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

Non-notable Undergraduate program at a university. Links given in the page do not show notability. I can't find any evidence for notability on the net either Raziman T V (talk) 09:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: notability is subjective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.113.38.225 (talk) 02:24, 13 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, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am confused to why there are issues with notability. On the official website (cited under references)( there is a video explaining exactly what makes this program unique and why it is relevant as a special program: http://www.science.mcmaster.ca/isci/component/content/article/289. Outside of internal promotion, there has been published articles in the Hamilton Spectator, and the program has had conference appearance in education seminars for integrated learning, and is scheduled to appear in more (such as the Combining two Cultures). In addition to all of this, journal entries will appear. There is no shortage of notability currently, and it will only increase in the future. If there is an issue with referencing, I am not too familiar with the standard Wikipedia set-up, and would appreciate help in understanding where citations and footnotes are necessary. (Prateek (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Delete as article fails WP:NOTABILITY. There are no third-party reliable sources as it can be seen in this search. Armbrust (talk) 00:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge into the article for the University. We almost never have articles for individual curricula or programs of this sort, but it's worth the mention. Alternatively merge with McMaster Arts and Sciences an article I think unjustified on the same grounds, but where a book happens to have been written about it as an example of a program, and so we would keep it by the current interpretation of WP:GNG. In this case, there are not only no books, but no independent material of any sort. DGG ( talk ) 16:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into McMaster University, watch out for peacock words such as "exclusive" while doing so. I would suggest that the McMaster Arts and Sciences program page is also of dubious noteability. I'm sure they're both fine programs, but both articles suffer from a lack of citeable material. Random name (talk) 12:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As this program is known as "McMaster iSci" not only colloquially, but officially, I think the article should be renamed to this, and its 'searchability' should be assessed under this name instead as well Prateek (talk) 05:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to an article about the school. As DGG says, we generally don't have articles about individual curricula, except on rare occasion where the program is so unusual or innovative as to have a sufficient body of third-party published literature examining it (by which I mean, books or scholarly studies, not local newspaper puff pieces). This program doesn't appear to meet that standard. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Rahway High School. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rahway High School Marching Band[edit]

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

No refs, notability iBen^talk/_contribsIf you reply here, please place a talkback notification on my page. 00:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Rahway High School or any related article. Doc Quintana (talk) 07:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. —71.251.40.119 (talk) 19:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Doc's right - this is appropriate as a component of the school's article. Townlake (talk) 19:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. after discounting the hordes of SPAs, there is a clear consensus that notability has not been established. JohnCD (talk) 11:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ekram Alam[edit]

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

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

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

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

Possible hoax or attack page. The only wp:rs is a Guardian article with a passing mention. -- Jeandré (talk), 2010-01-24t00:38z 00:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy DeleteNotability.-- iBen^talk/_contribsIf you reply here, please place a talkback notification on my page. 00:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 19:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I found significant coverage for this person online and have researched this individual and attended this individuals performances. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.123.131 (talk) 01:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC) — 94.173.123.131 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

~~Keep~~: The page is not a hoax page nor an attack page. I.P addresses of attacks have been traced and reported to legal authorities and have been found to come from the same person/small group of people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.123.131 (talk) 01:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please only !vote once. I have struck your duplicate !vote. Edward321 (talk) 03:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I contributed to the creation of this page. It is completely legitimate and this person is well known as a performer through many media outlets and on the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Useshi (talk • contribs) 01:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC) — Useshi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep: This page does not contain any material that makes me feel that it is an attack page. I have found many internet articles, newspaper publications, etc involving this individual and have attended some of his shows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.82.240.3 (talk) 13:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC) — 144.82.240.3 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep: Legitimate page. Has been attacked in past but any attacks have been successfully reverted n 24 hours. All contents are accurate. Coverage on this individual can be found elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.65.202 (talk) 18:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC) — 77.101.65.202 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete, not notable, despite a flurry of keep votes from IPs. Hairhorn (talk) 19:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete...Anyone else smell socks? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 23:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I've found notable sources with this individual in it and watched performances of this person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.40.142.6 (talk) 15:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC) — 128.40.142.6 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete I do not feel that there are enough reliable sources cited, meaning that this article is in breach of Wikipedia guidelines. It ought to be deleted so that Wikipedia doesn't lose it's status as a valuable source of information, because this article is little more than poppycock. I cannot find any genuine notable sources, because there simply aren't any. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.19.137 (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC) — 217.42.19.137 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete fails the notability criteria. Candidate for speedy delete and the personal trivia should be deleted if there is any suspicion of it being inappropriate (as per WP:BLP). Ash (talk) 13:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The main argument for deletion is that it is indiscriminate and no better than a category; the main argument for keeping is that the list is a manageable and reasonable group of notable people. Neither of the arguments is significantly stronger than the other, thus the result. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Finnish comedians[edit]

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

An infinite list, better as a category. Doc Quintana (talk) 07:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:BEFORE#8 - ..."and, for list articles, WP:CLN." Lists go hand-in-hand with categories. Categories cannot contain redlinks to articles that can be created in the future. To say the list is infinite, is not true, as it is for notable Finnish comedians. Also this page seems to be of a larger scheme. Looking in the parent cat of Category:Lists of comedians shows articles for List of Australian comedians, List of Dutch comedians, etc, etc. Lugnuts (talk) 08:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A perfectly reasonable topic for a list.--Michig (talk) 13:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly defined list, size is no issue. Red links are another matter (WP:WTAF, it's better to have a sourced stub than nothing, to distinguish real from vanity or fake entries) but that's an editing concern, not deletion concern.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 16:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete About the worst insult that I can think of for a list is that it's no better than a category, and this fits. Unsourced, indiscriminate, uninformative-- this is nothing more than a list of names: Eemeli-setä Viktor Kalborrek Vesa-Matti Loiri Esa Pakarinen, Jr Esa Pakarinen, Sr Spede Pasanen Pirkka-Pekka Petelius Krisse Salminen Simo Salminen Pentti Siimes Ritva Valkama André Wickström of which some have articles (and thus are in a category) and others are just tossed on there in hopes that someone will write an equally unsourced and uninformative article that says "Viktor Kalborrek is a Finnish comedian, this is a stub, you can help Wikipedia". The list gives no clue as to whether any of these persons are notable even within Finland, or even if they're considered comedians, and it's essentially an invitation to throw in the name of every Teuva, Donner and Hendrik a person can think of. If I want an alphabetized list of Wikipedia articles about Finnish comedians, it's been done. Mandsford (talk) 16:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:CLN; no compelling rationale to delete. The list could possibly become infinite and crufty, but that problem can be addressed by implementing better standards for what gets included in the list. Townlake (talk) 18:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If Mandsford took the time to even google some of the names on this list, it would've been evident that these people actually are the best in Finnish comedy. -Yupik (talk) 05:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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