Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 January 25
< 24 January | 26 January > |
---|
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as per consensus. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 01:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
E equational theorem prover[edit]
- E equational theorem prover (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article appears to be written almost entirely by the author of the software concerned. Nearly all of the sources the article cites are the author's own works (scholarly journal and conference articles which are not necessarily inherently notable). Seems therefore of dubious notability. Psychonaut (talk) 23:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 01:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep (if not Speedy keep). Many high quality citations. If the WP editor has a COI, that might be a reason to contact them politely and/or improve the article. But the dozen citations to good journals and books is far more than enough for an obvious keep. LotLE×talk 01:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article on the creator of the theorem was merged per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephan Schulz. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Good sources, not all of them by the author of the program. DGG ( talk ) 04:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It was obviously subjected to independent scrutiny see E_equational_theorem_prover#Competitions, which is sourced from 3rd party publications. Pcap ping 06:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Most of the sources are not by its author and are reliable, peer reviewed publications. Galatee (talk) 02:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Somewhat reluctant keep, as it is a bit WP:COI-ish but I think it runs over the WP:N threshold ivo sources. Springnuts (talk) 18:16, 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) 21:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PasWiki[edit]
- PasWiki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A non-notable wiki application, whose only interesting aspect seems to be that it's written in Pascal. It appears to have only one developer and one user. Yaron K. (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete! - no indication of notability, none, zero, nada, zip. Not even a HINT of notability. This article has as much merit as an article saying "Fifi is a poodle owned by my neighbor Mrs. Rosenberg." The fact that this can't be speedied is evidence of how constipated wikipedia has become. --96.233.40.199 (talk) 00:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 01:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This seems like it could have been a {prod}, since there does not seem to be any claim of notability in the article. LotLE×talk 01:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 03:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I couldn't find any coverage, let alone significant coverage. --RrburkeekrubrR 14:48, 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. Jayjg (talk) 01:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Grsync[edit]
- Grsync (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Possibly non-notable software. Cleanup tag asking for sources has been posted since August 2009, though so far there don't seem to be any independent third-party sources in the article. Psychonaut (talk) 23:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 01:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge to rsync: seems to be one of the few GUIs for rsync, therefore, making it notable in this aspect --SF007 (talk) 02:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (1st choice) or merge to rsync. Off the top of my head I would have said merge because it's a simple GUI for that app, but there's an article just about it [1] in linux.com and also here an online re-publication of a de:PC Welt article (look at the copyright tag at the end), and given as "hot pick" in Linux Format [2]. Books only mention it though, no detailed description, e.g. [3]. This is obviously not a delete issue though. Pcap ping 07:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (do not merge). This has several strong and independent references. Moreover, this is not a good merge candidate, since the article is too long to comfortably fit in the rsync parent. LotLE×talk 07:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep; references have since been provided establishing notability. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:42, 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. Cirt (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Youth Society Nepal[edit]
- Youth Society Nepal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
NGO with no claim in article of meeting WP:Notability Zero gnews hits; the google web hits aren't showing notability. Bringing to AfD rather than prod because there may be language issues hindering my search. Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as notability can't be established. Language issues maybe, but the onus of showing notability falls on the creator not on the community. --96.233.40.199 (talk) 00:46, 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. While the argument went both ways, the deletes had the better of it, as they bemoaned the lack of relevant sources, and weren't rebutted. The argument for inherent notability of the position (or perhaps, notability when all of the subject's positions are considered) did not gain traction in the debate. I have given less weight to most of the new accounts in this discussion, not because they were new, but because their arguments were not persuasive. Since the issue of sockpupperty was raised, let me state here that a check user found all accounts unrelated. To the extent anyone was offended by the process, you have my apologies. Finally, I am willing to userfy this article upon request, so that interested parties can continue to work to find reliable sources. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Paul Andersen[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}} . |
- Paul Andersen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails to meet the notability requirements. Being president of eGate Networks, which may be a notable company, does not automatically confer notability to the corporate executive. Sitting on various boards does not make the individual notable even if the boards are. I find no publications for him in Google Books or articles about him on Google News. Wikipedia does not benefit by having a biographical résumé for every CEO or President for every company without specific notability demonstrated for the individual. Ash (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 23:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 23:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 23:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the very well-explained nom.
I really was wishing the creation of this article was an honest mistake but the single use account responsible for it screams "CONFLICT OF INTEREST!"--96.233.40.199 (talk) 00:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP. As the author of this page I strongly disagree that this person is not notable. If your concern is that this is a CEO résumé, I'm more than happy to remove the mention of his current position and the company in which he founded. (note this edit has already been completed) This person is obviously notable enough. They are named in at least 3 other Wikipedia pages and perhaps more, CIRA, TORIX, and ARIN. As the author I have read CONFLICT OF INTEREST and can declare that I have no conflict of interest. ISPman (talk) 04:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! I take you on your word on that (Wikipedia:Assume good faith is another important principal here) and I appreciate your response. I've striken my remarks above. --96.233.40.199 (talk) 06:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The CIRA page has no mention of Andersen, TORIX had his name added by ISPman (talk · contribs) (diff) and on the same day the account MiniPC (talk · contribs) was created and, within the first minute of existence, added the same name to ARIN (diff) and 40 minutes later ISPman added the w-link. We may take it on faith that there is no conflict of interest, however you may find the guidance of SPA and SOCK helpful if you want to avoid your edits being reverted. Ash (talk) 07:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please look at the diffs for the ARIN page, you will see that user Minipc101 (talk · contribs) only moved the name Paul Andersen from the Advisory Council section to the Board of Trustees section. His hame existed on the ARIN page for quite some time under the Advisory Council section on which he has served since 2004. It appears this new user Minipc101 (talk · contribs) has merely updated the ARIN page to reflect changes to the Board of Trustees and Advisory Council that came into effect on January 1, 2010 ISPman (talk) 14:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As per the feedback given, I will look for some third party sources. ISPman (talk) 14:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Upon further review of Wikipedia:Notability_(people) - Additional Criteria - Any Biography - Section 2, I claim that this person is notable as a result of the significant contribution that they have made to Internet Governance. ISPman (talk) 05:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The CIRA page has no mention of Andersen, TORIX had his name added by ISPman (talk · contribs) (diff) and on the same day the account MiniPC (talk · contribs) was created and, within the first minute of existence, added the same name to ARIN (diff) and 40 minutes later ISPman added the w-link. We may take it on faith that there is no conflict of interest, however you may find the guidance of SPA and SOCK helpful if you want to avoid your edits being reverted. Ash (talk) 07:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! I take you on your word on that (Wikipedia:Assume good faith is another important principal here) and I appreciate your response. I've striken my remarks above. --96.233.40.199 (talk) 06:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Provisional delete, needs third party sources to establish notability, currently there are none. Hairhorn (talk) 05:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: WP:BIO. The article's sources don't demonstrate notability. Multiple Google inquiries ([4], [5], [6], etc.) showed no relevant results. — Rankiri (talk) 00:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP., The person is notable and Wikipedia should keep this article as submitted. Please do google search for keywords "Paul Andersen" "CIRA" together with the way it's written here. m3hm3t (talk) 10:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC) — m3hm3t (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- A Google search for "Paul Andersen" "CIRA" -wiki -facebook -twitter returns 92 unique results. None of them seem to be reliable secondary sources indicative of the subject's notability. — Rankiri (talk) 13:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP., The person is notable and Wikipedia should keep this article as submitted. LouieNet (talk) 21:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC) — LouieNet (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- COMMENT - User:ISPman, User:Minipc101, User:m3hm3t and User:LouieNet are under discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. --208.59.93.238 (talk) 08:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- RESPONSE - With all due respect, is this the way that you respond to all people that put up a reasonable argument against a page that you have nominated for deletion? By accusing them of SockPuppetry? To my knowledge I don't know any of these other users, nor for that matter do I know if the others are all the same person but I doubt it. I find your comment utterly insulting and against the spirit of what projects like Wikipedia are trying to achieve. I suggest you review the sections that deal with not biting the newcomers, no personal attacks, and civility. I refuse to have the hard work and research that I have done by constantly abused by users like User:Ash. I will be issuing reverts on all other Wikipedia pages that I have corrected and/or updated, and they will go back to their former, inaccurate state. Thank-you User:Ash for contributing to the inaccuracy of Wikipedia ISPman (talk) 03:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- COMMENT Upon further review, I'm also very curious as to why User:Ash has accused User:Minipc101 of SockPuppetry. User:Minipc101 has not commented on this deletion at all. They have merely been dragged into this mess by User:Ash because they made valid edits to a related Wikipedia page (ARIN). ISPman (talk) 03:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I asked for an independent investigation due to the timing and nature of edits made from several accounts. It was not my intention to make accusations here or anywhere else against individual editors. If you wish to raise further points about the investigation, please do so on the investigation request rather than here. Ash (talk) 09:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is interesting to note that when different users comment on the same topics, it is assumed by others to be SockPuppetry. Did it ever occur to anyone that users that feel the need to edit pages likely do so because they have knowledge of the subject? It does not surprise me to see that another user would edit multiple pages that might have reference to Paul Andersen. Paul Andersen is a notable figure in Internet Governance, and as such any user that edits a page related to Internet Governance is likely to edit a page that is related to and/or mentions Paul Andersen. To me this is plain common sense. To you this is evidence of SockPuppetry which I feel is a perfect example of Troll-like behaviour. ISPman (talk) 15:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I asked for an independent investigation due to the timing and nature of edits made from several accounts. It was not my intention to make accusations here or anywhere else against individual editors. If you wish to raise further points about the investigation, please do so on the investigation request rather than here. Ash (talk) 09:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep chair of the national agency CIRA is sufficient for notability. added to that is head or other organizations. DGG ( talk ) 18:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- CIRA is a corporation, not a national agency, and I don't believe this viewpoint is supported by WP:BIO. — Rankiri (talk) 18:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- CIRA is the Canadian Internet Registration Authority. true, it is technically a corporation, but it's the "non-profit Canadian corporation that is responsible for operating the .ca country code top-level domain." . DGG ( talk ) 22:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I assume that the CIRA WP article does not mention who sits on the board as it's not that notable? Ash (talk) 22:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA) is the not-for-profit corporation chosen by Industry Canada (a branch of the Canadian government) to manage the dot-ca domain space on behalf of all Canadians. See the following for details.
- Industry Canada letter to CIRA [7]
- Industry Canada letter to ICANN [8]
- ISPman (talk) 01:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely, such a distinguished WP contributor as yourself needn't be reminded that all individual article subjects must meet Wikipedia's criteria of notability on their own merits. Even though WP:NOTINHERITED makes some exceptions for such nationally renowned positions as First Ladies, I find it highly questionable that a chairman of a relatively minor privately run company—again, not some branch of the Canadian government—should fall into the same category without any scrutiny or discussion. A person is presumed to be notable if he's received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. If I see such sources, I'll gladly change my previously stated opinion to keep. — Rankiri (talk) 03:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge relevant content to Canadian Internet Registration Authority until such time as WP:RS can be found to support independent notability. If so, the article can be split off and recreated. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on the sources there is little reason to think the chair is more notable than the CEO or other directors, a merge will result in maintaining a list of board members on CIRA rather than relying on the current external link to the data. Ash (talk) 06:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a short stub. it might benefit from a section on key personnel including CEO, Chair and the like... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on the sources there is little reason to think the chair is more notable than the CEO or other directors, a merge will result in maintaining a list of board members on CIRA rather than relying on the current external link to the data. Ash (talk) 06:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The CIRA paragraph is the shortest section of the page. It only states that the subject has served on the Board of Directors of CIRA since 2000 and is currently the Chair and that throughout the years he has been actively involved in various CIRA committees. The rest of the article doesn't seem to have any relevance to CIRA's operations, so I think one can just copy this little snippet of information to the CIRA page by hand without any merging. — Rankiri (talk) 17:05, 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 no consensus. Cirt (talk) 22:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Spring project[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}} . |
- Spring project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Probably non-notable game. Despite the presence of a Refimprove tag on the page since June 2009, all the article's references are to the project's own websites (with the single exception of an interview with the developers). Psychonaut (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Nifboy (talk) 01:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can't find any evidence of notability for this video game. A search of MobyGames didn't turn up anything for this game in the way of reviews. Content-wise, the article contains a good deal of content inappropriate for an encyclopedia article (see WP:VGSCOPE). A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 23:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Is it asking too much of the nom to do a reasonable search on Google Scholar before nominating an article for deletion? Samboy (talk) 09:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- These papers have a very low number of citations, and no indication that they have been peer reviewed, so they don't lend any weight here. Marasmusine (talk) 12:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The scholar mentions above are trivial coverage I'm afraid. Using the game as a research method doesn't tell us much about the game. [9] is from a reliable source but not significant either. This project probably warrants a mention in the main TA article and that's about it. User:Krator (t c) 14:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's verifiable, then perhaps redirect to Total Annihilation and mention it there. Marasmusine (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 21:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The academic papers are about some AI planners, which were tested using this game, because it's open source. Pcap ping 00:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think this article provides useful information about a significant project. jonon (talk) 04:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What evidence do you have that the project is significant (in any sense relevant to Wikipedia policy)? —Psychonaut (talk) 11:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the significant numbers of mods and independent websites is relevant here (linked or discussed in article, 300k+ posts in main forum). Also, not many games can claim to have been used in published academic research. I think that covers notability; verifiability is not currently a problem for this article. jonon (talk) 10:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There are only a few active open source game projects, within that scope Spring is a notable player. Still the article needs work to convey that. --62.194.222.254 (talk) 01:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC) — 62.194.222.254 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- What sources can you bring to the table to convey its notability? Marasmusine (talk) 07:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, "Pure" a commercial game that can be purchased at http://impulsedriven.com/pure uses the Spring Engine. It's an independent source that can be noted. OpenSuse has a page on Spring here http://en.opensuse.org/Spring Ubuntu started shipping Spring in its latest 9.10 release. http://packages.ubuntu.com/karmic/spring-engine so is Debian http://packages.debian.org/unstable/spring http://www.moddb.com/engines/spring lists the Spring Engine as the only open source rts engine.--62.194.222.254 (talk) 23:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As much as I'd like to see this article survive, none of those count as reliable sources that provide significant coverage. --Teancum (talk) 20:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, "Pure" a commercial game that can be purchased at http://impulsedriven.com/pure uses the Spring Engine. It's an independent source that can be noted. OpenSuse has a page on Spring here http://en.opensuse.org/Spring Ubuntu started shipping Spring in its latest 9.10 release. http://packages.ubuntu.com/karmic/spring-engine so is Debian http://packages.debian.org/unstable/spring http://www.moddb.com/engines/spring lists the Spring Engine as the only open source rts engine.--62.194.222.254 (talk) 23:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment At the moment, this is looking a bit light on independant sourcing for a stand alone article. I like the merge to Total Annihilation idea, but it will need specific mention in the article to distinguish that its an open source project that grew out of the original. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Spring project is moving away from its Total Annihilation roots in a steady pace. In the sense that the developers are removing code that was written to support specific "TA" type gameplay. Even if someone merges this article with the Total Annihilation article.. Spring is a different subject matter. I think people visit Wikipedia to read up on the "Spring Project" not to read about "Total Annihilation". Personally I think that the article lacks quality. It opens with a section on "Source Code" and has a "Features" list that reads like a advertisement. Bad, bad, bad. And yes it's light on independent sourcing but it's there. And considering the fact that Linux distributions are picking it up now that there's good open source game content available - I suspect that there will be more people that "discover" Spring and start writing about it. It's simply one of the best open source Linux games out there. They kept a low profile when most good content was based on the "TA" IP but I don't see why that would continue.--62.194.222.254 (talk) 19:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The thing is that spring is not total annihilation, many of the projects are not in any way related to total annihilation. Projects such as http://www.imperialwinter.com/, http://spring1944.net/, both of which are pretty remarkable. I have to question the validity of such votes for deletion whenever the users in question have not actually looked into the matter at hand. In conclusion, rather than mark for deletion the users in question, being psychonaut(someone who seems to enjoy being troublesome) and Xymmax both be placed under watch. No research was done and they merely moved to delete on the grounds that spring was a game, when the article clearly cites that spring is an engine. One has to question the reading comprehension levels of these two or recognize that they did not give the article more than a cursory glance. Such behavior is reckless and unacceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.186.178.171 (talk) 00:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC) — 70.186.178.171 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- I would like to point out that those two websites are not reliable sources that provide significant coverage on the subject. 137.149.227.207 (talk) 00:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC) — 137.149.227.207 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Perhaps not, I am not a wikipedia janitor. All the effort to delete a page without trying to see if he could find an acceptable article. I do not think that psychonaut made the effort to even look. Had he looked he would have at least known enough to cite lack of reference rather than call it a game. Very lazy. I do not doubt that it is possible to say that such a small engine is obscure. However, that is not the point of argument. The point of argument is that spring is a game, which it is not. This whole discussion is because psychonaut doesn't do his homework. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.186.178.171 (talk) 01:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to point out that those two websites are not reliable sources that provide significant coverage on the subject. 137.149.227.207 (talk) 00:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC) — 137.149.227.207 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment - minor source, which I don't know are necessarily reliable 1 - covers Star Wars: Imperial Winter, which runs on the engine. Also these two articles use Spring as its basis for research, so though the engine isn't called by name a lot, it certainly adds notability --Teancum (talk) 20:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Small-scale non-commercial open source game engine...obviously not notable as per WP notability policy. 137.149.227.207 (talk) 23:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC) — 137.149.227.207 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Do you know a "large-scale" non-commercial open source game engine? Also Spring is actualy used in a commercial project, still I don't think it's relevant for Wikipedia if a project is or is not commercial.--62.194.222.254 (talk) 23:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My point exactly...it's small scale AND non-commercial AND not developed by a notable contiguous group or organization - all strikes against its notability. 137.149.227.207 (talk) 00:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your argumment is invalid, there are THOUSAND of non-commercial AND yet DISCONTINUED softwares being covered by Wikipedia, what do you consider contiguous group or organization? And Spring Project is under heavy development, each month its engine has an minor update and each semester it has a major update since its release, the development activity can be seen through its SourceForge.net page (also its files activities). There is a gap of dates in the files activies because these were published through other service rather than SourceForge. Your opinion lacks bias and further research, you are saying POV pretty things rather than being fair and yet non-tendentious. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 01:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My point exactly...it's small scale AND non-commercial AND not developed by a notable contiguous group or organization - all strikes against its notability. 137.149.227.207 (talk) 00:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you know a "large-scale" non-commercial open source game engine? Also Spring is actualy used in a commercial project, still I don't think it's relevant for Wikipedia if a project is or is not commercial.--62.194.222.254 (talk) 23:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Original citation notes spring as a game not engine. Therefore I move that the move for deletion was made on an incorrect understanding rather than an actual reason. The site mooddb has the spring engine listed with several projects. See: http://www.moddb.com/engines/spring. Entire rational for deletion was based on assumption that spring was a game rather than an engine. I move that the individual be reprimanded for improper usage of wikipedia and his deletion recommendations go under higher scrutiny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.186.178.171 (talk) 00:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep This article is about a open source game engine, what is rare. It should be said that both Wikipedia and Wikimedia aid open source community, so they both enforce the coverage of open source projects (following the guidelines of a good article of course), I don't wanna be offensive, but what is a non-notable game? To state something like that further research is needed, but someone from inside (a player) can do it, the Spring community features over than 10.000 registered users, the average online connections per client are 300, over than 20 simultaneous battles happen each minute (depending on lenght), it is a shame that some wiki users make some non rational without bias opinions, because of this article I became a Spring player and this article should be kept for its relevance. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 01:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Mentioned in at least 2 magazines: PCGamer (UK) February 2008, Cyberstratège July-August 2006. Also mentioned two times on slashdot. Open source engine, several games base on that, 1 commercial game. Gtwkndhpqu (talk) 01:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC) — Gtwkndhpqu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment The article really needs a cleanup to meet its guideline. A Copy-edit would do the thing for instance. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 01:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Eduemoni, could you perhaps make a few stub sections in the article so that people could have an idea of what needs to be entered? If only in the discussion section, I suspect that people like this neddiedrow guy might come back and do more edits.
- Keep Seems to be covered by enough sources to be notable. —Pengo 01:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. As persuasive as a tidal wave of WP:ILIKEIT, WP:IKNOWIT, WP:BIG and WP:LOTSOFSOURCES arguments may sound, the subject still needs to receive significant coverage in reliable secondary sources in order to satisfy Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. Regretfully, I wasn't able to find such sources myself and I don't see anything concrete in the discussion above. Perhaps I really did miss something after all. — Rankiri (talk) 03:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- please clarify what you mean by significant coverage in the context of an open source engine. Detail why is it that the engine is not notable, the specialization in rts gaming is a first for an open source engine of this calibur. At least as far as I have seen. Engines like ogre and irlich lend themselves to fps and third person games where as this engine is highly specialized for rts needs. How would one cite that?
- "Significant coverage" means that [independent, reliable, published] sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. Please visit WP:N and WP:RS for more information on the subject of notability. — Rankiri (talk) 05:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Starwars Imperial winter was featured in a magazine, does that represent one possible source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.186.178.171 (talk) 05:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure it represents a possible source for Star Wars Imperial Winter, but whether it represents a source for Spring is another matter. Does the article in question discuss Spring in any depth? Also, who publishes the magazine, and how and how widely is it distributed? —Psychonaut (talk) 10:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Starwars Imperial winter was featured in a magazine, does that represent one possible source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.186.178.171 (talk) 05:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- please clarify what you mean by significant coverage in the context of an open source engine. Detail why is it that the engine is not notable, the specialization in rts gaming is a first for an open source engine of this calibur. At least as far as I have seen. Engines like ogre and irlich lend themselves to fps and third person games where as this engine is highly specialized for rts needs. How would one cite that?
- Comment/Suggestion I'm an involved party (as a developer of a game using the Spring Engine, and community member), and thus biased, but I'd my opinion would be that the Engine compares quite favorably with eg. ioquake3 . I realise that itself does not have an own article, however I'm not sure where information on this Engine might best be tucked in. I'm afraid a section within the Total Annihilation article (as suggested further above) would be quite out of place, as the Engine is not derived of that game.
- I'd therefore suggest moving this article to "Spring (game engine)", overhauling the article itself (accordingly) and depending on the outcome of the overhaul, not deleting. I myself would be glad to take on those steps, and barring vocal opposition, would start on it soon. Regards Sean Heron (talk) 09:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC) (apologies, the anon was me)[reply]
- Comment I am an engine dev that's why I am biased too, still I find the argument of missing RS quite weak, e.g. OGRE does only link to their own website too. And having an entry in MobyGames says pretty less, because anyone can add it (-> even the developers of the game itself), not to forget that Spring is an engine and so it shouldn't be on MobyGames. Also Spring and its games are listed on several websites, e.g. The Linux Game Tome & Moddb. And merging it in the TA article wouldn't suit this project, because it's neither a TA clone nor is it a further development on the top of the original TA code, which was btw never be made open source as quake3. That's why the Spring project tries for a very long time now to distance itself from TA. It's true that the current Spring article doesn't reflect this enough (the whole header should be rewritten) and is overall in a bad state (it reads like a promotion text), but this doesn't legitimate a deletion as a whole in my opinion. Jk3064 (talk) 11:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because some other articles, such as OGRE, may lack reliable sources establishing notability is not a valid argument for keeping this article. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF for further details. If you find another article which also fails to meet Wikipedia's sourcing and notability criteria, then it should be tagged for deletion as well, not held as an example of why some other non-notable article should be kept. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- outside of the fact that you marked it for deletion because you incorrectly thought it was a game, and the fact that wikipedia is supposed to about information. Seems like all wikipedia cares about these days is how much buzz an item has and not the distribution of information. I really would like to know why you decided to pick on an open source engine for the wrong reasons and then decided to continue to pursue it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.186.178.171 (talk) 14:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't nominate this article for deletion because it was about a game; I nominated it because it didn't seem to be notable enough to merit an encyclopedia article here. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate collection of information, and nominating an article for deletion has no bearing on the nominator's personal feelings towards the subject. I'm a Free Software developer, user, and advocate myself, and the fact that Spring is "open source" has no bearing on this nomination. Indeed, if you review my contribution history you'll see that I nominated many other articles for deletion, probably including software, that have nothing to do with open source. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- outside of the fact that you marked it for deletion because you incorrectly thought it was a game, and the fact that wikipedia is supposed to about information. Seems like all wikipedia cares about these days is how much buzz an item has and not the distribution of information. I really would like to know why you decided to pick on an open source engine for the wrong reasons and then decided to continue to pursue it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.186.178.171 (talk) 14:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because some other articles, such as OGRE, may lack reliable sources establishing notability is not a valid argument for keeping this article. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF for further details. If you find another article which also fails to meet Wikipedia's sourcing and notability criteria, then it should be tagged for deletion as well, not held as an example of why some other non-notable article should be kept. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep 1 and 2 are Google Scholar links that are not trivial mentions as others had supposed. It's amazing what you'll find if you actually read more of the article than the little blurb. Both experiments use Spring as the basis, therefore increasing notability. On that note I think we as Wikipedians often throw out Google Scholar links for that reason. We think "Oh, Only see the article's title twice in the article, so they must be passing mentions." I'm not saying we all do that, but enough of us do to make it a problem. Additional refs provided above: PCGamer (UK) February 2008, Cyberstratège July-August 2006. Also mentioned two times on Slashdot. 1 - covers Star Wars: Imperial Winter, which runs on the engine. That's 7 good refs right there. Now We're getting too complacent with the "it's not on the list of reliable sources" arguement, instead of truly looking at the references provided. --Teancum (talk) 12:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the reference provide by User:Krator (videogamer.com) is also directly listed as a reliable source per WP:VG/S, and though a short blurb, can easily serve as a secondary reference, further adding notability. --Teancum (talk) 14:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Pardon me, but I have no good reason to believe that either magazine provided any type of significant coverage for the game. Both references come from a new user, who—no offense—seems to be unfamiliar with the concept of WP:RS. Slashdot entries are user-submitted. Cyberstratège's website shows no coverage of the game. PCGamer UK doesn't list the project in its database and shows zero search results for "Spring". This PCGamer UK forum discussion[10] indicates that the game may have been included on PCGamer's disk because of a user request. Such disks are always filled with mods, demos and other not necessarily notable freeware so I doubt this alone demonstrates any kind of notability for the game/engine. One of the mentioned Google Scholar documents offers extremely limited, trivial coverage. The other one goes into some details but it I agree with Marasmusine and decline to view it as a single notability-establishing source (see [11] and other similar discussions). — Rankiri (talk) 14:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Though I don't own the issue, evidence of the Spring engine in PCGamer can be found here. PCGamer's web search engine is not exactly reliable when it comes to digging up articles. A scan of the writeup can be found here, which covers both the engine and the Star Wars: Imperial Winter game. The Cyberstratège article can be found covered on their website. Once again a mere writeup is only found online. The print version goes more in-depth. Finding both sources took me all of five minutes. As far as the link you provided about the Google Scholar discussions, I fail to see how that would apply to the particular sources mentioned here. Both sources use Spring as the basis for the entire paper. If I write a paper on blood flow and only mention the heart once, does that make the heart not notable even though without it I could not conduct my analysis? --Teancum (talk) 16:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- From what I can tell, the scanned article is dedicated to Star Wars Spring and only contains a single reference to the engine itself:The rather cheerily(?) named Spring engine is a live framework for making RTS games, most notably the loving Total Anniilation remake Spring:TA.. According to WP:NOTINHERITED, notability of a child project is not particularly relevant to that of its parent. We had a very similar discussion for the Halo engine about a year ago: WP:Articles for deletion/Halo Engine. When seen as an open source RTS game engine, Spring doesn't seem to have any type of independent nontrivial coverage of its own. — Rankiri (talk) 16:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Those magazines are commercial and have a certain business model. Their product is made of dead trees which you can't link. Due to their business model they might not see any value in putting (years old) editions online for free. Articles about games are (mostly) limited to pc magazines. News papers don't have gamers as primary target audience.Gtwkndhpqu (talk) 17:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional source found at Linux Game Zoo --Teancum (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Meatpuppetry notice: http://springrts.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=21972&start=0 — Rankiri (talk) 14:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- cute, so because those of us who actually know about the engine have been asked to try and help sort the issue you call it sock puppetry. Where are the individuals debating the points coming from? Checking latest revisions I suppose. So you guys have a dynamic thread of stuff being altered that you can pick and choose what battles you get to fight. Seems to be a bit hypocritical to say meat puppet when you have an entire wiki community. Again, I want to know what is notable. your notability link is ambiguous and suggests that essentially only buzz equals notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.186.178.171 (talk) 16:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not calling anyone a sockpuppet. A disproportionate number of unregistered and new users joined the discussion without fully understanding Wikipedia's core principles and policies. The notice is only a call for additional attention to the strengths of the arguments. If your viewpoint is supported by Wikipedia's key policies, it will not be dismissed no matter how many edits you have. — Rankiri (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Rankiri and the people arguing for deletion are calling an engine a game. Seems fairly uninformed, so why is it wrong to ask people to come and clarify the misconception. I have appealed for common decency and asked what is it that needs to change and yet you guys give us some ambiguous articles and say not good enough to each attempt to find something that appeals to your standards. Why not make the effort to help clean up the article, and find some of what you consider valid sources? It seems to me that no matter what is done, you guys will regard the engine and not notable and have it deleted, so why should we bother to try? Honestly, the guy neddiedrow is trying to make a version that will be up to snuff. Rather than demanding deletion, why not help get it in order? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.186.178.171 (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- cute, so because those of us who actually know about the engine have been asked to try and help sort the issue you call it sock puppetry. Where are the individuals debating the points coming from? Checking latest revisions I suppose. So you guys have a dynamic thread of stuff being altered that you can pick and choose what battles you get to fight. Seems to be a bit hypocritical to say meat puppet when you have an entire wiki community. Again, I want to know what is notable. your notability link is ambiguous and suggests that essentially only buzz equals notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.186.178.171 (talk) 16:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ... that article is moderately hilarious, since it defines an arbitrary, unheard-of version of puppetry (contacting the relevant parties and informing them of AFD is meat puppetry???) and then utterly fails to mention it again, instead going on to discuss the wholly separate issue of sockpuppet accounts. Once again, a reminder of how Wikipedia is like lawmaking and sausage-making. -[User:Pxtl] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pxtl (talk • contribs) 17:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I do not have the time to involve myself overmuch in Wiki politics, which is the primary force behind most, if not all, deletions and topic reviews. Nor will I make references to Wikipedia policy, as discussion of such, rather than action on the basis of such, is usually fruitless. The article itself is poor, being a hold-over from a Wikipedia long past and I am now rewriting it to both serve the project and Wikipedia better. This will take some time, as I am busy with professional life - but the primary change you should be aware of is that, since Spring is not a game, but an engine, it will be listed as such. It will meet notability guidelines, as will any of the specific game articles which I choose write thereafter. However, I must note a fundamental problem with the notability guidelines in regard to open source software - notability as shown on Wikipedia is established through academic articles, reviews, and pop-culture references; without the support of commercial advertising and a commercial advertising budget, these seldom appear - when they do, in the case of various Linux distributions and alternatives to commercial software, this is due to a dedicated group of people willing to invest copious amounts of their own resources in advertisement. We cannot cite the number of people who use the software, that is not grounds for notability, nor are the novel features of the engine. We do not have the money to pay people to review or use our software, and if we did, those people would still need to meet the subjective standards of [independent, reliable, published]. Luckily, this will not be a problem, since it is used enough academically by virtue of functionality and quality. Neddiedrow (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As for the desire for more attention to be paid to the people who recently joined the discussion, I can only say that there should be more scrutiny levelled against those who assert such - contribution by newer, interested users is not a manifestation of Meatpuppetry, in general or in this case. My statement here is in response to a rather egregious failure to assume good faith on the part of the participants. It is worth noting that citation of policy is not a substitute for argumentation, rather it is meant as augmentation to such, and the assertion that those who recently joined the discussion do not understand Wikipedia policy is generally unfounded and unnecessarily aggressive - Wikipedia policy is dependent upon interpretation, many articles are viewed under one standard, others under another. Anyway, my keep is on the basis that it will be replaced with a more accurate article, which I am writing. In the event that this article is deleted before the completion of the replacement, that is no problem, an article dealing with Spring and in line with policy will be put up when it is completed. In no case should this article be merged with that of Total Annihilation, they are substantively different and one is not dependent upon the other. Spring is a platform for a variety of commercial and non-commercial games, the notable of which will be added independently to Wikipedia after I rewrite this article. Neddiedrow (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Let me reiterate something I said earlier: when treated as a game engine (and in fact, both the Wikipedia article and its own About and Download pages treat it as such), the Spring project doesn't have any direct coverage in any of the above mentioned sources. PC Gamer UK only looks at Star Wars Spring, Cyberstratège appears to provide a strategy guide for TA Spring, the only nontrivial Google Scholar document deals with Total Annihilation: Spring and LinuxGameZoo particularly declares that its review covers the TA Spring version, [a]s Opposed to just the reference “Spring” as in the Project named “The Spring Project. I think the main problem with this article is that wants to be all at once. If this project has several separately developed spinoffs, mods, etc., it may be best to treat them as all individually, as separate subjects with their respective pages. But you can't provide a bunch of loosely associated sources that don't address the subject directly (and generally don't even mention it at all) and call them indicative of notability. That's the essence of my view. — Rankiri (talk) 21:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Spring is free software, you're free to try it yourself - if you did, you'd find out how Spring does not follow the pattern typical of most closed-source engines, or OGRE-like engines that were more libraries than full platforms. Most game/mod developers on Spring do not bundle their content as a complete game installation, but as a package-file for Spring. That is, players get Spring, and then their game. The forum is a shared space. The game lobby (where multiplayer games are organized) is a shared space. The torrent-file distribution system is a shared space. Maps are interoperable. That is to say, presenting Spring as an aggregate of the projects available for it is quite appropriate, since currently that's how the projects present themselves - as Spring packages, rather than stand-alone games. The exceptions to this rule are developing, more ambitious project that were not mentioned in the above references (well Star Wars Spring is now, but it was not at the time of the articles on it). I realize the AFD discussion is over, I just felt that this issue had to be cleared up. Either way, I agree that this article probably falls on the darkish-grey side of Notability and needs a hell of a clean-up, but I'm a firm inclusionist. Hopefully this AFD mess will encourage people to pare the article down to Wikipedia standards. Pxtl (talk) 23:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TripleA (computer game)[edit]
- TripleA (computer game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Apparently non-notable game. Article cites no independent third-party sources. Psychonaut (talk) 23:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Nifboy (talk) 01:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can't find any evidence of notability for this video game. A search of MobyGames didn't turn up anything for this game in the way of reviews. Wikipedia is not a game guide, but parts of this article read thus. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 23:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just want to state that there is a somewhat large Community out there playing this game in play-by-email games, as an online variant of Axis and Allies. In my opinion, if axis and allies is noteworthy, this is too. Also this article provided me with a lot of useful information if that counts for anything. -- 85.181.110.208 (talk) 22:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep mentioned in this scholarly paper as well as this scholarly paper. As an aside, the nominator has been making a huge number of deletions of game articles without doing any real due diligence looking for sources. For example, sources for TripleA can be found with a simple Google Scholar search which the nom did not bother to do. Samboy (talk) 08:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The nominator was well aware of those student dissertations. They are not peer-reviewed published works the same way other "scholarly publications" are and thus cannot be used to established notability. Besides which, TripleA is the primary subject of neither of these dissertations; it is simply mentioned in both works as being used in their respective AI projects. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are only two papers on the Google Scholar search that are actually relevant. They have received no citations and no indication that they have been peer reviewed. Samboy, please read WP:AGF. Marasmusine (talk) 12:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - does not appear to be verifiable through reliable, independent sources. Marasmusine (talk) 12:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 21:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Samboy. LotLE×talk 01:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Psychonaut, the papers are not about the game and so do not grant it notability, they just happen to use the game. There's already a paragraph about this game in the [Axis and Allies] article, and the link to the official website could always be added as a source for that paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VernoWhitney (talk • contribs) 19:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The references mentioned in this discussion do not establish notability, and so far no other valid arguments for keeping have been brought forward. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:47, 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. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Free Internet Chess Server[edit]
I'd like to think the subject of this article is notable, but unfortunately no one has come forth with any independent third-party sources since the article was tagged as needing them in April 2008. Anyone? Psychonaut (talk) 23:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - it is certainly highly notable in chess circles. One of the biggest chess sites [12], one of the oldest servers[13],described as one of the top three chess servers[14], widespread coverage[15], and even references in learned papers[16]. Arguably the most highly respected chess site, Chessbase, states "The Free Internet Chess Server is where it all started. Just about every major chess server used the FICS kernel as its code base." [17] Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Bridgeplayer appears to have everything right (except the game he plays). Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Nifboy (talk) 01:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The widespread coverage[18] in so many books is convincing. SunCreator (talk) 14:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep One of THE oldest internet chess servers deserves a better fate than deletion. It certainly is notable enough, plus the diffs provided above should be enough for sourcing issues. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 21:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, per Bridgeplayer. GrandMattster 21:35, 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. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 07:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clayton Schock[edit]
- Clayton Schock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This individual does not appear notable. Candidates are typically not deemed notable on Wikipedia just because they are candidates. His career has no citations of notability, and his political citations only indicate that he is running. Nothing cited indicates that his candidacy in itself is notable. Therefore, I respectfully nominate this article for deletion. SoxFan999 (talk) 23:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the article even states, in so many words, that he has no chance. He wildly fails WP:POLITICIAN for that reason. Bearian (talk) 02:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No indication of notability from any of those sources, and WP:POLITICIAN already has these considerations in mind. Individual additions to the ballot, and having that fact reported on, does not establish notability. Shadowjams (talk) 07:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:POLITICIAN and I'm not finding any independent sources that satisfy WP:BIO in general. PDCook (talk) 21:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:POLITICIAN. JBsupreme (talk) 22:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It doesn't surprise me that Soxfan999 has nominated this article. If you look at his history of contribution's you will see that he has negatively edited everything having to do with the Florida Whig Party. This is a personal attack from the Modern Whig Party a group in which the FWP was once affiliated with. The attacks started instantly after Florida cut ties with the MWP. To say this party and it candidates are not notable is absurd. Look at the articles in reference that explain that the Florida Whig party and its candidates have made history in Florida simply by running the most ever third party candidates for Federal office in the States history. Look at the edit history and say that this is not personal. why has he never contributed to any thing besides the FWP article and the MWP's article and in the Florida Candidates articles?Jrogoski (talk) 11:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- attacking a new wikipedia editor doesn't take away from the underlying fact that the subject is not notable. This entry appears to be more of an ad for ITT Tech. If the party is notable for running candidates, then it is more appropriate on the party page and not a separate entry for some who is not notable. Also, typically the creator of a page doesn't vote. And for the record, I'm a Republican and am not affiliated with a third party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SoxFan999 (talk • contribs) 11:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see why a page creator shouldn't !vote. If they can layout a reasonable defense as to why the article should be kept, then by all means they should. However, this article simply does not meet WP:POLITICIAN and there are no reliable sources to satisfy the notability guidelines. PDCook (talk) 20:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- attacking a new wikipedia editor doesn't take away from the underlying fact that the subject is not notable. This entry appears to be more of an ad for ITT Tech. If the party is notable for running candidates, then it is more appropriate on the party page and not a separate entry for some who is not notable. Also, typically the creator of a page doesn't vote. And for the record, I'm a Republican and am not affiliated with a third party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SoxFan999 (talk • contribs) 11:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete does not meet WP:POLITICIAN, no reliable sources to meet general notability guidelines. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 15:52, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Phoinix (software)[edit]
- Phoinix (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Possibly non-notable software. I can't find any independent third-party sources, except for mentions on some websites which probably don't count as reliable sources. Psychonaut (talk) 23:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 01:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Nifboy (talk) 01:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. Note that this is a Game Boy emulator. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Speedy Redirect to List of video game console emulators, not notable as its own page. CTJF83 chat 07:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of video game console emulators. No significant coverage found, but it's a plausible search term. --Teancum (talk) 12:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nominator. No significant coverage has been found. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:48, 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. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 08:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
GNUlactic Konquest[edit]
- GNUlactic Konquest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable video game. A sources cleanup tag has been languishing on the article since January 2007. Article includes no independent references except for a blog review. Psychonaut (talk) 23:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Nifboy (talk) 01:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this game. Joe Chill (talk) 03:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - has received no coverage from reliable, independent sources. Marasmusine (talk) 12:52, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fracas (Windows game)[edit]
- Fracas (Windows game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable video game. No independent third-party sources apart from a couple reviews on blogs. Psychonaut (talk) 23:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless sources other than blogs can be found. RadManCF (talk) 23:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete - no indication of notability in article, and the ghits are of a similar quality.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 23:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Nifboy (talk) 01:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nominator. No significant coverage has been found. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:49, 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. There was considerable discussion concerning whether the subject meets WP:POLITICIAN, but taken as a whole, the discussion seems to support inclusion at least under the WP:GNG. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 12:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mercedes Tenorio[edit]
- Mercedes Tenorio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete. Not finding the notability for this one. JBsupreme (talk) 23:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep given that the subject is running for vice president of Nicuragua, I would assume notability. RadManCF (talk) 23:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CommentKeep. Moving to keep now as being satisfied from the discussion below that there is significant coverage of the subject. My earlier comment was: As she only polled 0.27%, her candidacy does not exactly get her to WP:POLITICIAN. Running for Vice President does not create an assumption or presumption of notability. There appears to be some coverage that could be relevant to WP:GNG so I'll wait until someone who can speak Spanish can tell us what's in them. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Mkativerata (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as article fails WP:POLITICIAN. Armbrust Talk Contribs 23:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. She's a candidate for vice-president of a country. Talk about systemic bias - sheesh! Rebecca (talk) 01:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Which criteria for inclusion do you suppose that this person meets? JBsupreme (talk) 10:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Politicians. #3. "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". Mkativerata's links show more than enough articles on Google News alone to clearly show this. Rebecca (talk) 11:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet another "look at the search results" answer. Have you even looked at them? All of them from a few months in 2006, when her party got a tiny proportion of the vote. There's only one (I think) that says anything more than "She is running for vice president", and that appears to just be an interview. There is no 'critical analysis', no biographical details, nothing else about her political career. That does not constitute significant coverage. Quantpole (talk) 15:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I see at least four which appear at a glance to go into further depth about the subject, including one which looks to contain some useful further biographical details - amidst a good twenty in total. You don't get to discount sources about a candidate in a Spanish-speaking country because you can't speak Spanish. That should be good enough; for further proof there's an interesting interview with her here Rebecca (talk) 15:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've gone through every one of the 17 linked. I've used google translate which whilst not being totally accurate, at least gives a rough idea. This and [19] are the only useful ones I can find. I'd be interested to see what the other 2 you think go into more depth say. For someone running for vice president I think that is very low coverage, and well in the realm of WP:BIO1E to boot. Quantpole (talk) 15:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC) (Edit conflict)[reply]
- Well, apart from the part where she's also a trade union leader. If she was in the United States we wouldn't be having this conversation. Moreover, have you actually read the two articles you just cited? More than enough there to create a good little article. Rebecca (talk) 15:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes we would. And I would be just as likely to advise deletion on an australian politician of dubious notability too. Quantpole (talk) 15:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see you trying to delete Chuck Baldwin, who polled a similar amount of the vote to Tenorio. She's a vice-presidential candidate; she's a trade union leader; we have enough sources for a good article on her - she clearly meets WP:POLITICIAN, and this nomination should be withdrawn.Rebecca (talk) 15:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes we would. And I would be just as likely to advise deletion on an australian politician of dubious notability too. Quantpole (talk) 15:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, apart from the part where she's also a trade union leader. If she was in the United States we wouldn't be having this conversation. Moreover, have you actually read the two articles you just cited? More than enough there to create a good little article. Rebecca (talk) 15:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've gone through every one of the 17 linked. I've used google translate which whilst not being totally accurate, at least gives a rough idea. This and [19] are the only useful ones I can find. I'd be interested to see what the other 2 you think go into more depth say. For someone running for vice president I think that is very low coverage, and well in the realm of WP:BIO1E to boot. Quantpole (talk) 15:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC) (Edit conflict)[reply]
- I see at least four which appear at a glance to go into further depth about the subject, including one which looks to contain some useful further biographical details - amidst a good twenty in total. You don't get to discount sources about a candidate in a Spanish-speaking country because you can't speak Spanish. That should be good enough; for further proof there's an interesting interview with her here Rebecca (talk) 15:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet another "look at the search results" answer. Have you even looked at them? All of them from a few months in 2006, when her party got a tiny proportion of the vote. There's only one (I think) that says anything more than "She is running for vice president", and that appears to just be an interview. There is no 'critical analysis', no biographical details, nothing else about her political career. That does not constitute significant coverage. Quantpole (talk) 15:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Politicians. #3. "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". Mkativerata's links show more than enough articles on Google News alone to clearly show this. Rebecca (talk) 11:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Which criteria for inclusion do you suppose that this person meets? JBsupreme (talk) 10:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Per my reasoning above. Quantpole (talk) 15:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (after e/c) - vice presidential candidacy isn't really enough on its own, but there's a bit more: she's a trade union leader, not just an activist, and is this her? It sounds likely. This article, in Spanish, provides lots of information to flesh out the article, but nothing which sounds particularly notable - I'm neutral as to whether, all together, this is quite enough to merit an article. Warofdreams talk 15:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The material presented by the various editors above is enough to support an article. DGG ( talk ) 18:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sources such as this article provided by Warofdreams (talk · contribs) prove that the subject passes WP:BIO. Cunard (talk) 05:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OpenMoHAA[edit]
- OpenMoHAA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable software that hasn't even been implemented yet. Notability and primarysources tags have been languishing since March 2009. Psychonaut (talk) 23:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This one is a borderline speedy in my opinion. JBsupreme (talk) 23:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Under what criterion could it be speedied? We have one for non-notable people, companies, web content, and music, but not one for software. —Psychonaut (talk) 00:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Nifboy (talk) 00:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 01:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Maybe next year or the year after it will be notable software; right now it is just a good intention. LotLE×talk 01:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 03:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nominator. No significant coverage has been found. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:49, 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. Cirt (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
01 Raffles Scout Group[edit]
- 01 Raffles Scout Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article on a Scout Group has been created over a redirect to The Singapore Scout Association. This redirect was the result of the discussion at Talk:The Singapore Scout Association#Merge of Group articles. An article on the 01 Raffles Scout Group was one of the Group articles discussed there in 2006. This new article is not identical to the earlier article. Indeed if it had been, I would simply have reverted the new edits back to the redirect as there was no opposition to the merge in 2006. The new article is indeed better than the old one, but it still does not meet wikipedia guidelines for a stand-alone article. There are very few articles on Scout Groups for the simple reason that Scout Groups are generally not notable. To be notable, they have to be either very old or very large and even then there may be no reliable sources. This article makes no real claim to notability. "established itself as one of the most outstanding scouting groups in Singapore" is clearly not enough. The references regarding "A very special walk" mention the Group only in passing. They do not demonstrate notability. Other sources are to the web pages of the group or school itself. The School is notable and has an article at Raffles Institution (Secondary). That article makes mention of the Scout Group here. I proposed merging to The Singapore Scout Association which would essentially be a revert to the redirect made in 2006. That discussion here, received strong support from participants in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting but it was challenged by the editor who created this version. I have decided to bring it here to get wider discussion. I propose that it be reverted to the redirect to The Singapore Scout Association and fully protected to prevent recreation. Before this is done some material should be moved to Raffles Institution (Secondary) and a mention to The Singapore Scout Association. Bduke (Discussion) 23:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with Bduke Excellent summary Bduke. To me this article reads like a vanity piece and does not meet wiki notability criterion. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with Bduke, and fully protect to prevent recreation. Unless these guys are the first camping trip to the moon, they're no more notable than many other troops.--Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 01:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, this article has been duplicated in whole as the editor's userpage. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 01:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No evidence of notability. –Psychonaut (talk) 21:09, 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 as per consensus. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stratagus[edit]
- Stratagus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable game. No independent third-party sources. A {{primarysources}} cleanup tag has been languishing on the article since May 2008. Psychonaut (talk) 23:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep Article could be salvaged if better sources were found.RadManCF (talk) 23:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And how many more years do you propose we wait for them to be found? The sources tag has already been there since May 2008. —Psychonaut (talk) 00:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Nifboy (talk) 01:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Originally tagged by User:VDZ. Flatscan (talk) 05:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Some references in the article’s talk page follow. Also, a Google Books search result as well as a a Google Scholar search result. Considering the wide number of references to this game in reliable publications, I wonder if the nominator made a good-faith effort to see if there were references for this game in reliable sources before nominating it for deletion Samboy (talk) 03:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The following research papers refer to Stratagus, as described on the talk page:
- Ponsen, M. J. V., Lee-Urban, S., Muoz-Avila, H., Aha, D. W., & Molineaux, M. Stratagus: An open-source game engine for research in real-time strategy games. Technical Report AIC-05-127, Naval Research Laboratory, Navy Center for Applied Research in Artificial Intelligence. 2005.
- Ponsen, M., Muñoz-Avila, H., Spronck, P., & Aha, D. W. Automatically Generating Game Tactics with Evolutionary Learning. AI Magazine. 2006, Vol. 27, 3.
- Molineaux, M., Aha, D.W., & Ponsen, M.J.V. Defeating novel opponents in a real-time strategy game. Reasoning, Representation, and Learning in Computer Games: Papers from the IJCAI Workshop (Technical Report AIC-05-127). 2005.
- Chan, H., Fern, A., Ray, S., Wilson, N., & Ventura, C. Extending Online Planning for Resource Production in Real-Time Strategy Games with Search. Proceedings of the ICAPS Workshop on Planning in Games. 2007.
- Marthi, B., Russell, S., & Latham, D. Writing Stratagus-Playing Agents in Concurrent ALisp. Proceedings of IJCAI-05 Workshop on Reasoning, Representation, and Learning in Computer Games. 2005.
- Ponsen, M.J.V., Spronck, P., & Tuyls, K. Hierarchical Reinforcement Learning with Deictic Representation in a Computer Game. 18th Benelux Conference on Artificial Intelligence (BNAIC). 2006. Samboy (talk) 03:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- According to Google Scholar, these appear to have a very low number of, or zero, citations. Have any of them appeared in peer-reviewed journals? Marasmusine (talk) 13:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ponsen, M.J.V., Spronck, P., & Tuyls, K. Hierarchical Reinforcement Learning with Deictic Representation in a Computer Game. 18th Benelux Conference on Artificial Intelligence (BNAIC). 2006. Samboy (talk) 03:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per sources in article and those located by Samboy. LotLE×talk 20:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep people have threatened this article before, and it has always been defended. That alone shows notability, and I do believe somewhere there is a ruling that says if deletion attempts are fought off several times than that helps prove that it is notable. I know there is something like this on Wikiquote but quite frankly the same general rule should apply here. At any rate, like most free engines Linux users like it, free software advocates like it, and as is previously listed in this page, academics like it. Comrade Graham (talk) 02:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe there is no such ruling; in fact, we have a policy to the contrary: WP:CCC. Marasmusine (talk) 12:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Me thinks you might have misinterpreted my point, past support does not make it currently notable but it suggests that it might, and even that was not my defence for the article so I don't see any reason to bother with that further. Just to note I have added the Slashdot article on the FreeCraft cease and desist incident, and if I need to I will dig up some more sources. However, even to those that might question the notability I have to say that the engine itself is notable for its article, but maybe some of the games are not. Bos Wars has its own article, and I would suggest that if I need to satisfy the minority of people who want this, and most other articles, deleted that we merge that into this article and work on making this article talk about the engine and the various game it powers. This includes it from a programming and academic perspective, since there are all those studies listed above. Also, to anyone who will just see this post and threaten the Bos Wars article for deletion rather than merging, I will just that that is a tacky and tasteless tactic. Comrade Graham (talk) 01:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Forgive me if I'm misinterpreting you again, but it sounds like you used a "Well, X has it's own article" argument, then asked us not to look to see if X actually needs an article? Anyway, no matter: I find the O'Reilly-published article by Howard Wen satisfactory for the general notability guidelines, and therefore my opinion is to keep this topic. Marasmusine (talk) 11:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I am glad that we were able to come to an agreement thanks to that source. Good debate everybody. Just to note again, you have misinterpreted me citing the Bos Wars article. :-P I was not suggesting article notability, I was suggesting a compromise to make one definite article on Stratagus and related games because all together I am sure that they would be pretty damn notable. I was not saying that Bos Wars seems notable and thus the engine probably is. At any rate, we have a result, conesus seems to be forming that we have strengthened sources to at least a certain extent. Yay! Comrade Graham (talk) 20:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Forgive me if I'm misinterpreting you again, but it sounds like you used a "Well, X has it's own article" argument, then asked us not to look to see if X actually needs an article? Anyway, no matter: I find the O'Reilly-published article by Howard Wen satisfactory for the general notability guidelines, and therefore my opinion is to keep this topic. Marasmusine (talk) 11:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Me thinks you might have misinterpreted my point, past support does not make it currently notable but it suggests that it might, and even that was not my defence for the article so I don't see any reason to bother with that further. Just to note I have added the Slashdot article on the FreeCraft cease and desist incident, and if I need to I will dig up some more sources. However, even to those that might question the notability I have to say that the engine itself is notable for its article, but maybe some of the games are not. Bos Wars has its own article, and I would suggest that if I need to satisfy the minority of people who want this, and most other articles, deleted that we merge that into this article and work on making this article talk about the engine and the various game it powers. This includes it from a programming and academic perspective, since there are all those studies listed above. Also, to anyone who will just see this post and threaten the Bos Wars article for deletion rather than merging, I will just that that is a tacky and tasteless tactic. Comrade Graham (talk) 01:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe there is no such ruling; in fact, we have a policy to the contrary: WP:CCC. Marasmusine (talk) 12:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The articles from Slashdot[20] and O'Reilly's Linus Dev-Center[21] are sufficient to establish notability¨¨ victor falk 06:49, 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 consensus for keep . Non-admin closure. ¨¨ victor falk 15:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SuperTuxKart[edit]
- SuperTuxKart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable alpha software. All the references are to the developers' own logs and release notes. Psychonaut (talk) 23:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, or more specifically the lack of non-trivial coverage by reliable third party publishers. TuxKart should be deleted as well. JBsupreme (talk) 23:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notable as a non-trivial inclusion in most Linux distros. And mildly notable for it's participation in Happy Penguin's GotM project. However, A merge between this and Tuxkart would probably make sense, they're basically different editions of the same game. APL (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is nice and all, but how does that fit into the framework of our notability guidelines? Are you finding any evidence of non-trivial coverage of this specific game title from reliable third party sources? JBsupreme (talk) 00:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Nifboy (talk) 00:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 01:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this game. Joe Chill (talk) 03:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've also added a reference to Full Circle Magazine. APL (talk) 03:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weakkeep or merge to Mario Kart as a fangame. Besides the coverage found by User:APL(link see p. 31), it's also covered here; while this review is written on a download page, it's clearly written by their staff, not copied, as they say it's a fangame and give their impressions on it. The same observation applies to the Softonic review. It is also included in the "best 85 free games" (not limited to Linux ones) in de:PC-Welt at position 70 (link, direct link to blurb. Also reviewed in a Download Squad entry, which is a syndcated blog owned by AOL (so, not self-pub). Pcap ping 09:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Also covered in a round-up article in Linux Journal. This newsletter indicates that it was covered in issue 106 of Linux Format as well (subscription needed for full text of the magazine, but a 5-paragraph coverage was reproduced in the newsletter itself). There's also a paragraph about it in this story on Foresight Linux Kid's Edition. There's enough material in all these independent takes on it for a decent write-up here. Pcap ping 09:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - several Linux-based reliable sources have been posted. --Teancum (talk) 12:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - It is included with many Linux distributions, and has several sources. If worse comes to worse, at least merge it with TuxKart.
- I would just like to add, look at the reception section for proof of notability.Comrade Hamish Wilson (talk) 00:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - There are already many good arguments here, I might only add that it is a Linux and free software classic. Comrade Graham (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Pcap's sources seem OK. None of the other arguments are very good. SharkD Talk 08:51, 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.
Keep per consensus. Satisfying sources found and nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. walk victor falk talk 01:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tux, of Math Command[edit]
- Tux, of Math Command (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable game. The article's references have only passing mentions of the software being available somewhere, and/or are not reliable sources (school newsletters, etc.). Psychonaut (talk) 23:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep WP:RS does not seem to preclude the use of school newsletters as sources. Also the article is well written, though some things could be improved. Lastly, the use of free software in an educational setting strikes me as notable. RadManCF (talk) 23:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm pretty sure a school newsletter would count as one of the self-published sources that WP:RS says should be avoided. Besides which, I believe the newsletter in question merely mentions the software's availability at the school; this doesn't count as significant coverage. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Nifboy (talk) 01:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete School newsletters in past RFD's have not been considered Reliable or Reputable sources. Now a local newspaper plus some TV coverage or some other newspaper/trade magazine coverage would qualify. Something from a school newsletter...WP:RS has this to say "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." Salt the earth with this one, Admin. --Brian(view my history)/(How am I doing?) 03:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 21:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Article in Linux Journal. Also, has a blurb in this book. Also in a roundup on Techtree and another in LinuxPlanet, discussed in this Linux.com article on educational software, and mentioned in Business Line a mainstream business newspaper, not focused on Linux. Pcap ping 22:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Two Linux.com sources seem convincing. LotLE×talk 23:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Added sources to the article from this debate. Prof of notability. Well done everybody! ;)Comrade Hamish Wilson (talk) 00:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Sources are amazingly good for an article on a topic like this and the game is a very good example of a both free software and GNU/Linux compatible educational game. I don't like this anti-free and anti-GNU/Linux bias that seems to be evident among deletionists, since both, largely the former, are what helped give life to Wikipedia in the first place. Comrade Graham (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The Linux Journal article doesn't cover the game extensively but is an example of the kind of source games need, linux or no. The others presented help to form a very basic level of notability. I'm not sure about the linux.com article, the site distances itself from the articles it hosts rather than backs them up. However, this review from download site Softpedia looks OK. Admittedly I can't find any editorial information, but it's an 'editor's review' from a longstanding download site. Someoneanother 00:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep or merge to a broader article. Few of the references added qualify as reliable sources; I hope that the contributing editors can review WP:RS. Of the usable sources, only one represents significant coverage (Linux Journal) - we would normally ask for more for a standalone article. Marasmusine (talk) 08:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep per LotLE Cheers!☮ —Ecw.Technoid.Dweeb | contributions | talk | If you reply somewhere other than my talk, please talkback me. 15:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as nominator. I'm pleased to see that the discussion here has turned up some acceptable sources for this subject. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:50, 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. Cirt (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kate Henry[edit]
- Kate Henry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Actress who plays minor, mostly unnamed, characters. Google search not turning up evidence of meeting WP:BIO. Prod contested without comment. Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Searching on "Kate Henry" is a bit difficult given that it's a common name, but I'm not finding any reliable sources that would help to establish her notability. As nom says seems to have only played minor roles, so all indications are that she does not pass WP:ENTERTAINER. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not easy to find sources and no reason to look too hard because all of the unsourced evidence presented thus far fails notability guidelines anyway, even if sources could be found to back it up. Polargeo (talk) 14:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Obscure 7triton7 (talk) 11:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weaker delete. I think this could well be a case of "not yet". Just not enough coverage of her personally (interviews, etc) to justify a claim of notability at the moment. Wikipeterproject (talk) 10:29, 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. Cirt (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hassan Sabra[edit]
- Hassan Sabra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A hoax Matthew_hk tc 23:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Article appears to be a hoax. There was a Hassan Sabra who played for Tadamon Sour years ago, but he certainly isn't the same person this article is about (would have been 8 or 9 years old at the time). No other reliable sources have records of the person born in 1990. Jogurney (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It should be keep if enough information to upgrade the article for his namesake. Matthew_hk tc 23:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hassan Sabra is a real player in Lebanon. I know him. But he is in his 20s. I fixed this but if wikipedia feel it should be deleted then go ahead and delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.110.96.4 (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - possibly real person, probably hoax information. Lebanon quite simply did not play that many internationals in the time period. No evidence such a player played for them. no coveage of note --ClubOranjeT 10:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete I cannot find Reliable sources to back up the info in this article. andyzweb (talk) 00:03, 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. Cirt (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Teeworlds[edit]
- Teeworlds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable game. Notability/sources cleanup tags have remained dormant on the article since June 2008. The article has no references to independent third-party sources, save a single review on a rather amateurish blog. Psychonaut (talk) 23:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Nifboy (talk) 01:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Although I admit it is a great game, it isn't notable. Quickly looked for sources, but only found a few forum posts. Blake (Talk·Edits) 01:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As found by clicking on "Scholar" above, this is discussed in “Usability heuristics for networked multiplayer games”, written by David Pinelle (National Research Council, Fredericton, NB, Canada), Nelson Wong (University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada), Tadeusz Stach (Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada), and Carl Gutwin (University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada), published in “Proceedings of the ACM 2009 international conference on Supporting group work”. Samboy (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to broader topic - Here is the full text of the paper. Coverage is one paragraph describing the multiplayer usability of the game. Verifiable, but not particularly significant coverage. Marasmusine (talk) 16:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nominator. The source cited by Samboy does not establish notability for the game, and nothing else has turned up. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:52, 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. Cirt (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ToME (video game)[edit]
- ToME (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Apparently non-notable game. Article makes no claim of notability, and a "article does not cite any references or sources" cleanup tag has remained unheeded since July 2007. Psychonaut (talk) 23:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Nifboy (talk) 01:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Angband (video game)#Variants. Verifiable, but not notable. Reference:GameSetWatch. Marasmusine (talk) 16:47, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tong (video game)[edit]
- Tong (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable game. Psychonaut (talk) 23:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Nifboy (talk) 01:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If Linux Journal is considered reliable, then [22] shows that Tong is verifiable, if not notable; in which case a redirect to something like the list at Linux gaming might be in order. Marasmusine (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for finding that. However, it's only a very short mention (just over 100 words) in a longer article, so, as you say, it doesn't really confer notability. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to, and list at, List of open source games, then. Marasmusine (talk) 10:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nominator. No significant coverage has been found. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:54, 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
VDrift[edit]
- VDrift (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Possibly non-notable game; article states that it is "in the early stages of development" and does not provide any independent third-party sources. A quick Google search doesn't turn up any such sources either. Psychonaut (talk) 23:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All that I can find for significant coverage is [23]. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 23:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Delete as above. JBsupreme (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Nifboy (talk) 00:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 09:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the macobserver article found by Joe Chill (the site appears professional with a staff list etc., and Alexa rank somewhere in the US top 10K.), and also covered in a Linux Journal article and round-up. Also has a fairly critical even if somewhat brief review on Softonic. Pcap ping 10:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as nominator. I'm pleased to see that Pcap has turned up some acceptable sources for this subject. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:56, 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. Cirt (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ali Sabra[edit]
- Ali Sabra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A hoax, the player does not exist, Monza cannot sign non-EU player and only have Seedorf's younger brother[24] Matthew_hk tc 22:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - blatant hoax. No reliable sources mention such a person and his supposed 6 goal performance for the Lebanon national team would have been covered in the Maltese or some other press. Jogurney (talk) 23:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Syria national football team results 2009 was listed the no.19 of Lebanon is him, but soon i find is Ali Hamam. Matthew_hk tc 23:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment He holds the italian citzenship according to the article? He is a half swiss actually1 I am lebanese and a tadamon sour fan but Ali Sabra never played for sour. He played for ansar!!! but i read in the news recently that he signed for a swiss club. He is a real player but all the info here are wrong except for the birth date. He played for ansar from 2005 till 2008 and now he is at 2nd or 3rd division swiss club. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.110.96.4 (talk) 16:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Give wikipedia an arabic source to verify and wikipedia will find someone to read it. Reliable soucre usually include newspaper. Matthew_hk tc 16:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW it is so funny that according to article he holds Italian nationality. You added the information and according to Wikipedia?! Matthew_hk tc 14:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - possibly real person, probably hoax information. per his
"brother?"cousin. Lebanon quite simply did not play that many internationals in the time period. No evidence such a player played for them. no coveage of note --ClubOranjeT 10:20, 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. Cirt (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FC Doueir[edit]
- FC Doueir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A hoax Matthew_hk tc 23:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - appears to be a hoax. The 1997 Lebanese Cup was won by Nejmeh, not this club. If it even exists, it appears non-notable in every way. Jogurney (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable local league wannabe club with almost zero coverage in any shape or form and nothing of note to their name, self promo only by alleged founder. --ClubOranjeT 10:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Non-notable club. Seems like a clear cut deletion to me. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:02, 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. Cirt (talk) 19:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Project Starfighter[edit]
- Project Starfighter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Possibly non-notable software. Can't find any independent third-party sources, except for brief synopses on games directories. Psychonaut (talk) 22:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this game. Joe Chill (talk) 22:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 00:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Nifboy (talk) 01:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep per some independent reviews: [25]; [26]; [27]; [28]; [29]; [30]; [31]; etc. LotLE×talk 20:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of those reviews are on blogs and forum posts, which are generally not reliable sources establishing notability. Others are on gaming websites, though I'm not familiar enough with them to know if they're acceptable sources. Perhaps someone with more experience in gaming publishing could have a look. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Pretty weak keep. This is an old Linux game. There are a couple of pages about it in this obscure book, a paragraph in a Maximum PC round-up, a review on a download page here. The only in-depth review is here. Pcap ping 11:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Riksweeney (talk) 12:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect and list at Linux gaming. Verifiable (per Pcap's links), but not notable. Marasmusine (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Enough sources have been posted here to establish notability, and there is enough content here that it would hurt Wikipedia to loose it.Comrade Hamish Wilson (talk) 00:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The sources not only seem to make it verifiable but notable as well.Comrade Graham (talk) 20:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have added more sources, some from sites notable enough to have their own article/sections. Its popularity is also shown by how Fedora artwork contributors and package maintainers are willing to edit it back to total freedom rather than just scrap it, if any of this helps. Comrade Graham (talk) 07:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The only reliable source cited in the article is Maximum PC's paltry 4 sentences, the book found by PCAP may or may not contain useful data but without an article basis to add it to it's not going to achieve anything alone. There's not enough here to verify more than a stub, nor is notability established through multiple, reliable, non-trivial sources. Someoneanother 23:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - If there's no further support for a redirect, I'll have to side with delete. Marasmusine (talk) 10:17, 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. Cirt (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bonkheads[edit]
- Bonkheads (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Apparently non-notable software. The article contains no independent third-party sources other than software directories, and I can't find anything else with Google. Psychonaut (talk) 22:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: All that I can find for significant coverage is [32]. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 22:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails GNG JBsupreme (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Nifboy (talk) 00:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 00:57, 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. Cirt (talk) 22:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sherry Freebery[edit]
- Sherry Freebery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This seems to essentially be a WP:BLP1E. What we have here is an American public official at the county level about whom an article would never have been created were it not for the fact that she was accused of fairly serious wrongdoing. The trial created a stir in Delaware, but ultimately most of the charges were dismisssed, the judge said "that the case against her was one of the weakest of its kind he had seen," and Freebery was sentenced "to a year of supervised probation and ordered to pay $350 in fines and assessments for making a false statement on loan application." The background of the story can be ascertained here. County level officials who are accused of serious crimes but then largely exonerated by the legal system should not have BLPs on Wikipedia—Freebery is only really notable for the trial, but if that's part of a larger story perhaps the basic facts could be covered in a non-BLP article. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I proded this earlier as an unreferenced (only dead external links) negative BLP of questionable notability. However the creator Raul654 removed the prod, with no attempt to fix the article. Disappointing really.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- First, I don't care WHO you are, removing a BLP prod nomination without sourcing the article is showing "contempt for the community" as they say. Raul should know better than to just toss a link into the edit summ. The article as it stands is unsourced and shows no evidence of notability. But if we assume that the article can be returned to the state before Scott PRODded it, but with everything impeccably sourced, we are still left with a BLP1E. Delete unless the article gets a lot more bio than just the trial related info. ++Lar: t/c 22:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think she's probably notable, but since the article is currently a sub-stub it would be no great loss. No problem with deletion, as long as it's without prejudice against future creation of a well-cited article establishing notability. - Jmabel | Talk 23:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If notability were established beyond this one event I would withdraw the nomination, but I'm not sure this is going to happen. The events surrounding her case might be significant enough to warrant an article, and an article about the event is generally the way to go in BLP1E situations like this. An earlier version of the article suggested that this entire affair (at least as far as the defense was concerned) was connected to the Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. It's possible we already have an existing article where some of the info about Freebery's case could be merged (maybe a sub-article of the main "dismissal" article), though I'm not sure. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A minor county official who did some bad (but not nearly as much as was originally claimed) and was therefore subject of a long-running soap opera in the Wilmington News-Journal.
Besides the obvious BLP issues (from what I can tell the legal festivities are still underway) the lack of notability is attested to by the non-appearance of this in the next closest newspaper (the Philly Inquirer).Mangoe (talk) 00:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Your claim about the Philadelphia Inquierer is flatly wrong. I did a Lexis Nexis search and got 115 hits on her, at least half-a-dozen of which are from the Philadelphia Inquirer. Example: Federal panel indicts top New Castle County officials DOVER, Del. - A federal grand jury returned an indictment yesterday against the top government officials in New Castle County following an investigation into alleged fraud and abuse in county government. U.S. Attorney Colm Connolly said the grand jury returned an 11-count indictment alleging racketeering, mail fraud and wire fraud against County Executive Thomas Gordon, Chief Administrative Officer Sherry Freebery, and executive assistant Janet Smith. In a prepared statement, Freebery, a Democrat, blasted Connolly, a Republican, for conducting a "purely political investigation." The indictment follows a lengthy probe of county government that already has netted a guilty plea in state court from the county's former police chief. In addition to the criminal investigation, Freebery and Gordon are defendants in a civil lawsuit filed in October by two former staffers who claim the two county leaders retaliated against them for cooperating with the federal investigation. Gordon and Freebery have described those allegations as "outrageous" and "ridiculous." - Metropolitan Area News in Brief, Philadelphia Inquirer, MAY 27, 2004
- I also counted *a lot* of AP stores (I lost count at 30) and AP stories tend to run in dozens of newspapers. Raul654 (talk) 04:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Curious: searching in the Inquirer's site itself turned up nothing. Oh well. I still think there are BLP issues, however. Mangoe (talk) 04:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Philly.com gives 6 Philly Inquirer hits Raul654 (talk) 04:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that the story was covered by AP and the Inquirer does not really change the fact that this is a BLP1E. I'm still not seeing any evidence that Freebery has received any coverage outside of the trial. Also no one has bothered to add sources. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- BLP1E is about distinguishing whether we should have an article on an event or on the person involved. (It suggests the former) Implicit in this is that we will have an article on one of them. If you want to invoke BLP1E, then you should be arguing that we should rename this article to Sherry Freebury and Tom Gordon racketeering trial; BLP1E is *not* an argument for deleting this article. That's what we have the notability guideline for (Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.... A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists -- Wikipedia:Notability (people)) and it clearly meets this criteria. Raul654 (talk) 19:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Raul, if you want the article kept, you should first and foremost add some of your sources to the article, and you should vote keep. Everyking (talk) 06:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that the story was covered by AP and the Inquirer does not really change the fact that this is a BLP1E. I'm still not seeing any evidence that Freebery has received any coverage outside of the trial. Also no one has bothered to add sources. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Philly.com gives 6 Philly Inquirer hits Raul654 (talk) 04:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Curious: searching in the Inquirer's site itself turned up nothing. Oh well. I still think there are BLP issues, however. Mangoe (talk) 04:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Tentative keep: the subject appears to be notable based on press coverage, and it had several external links that could have acted as sources (maybe they were intended as sources?). However, if no one bothers to actually cite something by the end of the nom, I suppose deletion is reasonable. Everyking (talk) 03:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep notable Sabrebattletank (talk) 06:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just prodding a bit for more information, but on what basis do you conclude that she is notable? Do you see evidence of discussion of her in secondary sources aside from the trial, since if that's her only source of notability this would seem to be a WP:BLP1E? --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete minor local political figure who was accused of something and acquitted. There are 32,000 counties in the US, meaning 32,000 head administrators in county offices. We shouldn't cover all of them. This one had a flurry of local press coverage (none really about her, her biography, background, hopes dreams fears etc...) that's not useful for the construction of an encyclpedic biography. Finally, these unwatched, unmaintained and generally unsourceable blps have the capacity to cause great harm when the cranks get ahold of them.Bali ultimate (talk) 11:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and improve. As a Delawarean, there is a lot out there about this woman and she does pop up from time to time, I am supprised that her article is so small. - User:Schrandit (talk) 14:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's small because unsourced material had to be removed, and still no one has bothered to source this thing in the two and half years it has been here. Also claiming "there is a lot out there about this woman" is not really good enough. There have been a number of news stories about her in the past, but from what I've seen they were all about one event (the trial and the leadup to it), and the argument for deletion is based upon that fact and the WP:BLP1E policy. The fact that she was largely acquitted of all wrongdoing is quite germane, and you'd have to show that the "lot out there" about her goes beyond accusations of lawbreaking which were ultimately found to be untrue on the whole. So far no one has demonstrated notability beyond the trial, and thus those supporting retaining the article are not simply not engaging with the primary rationale for deletion nor articulating a real reason for keeping. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BLP1E. Having scrolled through all the results in Google News Archive, I can find only articles related to the fraud case. Furthermore, the subject does not pass the criteria listed at WP:POLITICIAN. Cunard (talk) 06:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The guideline you cite says: Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.... A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalist - I don't see how you can say this article doesn't meet that criterion when when the simple search noted above turned up over 100 articles from at leaset 3 different media outlets (the News Journal, AP, and Philly Inquirer). Raul654 (talk) 18:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not consider the subject to be a "major" local political figure; she is a minor one. The sources do not make her notable as all of them are about the fraud case, so this is a biography of an individual notable only for one event. Cunard (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The guideline you cite says: Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.... A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalist - I don't see how you can say this article doesn't meet that criterion when when the simple search noted above turned up over 100 articles from at leaset 3 different media outlets (the News Journal, AP, and Philly Inquirer). Raul654 (talk) 18:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably notable. While linkrot has set in, the earlier references, there is long-running newspaper coverage (culminating with the subject being disbarred by the state supreme court), even a mention in book. Still, an article about the whole episode may be the way to go, and should address the BIO1E claims. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per User:Bali ultimate SPLETTE :] How's my driving? 00:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I have no strong opinion one whether this should be kept, but I believe I have now solidly cited the basic facts of the case and restored them to the article, so that we can deal with the substance of the matter, rather than a substub. - Jmabel | Talk 18:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.... A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists -- Wikipedia:Notability (people). Raul654 (talk) 18:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Raul the argument for deletion is not based upon a failure to meet the criteria at WP:POLITICIAN—that's not even Cunard's main argument who is the one who mentioned it. The nomination and some of the subsequent delete !votes are based on WP:BLP1E which I'll quote: "Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article." This is a policy, not a guideline, and it is of far greater importance than WP:POLITICIAN. Not one person supporting the keeping of this article has replied to the BLP1E argument (i.e. shown that Freebery is notable outside of the "one event" that is the accusations and her trial), which is why the closing administrator should clearly close this as delete. You're ignoring the key policy here, and I think you're also ignoring the spirit of BLP and the idea of do no harm, since you're arguing that we should permanently host what will be the most prominent page on this woman on the internet, and which will do little more than repeat accusations that were made against her and of which she was largely acquitted. There is a basic ethical question here, and keeping this article is simply unethical (and also against our policies, thankfully). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7 Toddst1 (talk) 09:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alpha Sigma Epsilon[edit]
- Alpha Sigma Epsilon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A fraternal order in the Philippines. Despite having had the article deleted three times before, the author has still not got the idea of independent references. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete. Ignoring the fact that the author keeps trying to regurgitate the fraternity's webpage onto Wikipedia (see the last version of the article for a long history of that, or compare the text to said webpage), the article presents no independent sources whatsoever. The article, as currently written, makes no claims of the notability of the organization (other than a vague mention of it being "international" without sufficient details of the non-Philippine chapters to corroborate it). —C.Fred (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and salt. Could not find source to establish notability.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 23:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as article fails WP:NOTABILITY. (No reliable third party sources.) Armbrust Talk Contribs 23:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and salt - How about G4? Shadowjams (talk) 07:32, 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. Cirt (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lucy tuning[edit]
- Lucy tuning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable musical tuning system. No reliable sources: the only source that isn't Charles Lucy himself is for John Harrison's earlier tuning that Lucy claims inspiration from. Nobody seems to use this tuning but Charles Lucy; supposedly it was used on a Siobhan Donaghy track, but the only source for that claim is Lucy's own site (the claim is repeated in Donaghy's article, but was an unsourced addition by IP, and Lucy is known to be a relentless self-promoter editing mostly through IPs). A lot of effort has been expended to clean this article up and excise some of the more blatantly promotional text, but I think it really doesn't belong here in the first place. — Gwalla | Talk 22:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —— Gwalla | Talk 23:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete I agree with the nominator's comments. A while back I searched extensively for searches on 88-TET, and found it was no notable so I merged it into here but back then, concerns were raised about whether either were notable. I just searched and found nothing usable a a reliable, independent source. There are a few very brief mentions in google books, one is in a self-published book. This seems so far on the side of non-notability to me that I'm surprised it has survived for so long! Cazort (talk) 14:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I defended it last time, but I've changed my mind. Delete. beefman (talk) 18:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Sources include Haluska (2003). Hyacinth (talk) 21:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't able to read the full text of that book but lucy tunings do seem to appear on a few different pages, based on the index, but they don't have a section of their own and are mentioned only in the brief section "Further Examples of Mean Tone Systems". I also would say that because of the nature of this book, the mere mention of a tuning in this book is not enough to establish its notability--it's a book that reaches out to mention even the most esoteric tuning systems. From the book's description: "Includes hundreds of examples of past and prevalent tone systems". I'd say that that book would serve as a solid source, but I'm not convinced it's useful in this case for establishing notability. If it's the only independent source we can find, I think the best approach would be to write a sentence or two or maybe a paragraph or section (if there's enough material) on Lucy Tuning on the page for meantone tuning systems, because that is the context in which it is mentioned in that book. Cazort (talk) 00:13, 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) 00:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suril Shah[edit]
- Suril Shah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Six years ago, this chap got some Indian press coverage for being the youngest to pass some computing exams. But there's no sources showing any significance beyond those reports, and most of the remainder of this CV article is unverified. Troikoalogo (talk) 08:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Suril is quite renown in India and has received considerable media coverage in newspapers and TV News Channels. Many articles have been published about him, especially in his native state. For instance, Gujarat Samachar. One of the reasons for deletion, is cited that the news were six years ago, but last year itself, Suril cleared SAP "Technology Consultant" certification, which is of very high repute in the IT industry - Making it big at a Young Age. The certifications which Suril has achieved are considered very valuable in the IT industry, and generally attempted after graduation and work experience, which he did at quite young age. All his claims have been affirmed by the companies whose certifications he took. Hence it is a notable accomplishment. As for the remainder of the page, all the facts can be cited as local media had published reports of his felicitation functions held by the institutions, but maybe not available on the internet, but can be uploaded.
--Whizsurfer (talk) 10:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely Weak Keep and Stub,may actually do the barely notable thing but, the article is way too much of a C.V. the entire article should be stubbified and written in a properly neutral tone. Each of the "certifications" don't need to be listed. Factually state who he is, what he is notable for, and reference accordingly. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've modified the article to the best of my knowledge and citability , and tried to make it 'non-CV' like and maintain neutrality. As for the listing of certifications, I believe as they are records, they should be listed with proper name and age. However, I welcome experienced Wiki editors to help improve this page and adhere to the Wikipedia rules.Whizsurfer (talk) 13:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I've changed my mind. The need for a complete overhaul on the article makes me think that it would be better to delete what currently exists and start over. AfD is not cleanup. I recommend reading the notability, verifiability, reliable sources, and Manual of Style as well as the help pages about creating articles. After that create the article in a userspace sandbox and ask a couple of admins to preview it before moving it to article space. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we don't need to completely overhaul the article, but the current form does seem to have enough information and citations. The only argument is whether we should keep the tabular form of 'certifications'.Whizsurfer (talk) 14:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, no that isn't the only argument. Read the stuff I've pointed you to above and you'll begin to grasp some of the problems. His working really hard and or achieving great things, etc and the way it is presented in the article is peacock and/or weaselly and shouldn't be there. It needs grammer and tone reworking. Requires a proper references section with inline citations. I'm not going to get into detail here. The article talkpage maybe but, like I said it needs a lot of work and AfD is not cleanup. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, there is proper references section and neutral point of view. I understand that AfD is not for cleanup, but was just drawing inspiration from Bonny Hicks AfD nomination :-). I hope now there is proper usage of grammar and neutrality is maintained by mentioning things factually. Still if something seems "weaselly" in there, it would be better if that could be point that out :-). I dont think we need to start from scratch for this article. Whizsurfer (talk) 16:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And yes, as whiz kids attempting computer online exams has become a recent trend, this article would serve as good information for who holds up records for some of the renown online exams, and being a trend-setter. Whizsurfer (talk) 17:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Jasynnash2. He may or may not meet WP:BIO, but this article is pretty much unsalvageable. Stifle (talk) 23:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I do understand, the nominated version seems to be written from a fan's point of view. I have made revisions after that, and the current form should satisfy WP:NPOV. As for notability concerns, this seems to be one of the first articles, in the context, so not sure whether WP:BIO would provide 100% reasons, whether to include/exclude such articles, but I am fully convinced that it belongs here :-) It doesn't seem to be a complete misfit here, so my efforts are to improve upon current version, as it might require minimal changes, rather than starting all over again. Whizsurfer (talk) 14:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I read a few pages under the Category:1992 births, and probably Suril Shah's notability is comparable with many of the persons under the category. --Bhadani (talk) 14:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ffm 17:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Various newspapers keep writing about him - smells like notability to me. Clarityfiend (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep references show he meets the notability guidelines. RMHED (talk) 19:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Those certifications aren't rocket science, but he is notable for passing them at such a young age, as evidenced by repeated coverage in the media. VG ☎ 00:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per coverage. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fish Fillets NG[edit]
- Fish Fillets NG (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Apparently non-notable software. A Google search doesn't turn up any independent third-party sources on the game; only Wikipedia mirrors and download sites. Psychonaut (talk) 22:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 00:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Nifboy (talk) 01:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Seems well enough discussed/reviewed: [33]; [34]; [35]; [36]; [37]; etc. LotLE×talk 07:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Blogs and discussion forums aren't considered sources establishing notability. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Sorry but WP mirrors and blogs are insufficient. JBsupreme (talk) 20:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I wouldn't have created it if I didn't believe it was notable. Admittedly, at the time, that was based largely on seeing other articles on games that I considered less note-worthy and thinking "why isn't fish fillets here?" I'm looking over WP:NOTE carefully now and will search for some independent sources. I'd like a little time to look. (Help would be good too!) ... I feel like it is notable because of its longevity, its uniqueness, its sequel, its international following, and its multi-platform presence. That is, I believe "it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found" (WP:NOTE). ... And, again, RESEARCH HELP NEEDED: I think there are good sources are out there. Kace7 (talk) 18:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A source. This is tricky, but here's an interview about the game: [Fish Fillets - rozhovor]. It's in Czech, though. I think it demonstrates some notability because it's on [what looks like] a serious, long-lived gaming site and it appears 5 years after the game was published (1997; interview in 2002). Point: the game is no flash in the pan. ... So, who knows Czech? Kace7 (talk) 18:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The publisher is Tisacali Media; judging by the logo, it would appear to be the Tiscali? They're not exactly known for their video game reviews, but we could go with it. I'm trying to figure out if the author, "Felie" is a staff writer or a user. Marasmusine (talk) 20:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep per that find (cs:Tiscali.cz is a professional IT portal, top 100 in its country [38]), and another article in [39], the site of Czech Linux magazine, which doesn't seem that popular [40], but I think passes WP:RS as well. I see the game was developed in that country by small company, and not published through some big international publisher, which probably explains the mostly-regional press coverage. It was covered in a print issue of Linux Format [41] (guessing 3 paragraphs to half a page, which is about standard for that column); the original, non-NG version was similarly covered in an older issue [42]. Only a passing mention in Linux.com though. Pcap ping 18:15, 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. Cirt (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retchmail[edit]
- Retchmail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Apparently non-notable software. I'm unable to find any independent third-party references through Google; all the hits seem to be package indices or Wikipedia mirrors. Psychonaut (talk) 22:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 22:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete lacks non-trivial coverage and fails GNG JBsupreme (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 00:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Mentioned in a list of similar software in a book [43]. The other google books hit [44] is an OCR error for fetchmail (I have the book). That's about it. Pcap ping 11:20, 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 merge into ScummVM. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular T · C 18:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Residual (open source project)[edit]
- Residual (open source project) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Apparently non-notable alpha software. A Google search doesn't turn up any obvious independent third-party sources, other than download sites and forum posts. Psychonaut (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 00:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Nifboy (talk) 01:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into ScummVM, the original project from which was spun off—its certainly worth a mention there. While the ScummVM article itself may not be in great shape, I can certainly vouch for that topic's notability. -- Sabre (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into ScummVM per Sabre. Residual is a sub-project, but doesn't have the sourcing to stand on its own. A small paragraph in the ScummVM article should cover it however. --Teancum (talk) 12:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as suggested. Closely related, and the target article can easily accommodate this. Pcap ping 18:03, 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. Cirt (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PyLucid[edit]
- PyLucid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 22:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 00:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Yet another content management system that offers some interesting features. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A search for PyLucid and Django found nothing resembling a WP:RS. So, it's not even worth merging to Django. Pcap ping 17:55, 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. Cirt (talk) 18:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Connoisseur of Comedy (Award)[edit]
- Connoisseur of Comedy (Award) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Some university in-joke, not notable but doesn't fit any of the csd categories. Prod removed. Prezbo (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see my communication with you regarding keeping the article online. Kfgmaster (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This award offers a fresh approach to the format of recognising comedy. It rewards abstract comedy styles and can be quick to change if a more comical individual is found. This adds to the excitement surrounding the award and also keeps people interested in its progress. To allow the progress to be more easily tracked a Wikipedia page would be of great help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.78.69 (talk) 00:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This new, very minor award fails the notability guideline by some margin. Wikipedia is not the place to promote your new idea, but is for notable subjects that can demonstrate their notability with independent sources. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 00:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I acknowledge that my views count for less next to the respected reviewers, however I too believe this article should stand. To Dylanfromthenorth above, I happen to know that it should fulfil some of the notability criteria in a short while. (Coverage in local papers). Despite this, I doubt the author will be able to supply references to an online source which is a tad unfair. The reason I say it's unfair is because, in not just this article but potentially others, it discriminates a topic as not notable just because a source is not found online, yet for a whole community of people (potentially 600,000 in the Greater Belfast area in this case) it could be deemed notable due to local coverage. 95.145.145.136 (talk) 06:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles with offline sources are fine, provided that the sources are reliable and verifiable. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. For what it's worth as the author of this and what I'll concede to be a biased opinion, I vote keep. Kfgmaster (talk) 19:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Although a relatively recent award, it is one that has gathered significant support in Northern Ireland over its brief lifetime, most notably in County Down and County Londonderry. The awardees mentioned in this article are up and coming young local comedians, and by taking this article away, you would be dishonouring their incredible achievements over the past few years. This article is a highly informative summary of the award and everything it represents. On behalf of people everywhere who love the COC, please keep this wikipedia article. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JuniperDeer (talk • contribs) 00:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I saw both of these acts do a supporting gig in Belfast's Empire. Both their styles of comedy should be recognised and this page is ideal for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcmaster304 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - absolutely no indication of notability. To all the SPA supporters: sorry, boys, but Wikipedia is not here to promote the up and coming - see WP:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. JohnCD (talk) 22:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the lack of any coverage in reliable sources. This topic fails Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Cunard (talk) 06:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Filehold[edit]
- Filehold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 22:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 00:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 00:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Yet another Integrated Document Management vendor, with capitals helpfully supplied in case you need assistance in constructing the TLA. Also obvious spam, reads like a PR puff piece: a recognized industry expert in applying state of the art computer architectures including client server to Automated Data Collection designs.... - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:CORP with coverage based on case studies from partner sites and press releases. Pcap ping 18:05, 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. Cirt (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Social engineering-Knowledge Database[edit]
- Social engineering-Knowledge Database (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Reads like a rambling blog post (and indeed seems to be copied word-for-word from one). It's not clear that there is any actual implementation of this idea, and no indication that it is important, notable, or mentioned in any third-party independent source. Psychonaut (talk) 22:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 00:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Seems to be WP:COPYVIO, and perhaps WP:NONSENSE. LotLE×talk 01:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- http://designfiles.org/dokuwiki/skdb is PD, so no copyvio can occur.--Kozuch (talk) 07:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep. That's the only reason why this article was listed here rather than tagged as db-copyvio. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- http://designfiles.org/dokuwiki/skdb is PD, so no copyvio can occur.--Kozuch (talk) 07:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete mostly per WP:CRYSTAL, but also very poorly written. It's an initiative to create a shared library or repository of open source hardware designs, so components can be shared between projects, etc. See this presentation for a more intelligible description. Mostly vaporware at this time, and hardly any independent coverage. Pcap ping 11:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This also comes close to apparently meaningful content that, upon examination, is the sort of thing that nobody can reasonably expect to make sense of. Maybe if we direct a graviton wave synchronized with the dilithium lattice.... - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:28, 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. Cirt (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MECWA[edit]
- MECWA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Mostly unsourced, a lot seems to have been copy-pasted (note use of "our" and "we" multiple times throughout). Awards may establish some notability but only one seems to have a real source. Otherwise reads like an advert. fetchcomms☛ 22:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Fails WP:ADVERT. Also, seems to much like it was written by the company or as an advert. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 22:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Spam. Joe Chill (talk) 23:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - In addition to the obvious spam/advert issues, I'm also not finding any independent and reliable sources that indicate notability. PDCook (talk) 22:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - During the previous AfD additional sources were added, but I'm not so sure they demonstrate notability. Most are either affiliated with the organization or the government. This one appears to be independent and reliable, however. Anymore like that? PDCook (talk) 22:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - http://trove.nla.gov.au/result?q=mecwa - there is stuff out there - but hardly what I would call WP:RS SatuSuro 07:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for absence of reliable third party sources. LibStar (talk) 06:43, 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Metallica II[edit]
- Metallica II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The fact that this article can not be speedily deleted per CSD G3 is madness. It's a hoax, plain and simple, there's nothing that can be done to save it, yet an admin (Nyttend) has refused speedy deletion under the rationale that I can't fully prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that such an album will not be released. A search for the title gets not a single mention from google news. The band's website says nothing about a new album. A google search for the supposed James Hetfield quote that was in the original version of the article [45] turns up nothing. The supposed track listing in the original version [46] is just parodies of previous Metallica songs. A search for one of the songs that was originally listed, "Wherever I Roam Again" gets no hits. A search for the other supposed songs does turn up Metallica-related sites, but none of them anything about a new album. And all of this from a user (Mrpemdasrescue (talk · contribs)) who has a history of creating nonsense articles (I admit, I can't see his deleted contributions, but a quick look at his talk page is enough evidence). This page was proded, but I removed it and afded it in hopes of getting a speedy deletion, because I do not want to see this nonsense remain in the main space for five days. It just gives the vandal what he wants. -- Scorpion0422 22:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 'SPEEDY Delete - Since when is "we can't prove it does not exist" justification for providing webspace to nonsense? --96.233.40.199 (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since consensus began to support the current format of speedy criterion G3 (vandalism, including only those hoaxes that are blatantly obvious), and since consensus formed to have a how-to-deal-with-hoaxes page that says "Note that hoaxes are generally not speedy deletion candidates." Nyttend (talk) 23:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. While I fully agree with Nyttend's assessment (the mere fact one has to Google something is enough to pass WP:CSD#G3, we're not talking about winning 60 gold medals at the 1774 Olympics here), there are no sources to be found about this supposed upcoming album. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - Unsourced, entirely speculative, zero references on Google. XXX antiuser eh? 22:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, but slowly — this is not a hoax that falls under G3 (I can't tell that it's false simply by looking at it), and this is plainly not nonsense. That being said, I trust the nominator's assurances and research to say that it's a hoax, and there's plainly no reason to keep this. Nyttend (talk) 23:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as article fails WP:CRYSTAL. Armbrust Talk Contribs 23:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete. Seems like a hoax to me as well ("Master of Marionettes"?). Now, even if that's not the case, I can find zero evidence of the album, tracklist, or release date in reliable sources; at the very least, this fails WP:GNG, WP:NALBUMS, and violates WP:CRYSTAL. Gongshow Talk 23:57, 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. Cirt (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kuroo[edit]
- Kuroo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Discontinued software that never made it past alpha. No indepedent third-party sources. Almost certainly non-notable. Psychonaut (talk) 22:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 22:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Only source is its own website, can't find much to work with on Google either. fetchcomms☛ 22:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 00:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. LotLE×talk 07:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Portage (software). Even though it's no longer maintained, it is mentioned as a front-end for that in a few (news) stories, e.g. [47], [48], [49], so worth mentioning there. Pcap ping 11:47, 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. Cirt (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Linux From Script[edit]
- Linux From Script (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Possibly non-notable software. The article has been tagged as non-notable and lacking independent third-party references for four and thirteen months, respectively. —Psychonaut (talk) 21:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC) Psychonaut (talk) 21:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 22:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 00:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Joe Chill. LotLE×talk 01:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Can't find any mention of this in WP:RS either under its full name or "LFScript". There are some hits in google scholar for the latter, but they are false positives. Pcap ping 12:07, 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. Cirt (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Myke Hawke[edit]
- Myke Hawke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete. I'm pretty sure that everyone LOVES Myke Hawke, but that doesn't necessarily mean the subject is notable. JBsupreme (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I don't see the notablility here 7triton7 (talk) 08:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I have no opinion on notability here, but the article history is interesting. DGG ( talk ) 02:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It's possible that he is notable, I'm not entirely sure about that, but the article as it stands is unacceptable. It's a very inadequately sourced biography of a living person which contains an awful lot of original research, non-neutral language, and looks more like a promotional page than an encyclopedia article. There are only two references cited - one, a user-generated tv.com episode page for The Simple Life not compliant with the reliable sources guideline, is being used to support the claim he made an appearance on a BBC series about community survival and that he appeared as a survival instructor on The Simple Life 5, and the other is a blog called "Women Learn Thai", also not compliant with WP:RS, is being used as a cite for the claim that he contributed two chapters for a book was published by Paladin Press. All the rest of the information, including all the biographical information is unsourced. If someone other than the subject wants to rewrite the article so it complies with policy, I'd be willing to reconsider, but at this stage I think it should be deleted as it's clearly non-compliant with policy. Sarah 01:15, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 21:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Duncan Nimmo[edit]
- Duncan Nimmo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete. I almost spilled my Bushmills 1608 when reading this one. The article claims that the subject is notable for being... IT Manager during the filming of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, of all things. JBsupreme (talk) 21:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Quite simply no reference. The one used in the Trivia section (which I just removed) makes no mention of the subject or the incident. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 21:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Since when did tech managers become notable? Only source is imdb as well. fetchcomms☛ 22:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Can one be notable for being non-notable? If so, here's a candidate 7triton7 (talk) 08:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. How has this survived for nearly three years?! Wine Guy Talk 09:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep given the extent of the production in that series, the head of IT during it is quite reasonably notable, and the IMDB bio is acceptable for the routine fact that he held the position. DGG ( talk ) 03:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment He was not even the "IT Manager" on LotR, he was an "IT supporter"[51], I've edited the article to accurately reflect the source. He is listed under "Other crew" near the bottom of the list of nearly 2000 film crew.[52] Wine Guy Talk 18:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above comments. Editors just love creating bios and articles about popular culture regardless of how non-notable they may be. WP has a systemic bias towards these article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:25, 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 Userfied by creator. Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 17:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strikesorb[edit]
- Strikesorb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested prod. Electronic surge protector brand with no assertion of notability. No third-party references. The article on the manufacturer has already been deleted. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 20:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Strikesorb is a unique surge protection device (SPD) in its philosophy and it does have a encyclopaedic interest as long it is used in Rayvoss TVSS which protects many of the USA airports. http://www.advancetechpower.com.my/Raycap/Raycap_FAA%20use%20of%20Rayvoss.pdf Technical info and data is been given and third party reference has been added. 08:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelos gr (talk • contribs) 08:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the references you inserted assert any notability for this product. All they do is show its existence. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 14:01, 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 withdrawn. I disagree, in the strongest terms possible, that having a long list of credits should be enough for inclusion on Wikipedia if there is a specific lack of non-trivial coverage by reliable third party publications, but apparently WP:ENTERTAINER says these people can continue to skate by on Wikipedia for now. Thank you to everyone who weighed in on this case. JBsupreme (talk) 21:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yumi Shimura[edit]
- Yumi Shimura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete. Voice acting in a couple games or films does not make one inherently notable. Non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications is lacking here. JBsupreme (talk) 20:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 21:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Her reoccurring roles as Chisame Hasegawa in Negima! Magister Negi Magi and Kanaria in Rozen Maiden may be enough to pass WP:ENTERTAINER. Kanaria has a significant role in Rozen Maiden: Ouvertüre and Chisame Hasegawa's significance increases with each new OVA. —Farix (t | c) 22:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I just sourced with reliable sources the roles mentioned by the Farix plus one more support role. The Unsourced BLP argument is no more on the table now. --KrebMarkt 23:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you Kreb. Do you feel that this person has been the recipient of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications? JBsupreme (talk) 23:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- @JBsupreme Spare me your contempt and your condescending tone. That at least your third Japanese voice actors Afd and you can't ignore that WP:ENTERTAINER enters in play. --KrebMarkt 07:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Established precedent, including the previous AfD, is that lead voice acting roles are among the sort of lead roles recognized by WP:ENTERTAINER as making one a notable entertainer. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I was not asking you, but since you answered I'll take that as a no. JBsupreme (talk) 01:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Quasirandom is point out that there are other criteria, such as WP:ENTERTAINER, that are used when determining notability. A topic only has to pass one of those criteria. However, the question about third-party sources can't be definitively answered until someone checks through the Japanese VA magazines. Unfortunately, I don't think any of us on the English language Wikipedia have those magazines readily available. —Farix (t | c) 02:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hitoshi Doi's seiyu database includes summaries of the contents of seiyu magazines, which are searchable by the name of the person you are looking for. For Yumi Shimura, it lists four interviews or articles [53], all in volumes of hm3 Special. If you click on the details for each magazine, it says that two of them are 2 page interviews of her and one other person, one is a 1 page interview of her and one other person, and one is a 1 page article that provides information on her and 4 other people. Of course since you can't see the actual content of the magazine, that doesn't help with writing the article, but you might be able to judge notability based on the amount of coverage. Calathan (talk) 06:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Voice Newtype issue #16 again once interview with one other person. --KrebMarkt 07:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Quasirandom is point out that there are other criteria, such as WP:ENTERTAINER, that are used when determining notability. A topic only has to pass one of those criteria. However, the question about third-party sources can't be definitively answered until someone checks through the Japanese VA magazines. Unfortunately, I don't think any of us on the English language Wikipedia have those magazines readily available. —Farix (t | c) 02:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you Kreb. Do you feel that this person has been the recipient of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications? JBsupreme (talk) 23:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per above, and all of the sources there are in anime credits as sources. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Also sourced her video games roles in Arcana Heart and Ar Tonelico 2 & 3. If we keep the count that 4 recurring support role + 1 support role. --KrebMarkt 08:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Has quite a notable series of work. If you doubt the sources, you can always look at the credits in those series. Dream Focus 21:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm on the thin line here as to both whether her roles are important enough to pass WP:ENTERTAINER and whether the coverage is sufficient to pass WP:BIO. Taken together -- and one should always be assessing the subject as a whole -- however, I think that's enough to show she is notable. As such, keep. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep Has had a few important roles and there's a good amount of sourcing considering the language barrier. Edward321 (talk) 03:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep borderline case. Some recurrent supports roles and some coverages. However the coverage is not on the person itself but in the series the voice actor worked on. Interviewing the voice actor is just another mean to cover the anime series. That subtlety needed to be marked. --KrebMarkt 08:31, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 21:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Base Trip Records[edit]
- Base Trip Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Despite the few citations, it doesn't seem like this student-founded independent label meets the notability standards of WP:MUSIC or WP:CORP. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 21:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 21:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I cannot find anything significant. The references on the article are mostly from self published sites or do not mention the label, as are the first 100 google hits. noq (talk) 21:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can't find any significant coverage either. The author seems to be on a path to promote the label and its artists. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not enough coverage and some of the sources there don't even mention the label. fetchcomms☛ 22:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails to meet all criteria. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:24, 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. Cirt (talk) 21:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Knob (band)[edit]
- Knob (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No sources, no hit singles, no charts, and the article containing their new band name was even deleted as non-notable. This fails WP:BAND. -WarthogDemon 20:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 20:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I found [54] and [55]. Never heard of either website or magazine, so couldn't comment on their reliability or significance. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 20:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 21:18, 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. JohnCD (talk) 22:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Barbara Dillon[edit]
- Barbara Dillon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
An unreferenced article. Practically no results on Google on her. Establishes no real notability and has only has IMDB and Amazon sources. — Cargoking talk 20:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this author. Joe Chill (talk) 20:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- She's a children's literature version of a one hit wonder.
Merge into A Mom for Christmas.Bearian (talk) 21:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if she is a one hit wonder, she is probably notable, as per DGG's research and links. Change to Keep. Bearian (talk) 22:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 21:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Joe Chill, fails GNG and WP:CREATIVE. JBsupreme (talk) 23:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep She has written a number of novels, and according to WorldCat [56], even though they were publlshed in the early 1980s, the library holdings are still 664, 558, 401, 365, 333, 325, 307, 303, 242, 181 There appear to be about reviews of many of her books--even apart from the one made into a movie listed even just in Google News Archive. [57], [58], [59], [60], and some academic articles mentioning them in Google scholar [61], [62] Google books shows reviews in Publishers Weekly and Kirkus: [63] . She's included in dozens reference work and anthologies [64]
- On what basis then can she be called an one-hit wonder? --the book made into a movie isn't even among her most widely held in libraries--it's the one with the 365 holdings. On what basis can it be said there are no references to her? "Practically no results in Google" -- welll known as one of the non-arguments--and particular absurd consider the results in GS and GB & GN. DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The sources shown by DGG clearly indicate notability. Edward321 (talk) 03:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: It is hard to argue with DGG - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:07, 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. Cirt (talk) 21:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Danny Kedwell[edit]
- Danny Kedwell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable footballer who has never played at a fully-professional level having only played in the Conference (5th tier) or lower so fails WP:ATHLETE. Sources are routine announcements which do not pass WP:NTEMP. -- BigDom 19:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 21:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:ATHLETE as he has not played at a fully-professional level. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of any significant media coverage. --Jimbo[online] 16:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete amateur footballer fails ATHLETE and nothing of note to support GNG --ClubOranjeT 12:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per previous comments. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:00, 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. Cirt (talk) 18:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Makoto Uchida[edit]
- Makoto Uchida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete. Former video game programmer for SEGA. Some of the games he worked on are notable, but there is little indicator that this programmer himself has received the requisite multiple non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications to pass GNG. JBsupreme (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Nifboy (talk) 00:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep. More material on this guy exist if you search using "内田 誠" (his name in Japanese). example 1, example 2. There is also an interview of Uchida included with the game Sonic's Ultimate Genesis Collection as an unlockable. I would consider this to be a reliable (albeit unconventional) source. I agree that the article is definitely in need of some expansion/improvement, though. Hopefully the rescue squad can pull through. -Thibbs (talk) 18:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the designing of multiple notable games is notability DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - We need a Japanese speaker. This article (already mentioned) definitely takes the question-answer form of an interview. Here's another article. Both articles so far come from sega.jp, which may be the official Sega site. A search for "内田 誠 sega" results in +600k ghits. There's a handful of hits at itmedia.co.jp, which is considered reliable per WP:VGRS. SharkD Talk 08:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per DGG, many prominent classic games created by this person. Ikip 04:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Minerals of Alabama[edit]
- Minerals of Alabama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A list of minerals found in a locality entirely sourced from a single website. No indication of why it should be on Wikipedia noq (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is not plausible as a stand-alone list, particularly in the way it is being approached. Per WP:SALAT, "lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value." Moreover, this topic is best covered in the already existing article on the Geology of Alabama. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to geography of Alabama, a much more encyclopedic take on the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:29, 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 withdrawn. This should probably be renamed to "Lunasicc" but that is a sep discussion. JBsupreme (talk) 10:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Luni Coleone[edit]
- Luni Coleone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete. Fails GNG and WP:MUSIC, does not appear to have any charting releases or substantial coverage from reliable third party publications. Plenty of blog talk, but that's all I'm finding. JBsupreme (talk) 19:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 21:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per these Billboard charts. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He indeed has four charting albums. I added the Billboard reference for artist Luni Coleone, which showed no charting releases, but Billboard does list four charting albums for artist Lunasicc, including one credited to Luni Coleone. (Weird.) I apologize for the confusion. Yappy2bhere (talk) 00:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I really don't know. The article was created as Luni Coleone by user:Luni Coleone, a WP:SPA, was moved back to that name after it was moved to Monterrio Williams, the artist's given name [65], and the editor that moved it back to Luni Coleone created a redirect from Lunasicc instead of moving the article. Apparently Luni Coleone replaced Lunasicc as his pseudonym, but he's better known as Lunasicc. Dealer's choice, I suppose. Yappy2bhere (talk) 02:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Obvious keep, clearly meets relevant guidelines. Rebecca (talk) 01:55, 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. Cirt (talk) 21:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of Dual Natures (Duality)[edit]
- List of Dual Natures (Duality) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is just a random collection of stuff. No sources, and even if there were sources, there is no criterion to decide whether a given item belongs here. An earlier prod was removed. Looie496 (talk) 19:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no source for notability, no clear inclusion criterion, and OR.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 19:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - A bit too random. WP:OR, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, and maybe WP:INDISCRIMINATE seem to apply, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 17:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the above. Honestly, the disambiguation page Duality handles this fairly well, giving a list of articles that deal with the topic in its various forms. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 21:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Looks like someone brainstorm about duality. wp:notdir. ¨¨ victor falk 06:59, 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. Cirt (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Football Manager 2010 Tactics[edit]
- Football Manager 2010 Tactics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appears to be a football-manager-guide-WP:HOWTO-thing. Not an article at all, should not be in article space. ALI nom nom 19:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete it is not suited to wikipedia, contains personal opinion and is poorly written.
- Send it off - Nothing but a Wp:GAMEGUIDE more suited for gamefaqs.com. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 19:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom and User:DitzyNizzy noq (talk) 19:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Wikipedia is a site which aims to help users, and give them knowledge on items they want to find out about. As this page does this, and will be very useful to users, it should be kept. Zakey (talk) 19:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For info, above editor is the article's creator -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per others. Wikipedia does aim to help people, but only as an encyclopedia, not as a game guide. As a bit of advice for Zakey, perhaps see if they're interested over at FMWiki? Dreaded Walrus t c 20:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Wikipedia is not a game guide. – PeeJay 20:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Per WP:NOT#GUIDE. Joe Chill (talk) 20:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sort out, but don't delete This page is definitely not in the right state to be on wikipedia, but the page could definitely be sorted out and 'Wikified' so it could be on wikipedia, by explaining how the tactics work, not what are the best tactics. Quiggers1P (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorted the page out a lot, making it more encylopedic, but it could still be improved further. Quiggers1P (talk) 21:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTHOW. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a guide. Post it at the forums at www.sigames.com. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Nifboy (talk) 01:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, nor does it collect indiscriminate information. --Taelus (talk) 01:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wikipedia is not to be used for making game guides. You don't look in an encyclopedia and find information on "Tactics" for games. Post this on one of those game websites, they might find some use for it. Chindit96 (talk) 10:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no article under this title is ever going to be anything other than a game guide -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Rettetast (talk) 13:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per aforementioned WP:GAMEGUIDE. It's pure WP:OR. --Jimbo[online] 15:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. As Wikipedia is not a game guide. --Carioca (talk) 21:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete...almost speedy as no context, wouldn't say there was any content either. I appreciate there was a little more before subsequent edits, but as it stands it is a nothing article, WP:OR (particularly before most OR was deleted), no references, NOT:HOWTO you name it, this is very deletable--ClubOranjeT 09:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete it is not suited to wikipedia, contains personal opinion and is poorly written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.219.69 (talk • contribs)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Vahid Afra[edit]
- Vahid Afra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I just referenced and updated this article, but despite this Mr. Afra played one year football in an Iranian league, not enough to establish notability. If WP:ATHLETE says one year is enough, then okay to keep. Chutznik (talk) 18:50, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 07:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Istituto Superiore Internazionale di Scienze Criminali[edit]
- Istituto Superiore Internazionale di Scienze Criminali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
both organization and author request for legal reasons Megalta (talk) 16:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The above user is the only major contributor so has a right to ask for deletion. All sources the website of the organisation. It is almost an orphan. I personally do not know the legal reasons , but presuming there are some then it should be removed. 安東尼 TALK> 16:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If we are to have regard to the 'legal reasons' then they need to be specified. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment An IP tagged the article with DB-Author several times, this was reverted as vandalism. The nominator is the original author of the article.
There have been enough significant edits (primarily by IP) to the article that I would decline the speedy request.The other edits are primarily reordering of the personnel, minor typo fixes, and additions of categories.I'd agree with the speedy request now, but would prefer another admin to do so.
- Keep - the creator requesting deletion allows speedy deletion but does not require it; we can take a broader view of the interests of the encyclopedia since, once written, a page is the property of the Community. In this case we have a plainly notable and important institution. It is a non-profit post-graduate body, it carries out important work on behalf of the UN, has published many significant works, unusually has a branch in Kabul etc. Sure it needs independent sources, but I am sure that those would be forthcoming from a search of Italian publications, and some editorial cleaning but I see no good reason to delete. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There is not the slightest doubt that this organisation is notable and should have an article on wikipedia. The only reason for deletion then would be the request by the creator); there is no wp:ownership of articles, and I'd like to remind people that there is a notice when editing that says You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL.¨¨ victor falk 13:28, 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. Cirt (talk) 00:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unilease[edit]
- Unilease (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A non-notable product. Wikipedia shouldn't list every type of penetrating oil on the market. Wizard191 (talk) 21:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:25, 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, –Juliancolton | Talk 18:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - we really need an expert to chime in on this rather obscure product. Bearian (talk) 21:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete without prejudice. The article fails not only the notability test, but the sourcing test as well. JBsupreme (talk) 23:12, 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. Cirt (talk) 21:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of Lady Gaga songs[edit]
- List of Lady Gaga songs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This artist, however famous, has recorded/released one album and one EP, along with a handful of collaborations. How is this article informative or notable? I've already removed a large section of "unreleased songs" that contained no sources whatsoever, along with a small list of songs Gaga performed live in concert. What is left is basically the track lists for her small output, arranged in alphabetical order. Gaga already has a discography page with a lot more information than this. This is not an artist with hundreds of recorded songs like, say, the Beatles or even Beyoncé Knowles, who has several albums and a soundtrack album to her credit. - eo (talk) 18:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 18:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThe article is notable because many of her songs were #1 hits in major markets and while I personally agree with your opinion of it not being very informative that doesn't mean that the rest of Wikipedia's users share our belief. Under the assumption that she'll continually release music over at least the next few years the article will likely grow and become more useful and relevant. Not to mention there's a very fuzzy line between being a "big enough" musical artist to warrant a discography page and no real guideline to justify saying which notable artists are prolific enough and which arent. Nefariousski (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In light of the Discography article I agree it should be DeletedNefariousski (talk) 20:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Just because her songs have hit #1 doesn't make this list worthy of inclusion; like I said, Lady Gaga discography clearly features her big hits. Why not make a list for everyone? There are plenty of other artists with a lot more recorded material than Gaga (for example, how about Pet Shop Boys? They have ten albums and I'm a big fan - why not make a page?). The hope that she'll record tons of new songs in the years ahead doesn't seem like a good reason to keep it now. - eo (talk) 19:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The Pet Shop Boys do have a list of songs page... It's in there artists discography box. It just doesn't seem to be well edited and maintained. You can get on that 08:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theuhohreo (talk • contribs)
- Delete I agree with both arguments, but I agree with eo more strongly. What's in this article is covered better in the discography article. Chutznik (talk) 18:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Two albums and a lot more songs then currently lsted in the article. BTW thanks for nominated for Afd it is correct that at least this afd discussion takes place whatever the outcome. SunCreator (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - redundant with Lady Gaga discography.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 19:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - in essence a fork of Lady Gaga discography. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 20:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'm not convinced an independent article is warranted at this time. As far as I can tell, the 2006 songs are not listed in reliable sources as part of Lady Gaga's body of work; if indeed unverifiable, then those entries should be removed. That leaves her 2008-2009 output, which except for "Christmas Tree" and "Fashion", is already listed under The Fame Monster's deluxe edition tracklisting. Additionally, 17 of her 2008-2009 songs have charted and are already shown in the Lady Gaga discography article. The handful of collaborations not yet listed on her discography page can be appropriately placed there as well. Gongshow Talk 21:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Redundant to Lady Gaga discography. SMSpivey (talk) 03:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Yeah, it's totally redundant. Reach Out to the Truth 15:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Yes, it is redundant to Lady Gaga discography. Warrah (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As per Eric. A complete fail of WP:N. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not relevant, redundant and have no sources Fortunato luigi (talk) 05:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete the contents are redundant to information already on wikipedia. andyzweb (talk) 00:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep shes a singer/song-writer so she has a lot of songs that will eventually (if not already) become a page on it own. Sources shouldn't have to be provided but can be found if needed. Other artists have "List of Songs" pages and don't have nearly as many albums/EP's as Gaga has right now. {08:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)} —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theuhohreo (talk • contribs)
- Redirect to Lady Gaga discography ¨¨ victor falk talk 16:14, 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. Cirt (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Carlos Alvarez (dancer)[edit]
- Carlos Alvarez (dancer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete no clear evidence of notability. Boleyn (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete after some deliberation. I looked at the NY Post obituary reference. On its face you might think anyone with an obituary in a major newspaper is notable, but the obit says little about him except what a fine man he was. If the article does get kept, it needs massive cleanup to make it neutral. There are lots of links, but not all of them are helpful. Chutznik (talk) 19:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - WP:NOTMEMORIAL, no reliable source for notability, and the tone is just plain unencyclopedic to the point that even if it was worthy of inclusion it would be simpler to start from scratch.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 19:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. Joe Chill (talk) 20:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable.-- iBentalk/contribsIf you reply here, please place a talkback notification on my page. 23:47, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tadd Russo[edit]
- Tadd Russo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:MUSIC, WP:BIO and general notability despite extensive attempts by me and other editors to source it. There may also be COI since the creator and main editor has a similar username as the subject. It was a CSD for a while due to copyvio but the article was tidied and, though there is still a certain amount of copyvio left, it does not appear to be a CSD any more. A later PROD was contested then removed. Jubilee♫clipman 17:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 18:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Sorry, but I can't find anything to satisfy notability criteria. None of the associated festivals or theatre companies seem notable, and the references don't add much. --Deskford (talk) 18:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair, the Edinburgh Fringe is indeed notable, but the performance of The Druid Tree in 2000 was a pretty minor event, it would seem (one of thousands at that event, of course). And in fact that was the best I could find that might even come close to establishing notability (the rest were minor festivals, school choirs, minor work for his employers the USAF Band) even the Ohio Music Education Association commission and the Kool and the Gang etc refs were never verified in my search. All I could find was confirmation that he exists, has been trained as a musician, is (?was) a Technical Sgt. in the USAF and has composed a few minor works. --Jubilee♫clipman 18:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I should have excluded the Edinburgh Fringe. The others all produced redlinks when I tried to wikilink them. --Deskford (talk) 18:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, to be fair to you, the Fringe is pretty eclectic and open to any old bod, so being played there means nothing anyway, of itself. Furthermore, as you point out on the talk page (which also gives more info on the sourcing and cleanup attempts) the creator, Russoerica (talk · contribs), might be the Erica Russo in this reference to a mezzo for whom Tadd Russo wrote a couple of works. --Jubilee♫clipman 19:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I also never verified the other potential claim to notability, the Dallas Wind Symphony performance of one of his works. Then again, even that probably isn't enough anyway. --Jubilee♫clipman 19:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I should have excluded the Edinburgh Fringe. The others all produced redlinks when I tried to wikilink them. --Deskford (talk) 18:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do appreciate your assistance with this. Yes, I am his wife, but I am also a musicologist and thus have attempted to be as objective as possible in creating this article. Since I also wrote the original bio--thus having permission of the author--it's hard to self-edit beyond a certain point. I did not include any specific works for guest artists such as Kool and the Gang, Ronan Tynan, Sara Evans, Spirogyra, et al, because DOD policy prohibits such use beyond initial "name=dropping." OMEA also typically deletes conference programs from the website after the year in which they appeared, so I'd need to send a hard copy of a conference program to... the Internet? What other references might be helpful--beyond newspaper articles or actual books--in verifying notability? (Russoerica (talk) 20:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]
For example, a recording of his organ works and some of his string works is set for 2010 release. (Russoerica (talk) 20:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Thanks for your explantion. The article is relatively balanced, actually, though it reads rather like a CV. Perhaps you should chance adding the specific works: I am not aware of it being against our policy. Unless you mean that it is against an official-secrets-type law to go beyond name dropping? "Set for release" is not now I'm afraid. Perhaps we can try again when the CDs are released and The Washington Post and/or BBC Music magazine have reviewed them? I am glad we haven't frightened you off, anyway! Alice Parker could definately do with the "BRB" magic, as it were! Sourcing is a tricky beast sometimes, but the links I provided over at the talk page will set you off in the right direction. Given the calibre of the editing and sourcing experience of Deskford and Kleinzach, I doubt your husband's article stands much of a chance, this time... (WTS?) --Jubilee♫clipman 23:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Sorry, but I don't see the independent reviews necessary to demonstrate notability. --Kleinzach 22:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try again in a couple of years on this one. Thanks for your help and consideration... you're a polite lot! (Russoerica (talk) 01:35, 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. Cirt (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chevron (artist)[edit]
- Chevron (artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Lack of independant 3rd party reliable sources. Not verified. Does not meet ARTIST or BIO. Not notable. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, textbook example of attempt to establish notability through use of Wikipedia. Can anyone else detect the aroma of laundry fresh WP:COI? --96.233.40.199 (talk) 22:21, 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. Cirt (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bosnian Genocide Denial Watch[edit]
- Bosnian Genocide Denial Watch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appears to be a non-notable blog. Only 30 Google hits, none of which seem to be articles about the organization. Can't find any mention of this organization in any online news sources. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC) Psychonaut (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this website. Joe Chill (talk) 18:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above persuasive argument. Chutznik (talk) 19:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect and/or merge to Bosnian genocide. Not even close to notable by itself, per above. Bearian (talk) 21:29, 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.
(Non-admin-closure). The result was keep. Nominator withdrew and no delete votes are present.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chimpcam[edit]
- Chimpcam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete. This has one article that uses "Chimpcam" once. One article is the source and that confirms a show called chimcam will be aired. Appears to by WP:SYN, and Non notable. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose deletion The source is the BBC. Can you name a better, more reliable source? Grundle2600 (talk) 16:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- An outside one. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's a non BBC source[66]. I'd think the article probably should be moved to The Chimpcam Project which appears to be the actual program name. But it appears to be a notable documentary. I not seeing a reason to delete.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the link. I have moved the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine by me. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The project is an one of a kind experimental study which needs expansion. Since the result/movie will be aired in two days , days before the AFD is decided, I'm certain it does and will meet WP's notability guidelines with ease [and being some kind of a chimp myself I just know it will surpass editors expectations. Please don't offend my people by deleting. Thanks.] --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:12, 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. Cirt (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Amaxus[edit]
- Amaxus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Promotion for non-notable software product. Article by single-purpose user who works for the company. As for coverage, I have only found one press release, and nothing from a significant third-party. Haakon (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 17:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 18:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Also clearly advertising: is marketed largely on the claim of superior usability and interface.... - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:45, 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. Cirt (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Schitz[edit]
- Schitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unreferenced, original research, evidently something made up one day; however, speedy deletion was contested by three different accounts (not necessarily three different people). This suggests that speedy deletion won't last very long, and that a full AfD is necessary to prevent recreation of this "article." R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm the one who tagged it for speedy, 'nough sad. oh yeah, and block the socks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 17:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Per WP:MADEUP. Joe Chill (talk) 19:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete But I did laugh out loud when I saw that the intent was to pronounce this like "Skits" because its short for "schizophrenia". I figured it was pronounced like Schlitz beer, which sometimes had the side-effect of giving a person the... never mind. Mandsford (talk) 21:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete. This article qualifies for speedy deletion under CSD G3 - Hoax. It cites a book that, for all appearances, does not exist. It's vague, it's nebulous, and it isn't in any way notable. WP:MADEUP is also relevant. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Borderline G3. It's just plain WP:MADEUP. Violates WP:NEO. Fabricated reference, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 17:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete As a hoax. Warrah (talk) 19:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Book in question is not published yes, but it does exist, just as this philosophical concept exists. Who are we to claim a philosophy is a hoax or "made up". Technically isn't all philosophy "made up". You merely accept others because they are more well know and developed.. yet you wish to crush the formation of new thought before it may reach such a point?
In conclusion: The reference is not "fabricated" it just simply is not a published source. Nor were many philosophical writings at their beginnings... you think someone rushed out to publish Marx's manifesto? To delete an expression of philosophiocal thought is to condemn any inquiry outside of accepted norms.. and thus defeats the very purpose and nature of philosophy. Clearly you pro-deletetion advocates understand very little about the nature of philosophy and the importance of continued thought and inquiry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.50.209.137 (talk) 03:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not published comes under WP:OR or WP:CRYSTAL. Peridon (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article should absolutely not be deleted. It is not a hoax and it is not made up. It is a philosophical concept that man is not the measure of reality. It is no more real or fake than religion. Whether you agree with it or not or think it is stupid it does not violate any rules of this website. Saying that this is a hoax would be like saying that Judaism is hoax, or Buddhism is hoax, or any religion for that matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xanboni27 (talk • contribs) 03:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Xanboni27 has made no other contributions to WikipediaXanboni27 (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Agreeing with what the two prior to this have stated, schitz is not meant to be accepted as true by all, no philosophical concept is accepted by all, and no philosphical concept can be proven to be true or a hoax, so therfore your argument has no ground or standpoint that can be used to delete this. If you are going to argue that way about schitz, you might as well put up every religion or philosophical concept on wikipedia up for speedy deletion because they must all be hoaxes too seeing as they cannot be proven fact. To say that schitz is not real is equivalent to saying that there is no God, you cannot prove either side of the argument but you allow all opinions about it to be posted. If you disagree with this philosophy so much then why don't you simply create a page that shows the views of those who don't believe in it just as there are pages for montheistic and pagan religions on wikipedia already, they are conflicting views but who knows if they are hoaxes or not--Splitspades18 (talk) 21:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC).--71.234.177.114 (talk) 03:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 71.234.177.114 has made no other contributions to Wikipedia
Keep: Not sure I understand it 100%, but it is really interesting and definitely worth reading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbrkvch113 (talk • contribs) 03:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Cbrkvch113 has made no other contributions to Wikipedia
- It's always a good idea to sign your comments. All you have to do is type "~" four times (it's that key in the upper left hand corner, next to the "1" on the keyboard). As to 99.60 and 71.234, log in -- comments made by people who don't log in generally aren't taken seriously, because it's a common way to "vote" more than once. Mandsford (talk) 14:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's the keystroke Shift-# on a UK keyboard..... Peridon (talk) 19:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Total rhubarb. And before any more of the flock of socks and IP addresses get going, this is not decided by head count (or even sock count divided by two). It's a discussion - not that there's a lot worth discussing. Peridon (talk) 19:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:NEO, WP:MADEUP. Fails WP:V. likely a case of messrs Hatch and Bosco smoking too much "schitz". May the Schitz be with you.--ClubOranjeT 13:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP!! Deleting this page would be discriminating against the beliefs of others and could cause trouble if they become offended. Even if some people don't understand this or think it's a hoax, others do believe it and want to spread the word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.148.38 (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Speedy G3, actually but we might as well wait for the closing, so we can do any repetition by G4, reinsertion of deleted material. DGG ( talk ) 23:19, 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. Cirt (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Solar Engine[edit]
- Solar Engine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nominated for deletion, no notability, confused with lowercase solar engine collectors running Stirling engines or steam cycles. The only publications that discuss the electronic solar cell concept described in the article are about toys. The only reference was one hobby website. The text that was in the article was hopelessly turgid verbal description of some schematic diagrams. We have articles on solar power, solar cells, etc. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:43, 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. Cirt (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Brunner CMS[edit]
- Brunner CMS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable software product, no different then the dozens of other CMS products. MBisanz talk 14:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, cannot find notability. CMS products are a dime a dozin. Haakon (talk) 14:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn product, but the company itself doesn't seem to have it's own article, so I can't say merge. fetchcomms☛ 15:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. The software's main aim is to enable high ranks in online search engines. Sheesh. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 15:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 17:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a NN product. JBsupreme (talk) 19:35, 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 closed as a SNOW keep. This is what disambiguation pages are for. Jclemens (talk) 17:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (disambiguation)[edit]
- The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete per WP:DABNOT. This functions more like a search index within the franchise than an actual disambiguation. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keep. It isn't a search index. All of these items have exactly the same title, so this prevents confusion. If they were included under Hitchhiker then you'd have a point. But they aren't.Serendipodous 15:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- Given that there are multiple notable items with the same title, a disambig makes perfect sense. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I am puzzled as to what part of WP:DABNOT is supposed to be relevant to this: I can't see it. There are several articles about different things which all have the title "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy", which is precisely what a disambiguation page is for. What is the problem? JamesBWatson (talk) 15:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Valid navigational page. If there were only two or three entries, the issue might be solved with a pointer template at the top of each article, but when there are many a disambiguation page is the way to go. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science Fiction-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This is a mostly harmless disambig page ;). (Plus as above.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 16:53, 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 as per consensus. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 01:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Greg Moore (physicist)[edit]
- Greg Moore (physicist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete There is no evidence at all of satisfying either the general notability guideline or the guideleine for academics. The article gives no independent sources at all. (It gives a reference to Moore's own web site and an external link to a list of his publications, and nothing else.) I have searched, and found no substantial independent coverage. Apart from his own web page and Wikipedia, the first few hits were: a one-sentence directory listing; a stored copy of a Yahoo search for the name "Greg Moore" (most of the hits were other Greg Moores); a post by Moore to a google group; a list of speakers at a conference (Moore's name features amongst dozens of others); a brief "open letter" with 75 signatories, among them Moore; an article containing one passing mention of Moore. And so it went on. (The article was proposed for speedy deletion. The speedy delete tag was then replaced by a prod, which was removed with the edit summary "invalid speedies should not be replaced by a prod", which seems bizarre to me: if a speedy deletion tag is invalid but there are still valid reasons for deletion, of course it can be prodded.) JamesBWatson (talk) 14:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, highly-cited academic. See here. Several of his paper (2-3 authors) were cited over 250 times. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 00:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keep Very notable in his field. Easily meets WP:ACADEMIC. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. Stunning cites on Spires, even better on GS with search for "G W Moore". Inadequately researched nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep. JoshuaZ is correct that Moore meets guideline. Hal peridol (talk) 14:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:PROF #1. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep 13,000 hits on google scholar. About a dozen articles ha has co-auothored have been cited more than a hundred times.¨¨ victor falk 07:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you search for 'author:"G W Moore" ' you will get only 757 hits on GS. There is another GW Moore, a medical biologist. Nonetheless our subject still gets plenty of cites, more than sufficient for WP:Prof #1. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:35, 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. Cirt (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ammar Aziz[edit]
- Ammar Aziz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
no real claim to notability, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. only source reads like a reproduced primary source. probable coi duffbeerforme (talk) 14:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A student film-maker with no evidence of notability at all. The only "reference" is an external link to a page in Urdu. I don't read Urdu, and am having to manage with a very poor automatic translation, but as far as I can see it does not support a single one of the statements made in the article: in other words it appears to be not a "reference" in Wikipedia's sense, but just an external link to a page with slight relevance to the article. That leaves us with no sources at all. A web search produced (apart from this Wikipedia article) Facebook, LinkedIn, MySpace, etc, together with hits which appeared to refer to other people called Ammar Aziz, but no independent coverage of this Ammar Aziz. In short, not notable at all. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this director. Joe Chill (talk) 16:03, 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. Cirt (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Paul Raymond Smith[edit]
- Paul Raymond Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable. Does not meet RS, V or BIO. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, "Sheriff of a parish" is not notable. Chutznik (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 19:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete An ordinary man who once held a fairly ordinary official post. The only reference is to a page of election results for 10/20/07 which show that he lost the election. No substantial coverage anywhere that I can find. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:17, 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) 21:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OneTen[edit]
- OneTen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A building which, if built, which it won't be, would have been on the List of tallest buildings in Providence, but it isn't even mentioned there. Nothing on Google books or scholar and not the seems to be significant news reporting on the building. The domain name for the project is now up for sale. Sic transit gloria mundi. A passing mention in the list article might be justified, in which case a redirect would be all that's needed (although the current name is undoubtedly going to be ambiguous sooner or later). Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The only reference given is to an article which briefly mentions that at the time the article was written (September 27, 2007) the project was being scaled back, and would not be built as originally planned. Scarcely substantial coverage. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:14, 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) 21:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kaushik Manek[edit]
- Kaushik Manek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested (by IP editor) PROD. Biography of a non-notable rotary club official. A Google search of his name turns up several hits related to the rotary club, but there seems to be no significant coverage in reliable independent sources. I don't think this person satisfies WP:BIO. PDCook (talk) 13:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable WP:BIO. Daa89563 (talk) 13:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —PDCook (talk) 14:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. In fact I think it should be speedily deleted under CSD A7. Article gives no sources at all and makes no serious claim of importance. (Being a member of a local rotary club, who was once its president, is not a claim to significance.) I can confirm that a web search gives no evidence of any significant independent coverage. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've had speedies declined for even less notability than this, so I tend to play it "safe." PDCook (talk) 15:07, 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. Cirt (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AKITS[edit]
- AKITS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable software. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Insignificant software. No evidence of notability, either in the article or found on searching. (This is, in fact unambiguous spam: the author of the article actually states on his user page that he is the developer of the software.) JamesBWatson (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: All that I can find is the article itself. Joe Chill (talk) 15:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Joe Chill. LotLE×talk 01:43, 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. Cirt (talk) 01:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alex Minoff[edit]
- Alex Minoff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Procedural nom. Article was prodded, endorsed and de-prodded so let's get a consensus. Original prod concern was "Unsourced bio since november 2006. Probably not notable. Don't remove this prod without sourcing the article." edit summary for de-prod was "deprod - as a member of several notable bands he may well satisfy WP:MUSIC". HJMitchell You rang? 22:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note from prodder I requested sources in my prod. Sources were added. The prod was removed. I have no complaints. Hipocrite (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As a member of several notable bands who has received some coverage I see no problem keeping a short article about him. He is a reasonable search term for the bands he has been a member of if nothing else.--Michig (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then redirect him to the band. But be careful with that, because a couple of the bands he has been with might be in AfD soon. Per WP:MUSICBIO"Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. Members of two notable bands are generally notable enough for their own article." Of course if one of those "notable" bands gets deleted, he loses that loophole. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Several reliable sources are there, so what's the problem? Clearly the article could be improved upon a great deal, but there's definitely room for expansion. Whether or not that expansion ever happens remains to be seen, but deleting the article would negate that possibility altogether. Drewcifer (talk) 01:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirectto one of the bands. Did you actually read the sources? Yes, the Guardian is a reliable source. No, being interviewed about the band doesn't really make him notable as an individual. Yes, Rolling Stone is a reliable source. No, a single sentence mention of him (as a band member) in a one paragraph article is not significant coverage. Again, Boston Globe, reliable source. Again, an interview about the bands doesn't give him individual notability. Those sources strengthen notability for the bands, but not for him as an individual. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But do you agree that having details correct and establishing notability aren't necessarily the same thing? If a guy who played the role of "waiter" in a notable movie gets interviewed by a reliable source and confirm details about some notable actor, we can use that about the notable actor, but it doesn't make "waiter" notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely, they're not the same thing. We wouldn't keep 'guy who played waiter' as a redirect to the film he played waiter in, but we do quite rightly keep members of notable bands as redirects without a requirement for the 'subject' of the redirect to be individually notable. I don't really see how a stub that simply states who this guy is and links to the bands that he has been in is any worse than having a redirect to a single band. In fact, I don't see how redirecting this to one of his 3 bands would be an improvement on that.--Michig (talk) 12:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. You convinced me. Thanks. A redirect won't help. Since the man isn't the subject of any of the sources used and all he does in them is talk about the band, I don't feel they establish his notability. He may be a member of notable bands and can be listed in those articles. But as an individual, he doesn't pass notability. Since my attempt to compromise got beat down, nothing left to do but change the !vote. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well that's not very helpful. You're opinion wasn't beat down, it was challenged. You know, as in a discussion. If you can't handle that then don't provide your opinion in the first place. I think Michig has some valid points, as do you, so let's keep this constructive, yes? Drewcifer (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I attempted to. I said pick the most successful of the bands. He says it's not useful and that a redirect is worse than leaving an article about a guy who hasn't achieved notability on his own. That's a pretty solid rejection of the idea. Saying that a redirect is worse than just leaving it as is doesn't leave much room for further discussion. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well that's not very helpful. You're opinion wasn't beat down, it was challenged. You know, as in a discussion. If you can't handle that then don't provide your opinion in the first place. I think Michig has some valid points, as do you, so let's keep this constructive, yes? Drewcifer (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: per Drew. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails music, bio, etc... no multiple non-trivial mentions exist in reliable soruces to allow for the cosntruction of a proper encyclopedic biography.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Member of at least 2 notable bands, Weird War and Extra Golden; as has been noted above, WP:MUSICBIO states Members of two notable bands are generally notable enough for their own article. Once properly referenced, neither of those articles should be deleted here. The Guardian and Boston Globe articles need to be added to Ex. Gold, and the Washington Post has coverage [67] of Weird War that can be added as well. One more short, but relevant item from WaPo talking to Minoff about "his favorite things in town this week". Wine Guy Talk 10:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep member of multiple notablebands is good enough for wp:music, a single redirect to one of the bands (how to pick) is less useful than a stub. any unsourced info, rubbish, cruft can be removed leaving an appropriatly sourced article. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Per WP:MUSIC, redirecting a musician to a band they are in is proper if membership in that one band is their sole claim to fame, but not if they are a member of mutliple notable bands. — Gwalla | Talk 21:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How notable is Weird War? I can't find any evidence they've charted in the US. Have they charted somewhere else? Niteshift36 (talk) 22:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Charting is not the only criterion for WP:BAND (see 5. Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable). Weird War released four albums with Drag City (record label), at least one of which (Illuminated by the Light) has been reviewed by the Washington Post. Wine Guy Talk 22:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No kidding? Really? Gee, I guess that answers my question. Oh wait, that isn't what I asked, was it? WW isn't up for AfD, so talking about why they meet notability isn't really that productive. You entirely missed the point of the question. Then again, I shouldn't have even bothered trying. It's clear that nobody else even wants to discuss a redirect. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You asked whether that band was notable, and you got an answer. Wine Guy pointed out that charting isn't necessarily relevant in this case. The notability of the bands this person has been involved with is pertinent, since the notability of this subject is premised on those bands being notable. Calm down and stay civil, please. You're taking this far too personally. — Gwalla | Talk 23:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe one of the reasons that: "members of two notable bands are generally notable enough for their own article", is so that we don't have to flip a coin, or have a potentially contentious discussion about which band is "more successful", to decide where a redirect should go. Wine Guy Talk 00:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I say this as someone who is STRONGLY in favor of deleting unsourced biographies. This one is no longer unsourced and appears to be notable enough. JBsupreme (talk) 20:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This doesn't seem totally clear-cut to me but google news shows some sustained coverage: [68]; most of it isn't incredibly detailed but it's also not totally superficial either. I also am convinced by Gwalla's argument that this person's notability doesn't hinge on a single band. See this search: [69] This is a page that has enough sourcing that if I wanted to delete it I would recommend a redirect rather than a delete, but not all the material would be able to be redirected into a single page; it seems to make sense to keep it here even if it isn't the biggest page. Cazort (talk) 20:46, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Andy Barnes[edit]
- Andy Barnes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable BLP of a media executive. The only "source" is regarding some kind of salary issues. UnitAnode 00:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep , but needs work. Seem to be a lot of detail out there about him, needs improving but worth keeping if it ishttp://www.channel4.com/radio/4digital/group2b.htm here he is congratulated for channel 4s performance n 2004 by the board [70] , also here they talk about him in 2004 in another gardian report and they talk about "breaking the boundaries of the perceived confines of TV advertising" he seems to have been a major player in the tv advertising world in 2004. Off2riorob (talk) 02:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The first "source" you cite is a dead link, the second is basically a memo from Channel 4 (i.e. "original research"), and the third you mention is very deceptive, given your wording, in that it has ONE passing mention of the guy. This is NOT the "non-trivial" coverage required. UnitAnode 02:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, this is just the first very quick look, but there was more coverage, lets see what other editors think. Off2riorob (talk) 02:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The first "source" you cite is a dead link, the second is basically a memo from Channel 4 (i.e. "original research"), and the third you mention is very deceptive, given your wording, in that it has ONE passing mention of the guy. This is NOT the "non-trivial" coverage required. UnitAnode 02:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no proper coverage, so fails WP:BIO. The sources provided by Off2riorob are not sufficient, and if there is more coverage that he's found, he should provide it. Ironholds (talk) 20:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:BIO Dlabtot (talk) 21:07, 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 speedy close in favor of another current nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angad chahal –SpacemanSpiff 05:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Angad chahal[edit]
- Angad_chahal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])
- Delete The subject of the Angad chahal article fails WP:CRIN. He has not played major cricket, which includes representing an Associate/Affiliate nation in international tournaments, playing First-Class/List-A/Twenty20 cricket, or otherwise worthy of note. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I see some sources that show a level of notability, there aren't any (that I see in an admittedly brief search at Google) that talk about Chahal himself - they refer to the results of a match or to the team. Surely, Chahal's career will bring him enough notability for an article - but it doesn't look like he's there quite yet. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Speedy Close per Gene93k. I've participated, else I'd do it myself - and still might, per WP:IAR, if no one else does so. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 17:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggest speedy close. This article is also up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angad chahal, which is still open. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The author of Angad chahal edited the AFD nomination to direct to this page. Please refer to the proper discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angad chahal. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:26, 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. Cirt (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Boy's surface/Proofs[edit]
- Boy's surface/Proofs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Result of previous AfD was 'transfer to Wikibooks'. Article was copied to b:Famous Theorems of Mathematics/Boy's surface but the wikipedia article was never deleted. PROD (A5. Article has been traswikied) was entered but contested. There is little hope of turning this into an article in encyclopedic style. No references are given for the material.--RDBury (talk) 13:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the previous AFD closed as delete, I would have simply deleted this if asked. The reasons for deletion are well summarized by the essay at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Proofs: "if a proof is made a topic of its own dedicated Wikipedia article, the proof must be significant as a proof, not merely routine." The proofs included in this article are not significant as proofs, and would be out of place in the main article on their topic because they are routine but long. This makes them a bad fit for Wikipedia. On its own, that would lead me to recommend deleting this page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A5. The declined prod shouldn't prevent the speedy deletion. I agree with Carl — some proofs are significant enough to deserve their own articles, and others are short and illuminating enough to be worth including within articles on other subjects, but this is neither. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete wikipedia is not the place for long manipulation of formula. No refs, indication of notability etc--Salix (talk): 07:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keep notability is obvious from the main article, refs are not strictly necessary for mathematical proofs which can be understood by anybody who knows the topic.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 20:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you explain further how the notability of these proofs is obvious from the main article? These seem like textbook exercises to me. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My opinion is that if a mathematical statement is notable (enough to be mentioned in wikipedia) then also the proof is. I can agree that these proofs are awefully technical and long compared with the wikipedia standards but this is another kind of problem and I don't think that anybody would have even thought to delete them if they were nice and elegant proofs.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 22:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So, since the Feit–Thompson theorem is notable then the proof (200 pages of a journal article that only a handful of group theorists can understand) should also be in Wikipedia? Including a proof of every mathematical statement would be contrary to both WP:NOTTEXTBOOK and WP:IINFO. No one is saying remove all proofs, but they need to conform to the same standard of being encyclopedic as everything else.--RDBury (talk) 18:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I just said that the proof is "notable", not that *any* notable proof should be added entirely in wikipedia. I agree that this proof is ugly, long and technical but my view is that it is still not so much ugly/long/technical to require a deletion. This is just my opinion and my vote counts just one :)--Pokipsy76 (talk) 18:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it is not a vote, you need to give a reason why this proof is notable. Geometry guy 21:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I just said that the proof is "notable", not that *any* notable proof should be added entirely in wikipedia. I agree that this proof is ugly, long and technical but my view is that it is still not so much ugly/long/technical to require a deletion. This is just my opinion and my vote counts just one :)--Pokipsy76 (talk) 18:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So, since the Feit–Thompson theorem is notable then the proof (200 pages of a journal article that only a handful of group theorists can understand) should also be in Wikipedia? Including a proof of every mathematical statement would be contrary to both WP:NOTTEXTBOOK and WP:IINFO. No one is saying remove all proofs, but they need to conform to the same standard of being encyclopedic as everything else.--RDBury (talk) 18:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My opinion is that if a mathematical statement is notable (enough to be mentioned in wikipedia) then also the proof is. I can agree that these proofs are awefully technical and long compared with the wikipedia standards but this is another kind of problem and I don't think that anybody would have even thought to delete them if they were nice and elegant proofs.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 22:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you explain further how the notability of these proofs is obvious from the main article? These seem like textbook exercises to me. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Should have been deleted 2 years ago, and nothing has changed. A proof which no reliable sources provide or refer to cannot possibly be notable. I spent a little time reminding myself of the mathematics here and conclude that these proofs are pedestrian attempts to verify obvious statements, and they do so rather badly. They will never be notable. The immersion of Kusner and Bryant is simply a conformal inversion of a complete minimal surface given by the Weierstrass representation, and this article uses formulae which make the properties proven here essentially obvious. Alas Boy's surface does not do a good job explaining this and needs a lot of work anyway. Unfortunately this sort of thing is likely to happen when we cut and paste from MathWorld (as here), rather than check reliable and original sources. Geometry guy 21:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per first AfD. Ozob (talk) 23:24, 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. JohnCD (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Catherine Bragg[edit]
- Catherine_Bragg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])
The article has no references whatsoever. Unless this is fixed, the article cannot stay. --Pieces839 (talk) 20:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as the subject is holder of important post at UN. @nominator: Try Google Search, Google News search or Google News Archive before nominating an article. Look also at WP:RUBBISH, please. The information contained in the article is not harmful and it could be easy to add missing refs/fix the article. Vejvančický (talk) 13:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. References from Reliable Sources are easily available. I'll add some in a bit, but the ones I see from Reuters (for example) are sufficient to warrant a Keep. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, senior UN official, UN source has been added. Sandstein 21:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It is not about the subject, it is about the article, which has zero refernces. If references are available as it seems then someone must add them. --Pieces839 (talk) 15:51, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Danny Lee (singer)[edit]
- Danny Lee (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete no evidence of meeting notability guidelines. Boleyn3 (talk) 17:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Agreed, the article is completely unsourced for the small claims it gives, and those claims do not support a claim to notability in any event. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 16:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I don't see the notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:34, 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, as a disambiguation page. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular T · C 18:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Greek key[edit]
- Greek key (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subsection of main article Beta sheet contains more information than this stub. Giftiger wunsch (talk) 17:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand - indisputably notable and sourceable. I'm working on it now. Chutznik (talk) 19:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, change my mind - merge into beta sheet. This actually does not require admin intervention. Chutznik (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have executed a merge, and am replacing the article content with disambiguation. In order not to short-circuit the AFD, I'm leaving the original content below the disambig. At the end of 7 days, if consensus supports this action, please leave the disambig and remove the remainder of the page. Chutznik (talk) 20:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support replacement with dab per Chutznik. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably preferrable to outright deletion as the original article did include a topology diagram which the Beta sheet article lacked. I support the action taken by Chutznik. -Giftiger wunsch (talk) 09:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Beta sheet and redirect to meander (art) (or leave as disambig). --FormerIP (talk) 17:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as disambiguation - Someone removed the disambiguation stuff in good faith, but I reverted. Can we speedy keep this and remove the rest of the article? PDCook (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Half Man, Half Dog Vol. 1 (album)[edit]
- Half Man, Half Dog Vol. 1 (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
For the following reasons this article meets criteria for deletion:
- Failing to meet Wikipedia's General notability guideline: since the mixtape's (album) release in November 2008, it hasn't gained significant coverage from reliable media publications and hasn't charted in any chart. Therefore, there are just a few unreliable sources (including fan sites) which can provide only basic and inaccurate information about this mixtape.
- There is not enough reliable sources to expand the article with adding sufficient information. JuventiniFan (talk) 15:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason mentioned above but only difference is that the following mixtpaes were released in February 2009 and January 2010 respectively:
- Half Man, Half Dog Vol. 2 (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Greenlight 2 (Bow Wow album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment this is a lot of things to search for in one AFD and I'm not going to bother, but MTV's Mixtape Monday covered ...Half Dog Vol. 2 pretty significantly with the artist http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1606069/20090227/50_cent.jhtml , check there, hiphopdx and XXL for online mixtape coverage always (I checked the latter two for "half dog", just passing mentions). 86.44.24.146 (talk) 04:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all three; they fail WP:NALBUMS as well as WP:GNG. As the IP said, there's no coverage at HipHopDX and XXL, and save for the one MTV column there doesn't appear to be substantive coverage of any of them. A Google search for "Half Man, Half Dog"+"bow wow" returns a laundry list of sites with a picture and a download link, and no more. This one source isn't enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Yappy2bhere (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1629267/20100107/bow_wow.jhtml http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1629036/20100104/banks_lloyd.jhtml Look there's just too much to search for here, it doesn't make sense to nom three at once. 86.44.33.121 (talk) 00:02, 2 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) 00:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Illuminati in popular culture[edit]
- Illuminati in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unreferenced list of popular culture (loosely defined - is Tolstoy really popular culture?) references to illuminati. Tagged as unreferenced since March 2007, WP:OR since September 2007 and triviacruft since January 2009. No apparent effort has been made to fix any of these issues. Guy (Help!) 13:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It still needs cleaning up, and 'in popular culture' isn't the best title for these articles, but the last AFD closed with weather verging on snow, and I see no reason to delete it now.
The article doesn't appear to be tagged as being listed at AFD if someone could sort that out.Sorted.--Michig (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] - Comment It seems like more of an editing issue, which AfD is not meant to be used to force. Some of the items might be better included at Illuminati (disambiguation). I'll try to do some cleanup (removing some to disambig), but I don't know that I'll have the time to do referencing. I agree something new needs to be worked out about IPC sections/articles. My own thought is that a talk page subpage should be created (e.g. [Talk:Illuminati/IPC] - don't redlink that) where people can add them willy nilly, and they can be transferred to the parent article or create an IPC article as they get referenced. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 16:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no deadline, but I think that over two years is long enough for the editorial process to fix fundamental deficiencies in an article. This has not happened. It's not happened despite a previous AfD at which the need for sources was also discussed. Basically, the people who edit this page have no apparent interest in making it compliant with policy. Guy (Help!) 11:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So there's a two year deadline, basically. ;-} I could do something with this but not on the time schedule of this AfD; I have other stuff I'm working on at the moment. Worst case scenario, I'd ask it be userfied to me. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 02:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Listcruft, mostly fan-type material. --John Nagle (talk) 19:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I've added a few references - much of the content can be referenced fairly easily by the look of it, and those entries that can't can be removed.--Michig (talk) 13:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOT. Tom Harrison Talk 18:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- not what?--Michig (talk) 18:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a collection of un-notable mentions of the Illuminati, hopefully. Tom Harrison Talk 19:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep None of those are reasons for deletion and AFD is not cleanup. Kmusser (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per this nom, you know? JBsupreme (talk) 09:55, 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, Cunard (talk) 02:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisting comment: I've relisted this debate to generate more substantive discussion, as many of the arguments here are fairly weak. Cunard (talk) 02:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep "...in popular culture" articles are normal on WP, and useful to interested readers. And yes Leo Tolstoy's books are popular culture, although I don't remember this incident from War and Peace. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per WP:NOT. I might reconsider if a reference surfaces that discusses the topic itself. Pantherskin (talk) 09:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as listcruft, among other things. Also, I tend to agree with the idea that while there may not be a hard deadline, there's an indefinite point when an article has been around and tagged for a problem and said problem hasn't been fixed that you can say "It's had enough time, let it go". And in this case, we're coming on three years...yeah, it's time to let the article go.Tyrenon (talk) 11:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, more or less per nom. Most of this list is unsourced, there is original research throughout, and do we REALLY need to know every time a secret society is mentioned in some obscure kids cartoon? Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep. WP has many lists of every time something is mentioned in obscure media, and I and many other users find them worthwhile reading. The article needs to be cleaned up, not deleted. If the many unreferenced bits were removed, perhaps it could be merged into Illuminati. Ivanvector (talk) 13:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I know there are sources for Illuminati in literature, mainly Illuminatus!, Burkett's Illuminati, gothic lit especially Frankenstein, Northanger Abbey, Horrid Mysteries, and Nightmare Abbey, but others too. See e.g. The Cambridge companion to gothic fiction for a brief overview of some points regarding readers' "scandalous vogue for german tales of the illuminati."[71] Some for movies and games. Less certain about music (I'm really curious about why rappers seem obsessed with it, but I don't know that anybody's written about that). Thus I think an article, rather than a list of mentions, is possible, but it would take some time to develop (which I would like to do but am more inclined to start with expanding Illuminati, which is uninformative). I'd prefer there not be a merger to keep the edit history and talk page intact. It continues to amuse me that there's not a deadline, but many editors have one. I wish it were possible to do [Wikipedia:Arguments for deletion/Delete as listcruft] and never see it again! Yes, there are fannish lists and articles deserving of deletion, but that's not the argument to make for their deletion. The enthusiasm for citing essays (especially self-acknowledgedly uncivil ones) over guidelines and policies is rather fannish and crufty, ironically. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 15:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I spoke too soon: Christopher Holmes Smith and John Fiske, "Naming the Illuminati" in Ronald Radano and Philip Bohlman, eds. Music and the Racial Imagination (Chicago: University of Chircago press, 2000), chap. 18. and Bakari Kitwana, "Future Shock: Is the Hip-Hop Generation Ready for the New World Order?" The Source (August 1996). Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 15:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's very sloppy, but I took out all the unreferenced stuff (some of which might merit being readded, but see article talk page), wrote a more explanatory lede which still needs expansion, took out the bullet points to get away from the listing trend that creates, added some new material with some quick references which need their citation style fixed (I can do that, just doing it on the fly right now) and which can be mined for additional material since I barely scratched anything. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 17:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep i havent compared the recent changes, but i do believe that this subject is inherently encyclopedic, so it just needs appropriate editing. i of course wish we had a better name for such articles, as "in popular culture" is the bane of WP. oh well.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:35, 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, Cirt (talk) 23:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Although it was, indeed, unreferenced at the time that it was nominated, that problem has been fixed. Luckily, in practice, AfD really is cleanup, and a damn good thing too. Kudos to Schizombie for all the work done in improvement, and to the Guy guy for nominating it. Mandsford (talk) 13:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I understand that some people, like Lankiveil's viewpoint, may have objections about it's importance. Well, for many people, this may make important information. This article reads like a list and is essentially a list. I'd propose to convert this article back into a list and keep it. Hamza [ talk ] 15:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep this well organized and notable article as an early discussion already closed as keep and per the default whenever a WP:ITSCRUFT non-argument is used. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A fine popular culture article. It list many notable works which have featured the subject, and gives encyclopedic information about it. Dream Focus 22:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It has a few problems but the subject definitely warrants an article.Markeilz (talk) 04:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article now has lots of references and so the reason for nomination is moot. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I see a referenced article written with fairly decent prose. The arguments "listcruft" and "unreferenced/original research" seem to have been addressed. The content is too detailed to be germane to the Illuminati article; it is doing just fine where it is. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 18:03, 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 Big City Rock. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular T · C 18:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jeff Conrad[edit]
- Jeff Conrad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable and unsourced BLP of a drummer. WIkidemon is mass-reverting PROD tags from unsourced BLPs, without even bothering to try to source them. UnitAnode 00:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge or redirect to his band. Off2riorob (talk) 01:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Big City Rock as the best alternative deletion. Using this Google News Archive search, I was unable to find any sources that provided significant coverage about the subject. Most of the sources were about him joining a band. Cunard (talk) 06:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Julian Pace[edit]
- Julian Pace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Claims notability ("award-winning song"). The song did indeed win an award at the Savannah Folk Music Society, which incidentally does not have a WP article. Can't speedy due to notability claim, but probably fails WP:NOTE. XXX antiuser eh? 23:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 23:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Looking through the WP:MUSICBIO criteria, I'm not finding sources sufficient to satisfy number 1; the best I can come up with is a write-up in a local paper that's promoting an upcoming show produced by the Savannah Folk Music Society, the group from which Pace won the award. Regarding the award, it does not meet criterion 8, and I'm not entirely sold that it's notable enough in its own right to meet the "major music competition" standard of number 9, either. Gongshow Talk 00:08, 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. JohnCD (talk) 22:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Margit Fischer[edit]
- Margit Fischer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Very poorly sourced BLP. Notability is NOTINHERITED. UnitAnode 05:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. She's the first lady of Austria, though President of Austria is a less-than powerful position in practice (not in theory apparently). Still I'd guess she's notable just by virtue of being the spouse of an elected chief executive of a nation-state. There are not many sources in English, but apparently quite a lot in German. I'm guessing our article is at least in part a translation of this from de.wikipedia. The source cited was apparently used to create all or most of the articles about Australian first ladies in this category. I see no reason to assume that the article is "very poorly sourced" (or that it is well sourced) without knowing the publication cited in the one footnote. Some advice from German-speaking Wikipedians would probably be useful. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. -- RayTalk 07:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A search through the Google News Archives shows that she is a high-profile first lady: [72]. However, it would help if a German-speaking editor could strengthen the article's references. Warrah (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Sufficiently notable and covered for inclusion.--Milowent (talk) 17:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep She is well-covered by the media 7triton7 (talk) 08:16, 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 as per consensus. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 01:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rape and revenge films[edit]
- Rape and revenge films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
As far as I can tell from the viewable sources, this isn't actually a well-known subgenre of exploitation films. If anything, at BEST, this should be merged into the exploitation films parent article. My view is that it should be deleted outright. UnitAnode 04:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article lists notable examples of the genre, such as Baise-moi, and thereby establishes the notability of the genre. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Further evidence that the genre is notable can be found at this IMDb page. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Article cites many references supporting it's notability, including academic works (see the Men, Women, and Chainsaws citation). Could certainly stand to be cleaned up, but shouldn't be deleted outright. Luvcraft (talk) 16:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep a notable sub-genre, as proven by the refs on the article. Lugnuts (talk) 18:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable subject covering notable subjects. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Obvious keep. Bueller 007 (talk) 06:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - it could be way improved but the topic meets WP:GNG. --Cyclopiatalk 17:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:SNOW, WP:BEFORE, and WP:PRESERVE. Nominator acknowledges potential for merge, thus AFDing it instead of considering other options first is disruptive and as evidenced by the unanimous keeps that followed the nomination. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 21:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The genre clearly exist. Dream Focus 06:09, 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 Up in the Air (film). Cirt (talk) 22:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Release strategy of Up in the Air[edit]
- Release strategy of Up in the Air (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I've never seen a page like this for any other film. I don't see anything particularly notable about the way in which Up in the Air was released. Macarion (talk) 05:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Merge with Up in the Air. Clearly insufficiently notable to justify its own article. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to the main film article. No notability outside the film asserted. Dancarney (talk) 10:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please note that Up in the Air (film) still has quite a healthy-sized section on Release Strategy, so it would be appreciated if merge votes would specify whether they really mean that all these additional details need to be put back into that section. If you don't agree with keeping the article on its own, a redirect (or just delete, as this is an unlikely search term) would seem to make more sense. Propaniac (talk) 15:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Propaniac. If anyone wants to take time doing a merge, the best idea IMO is to park a copy at Talk:Up in the Air/Draft or some similar title, advise on the talk page of that article, and leave it up to interested editors to follow up. It's not our job to execute complicated merges. The topic is obviously not notable in its own merit. Chutznik (talk) 19:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge trim it down and merge the salient details. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Are there details in this article, that are not currently present in the Release Strategy section at Up in the Air (film), that you believe should be merged back into the film article? Propaniac (talk) 14:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the section is large enough, but there may be details that others would want merged back in, and I would have no problem with the section being expanded with additional information from this fork. If a merge vote is the majority vote then the article can be stripped back then merged once it is down to an agreed size and this article would become a redirect or deleted. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have delusions of Up in the Air (film) becoming a GA or even an FA article some day, so I would like other editors to be very judicious in what we put back into that article. --Dan Dassow (talk) 17:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- GA or FA are noble aims, I trimmed the plot with those aims in mind, but an AfD is not the place to work this out. The talk page of the film article, or talk page of this article would be that place. If the majority opinion is to merge this information then the article will stay until that is done, or until another editor becomes frustrated and starts a second AfD. Either way this is not the place for merge suggestions, especially as that would assume the end result of an ongoing AfD, and if the majority of editors feel this article fails the GNG then it should be deleted. If you want to put the time in then userfy this article and allow the deletion and then prepare the merge in userspace and add it back to the main article or trim the article back to the bare essentials and show those voting delete what you want to merge and get them to change delete to merge votes. All editors should be working at all times to make every article on wikipedia a GA or FA, but merge proposals can't be handled adequately in the middle of a deletion procedure. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment If "Merge" ends up as the consensus of this AFD, and none of the "Merge" votes bother to address what exactly should be merged, I would hope the closing admin simply redirects the term instead of picking arbitrary information to stick back in the film article. The content currently in the film article reflects what was deemed to be the most important information -- what would be merged from this spin-off if it weren't already present. Propaniac (talk) 14:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am in full agreement with Propaniac. None of the "Merge" votes have clearly adressed what exactly should be merged. Redirecting the term seems to be the better option here.--BIG FOUR ! ! ! ! 05:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)User has been blocked, refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Trusted_Throw for details.[reply]
- Comment This article was originally the contents of Up in the Air (film)#Strategy. Under the advice of a number of other editors, including Propaniac, we trimmed that section down to better fit the standards of WikiProject Films. Merging the contents or a sub-set thereof of this article back into Up in the Air (film) is probably not viable.
My personal preference would be to keep this article and refine it, since I developed most of contents of Up in the Air (film) as Jason Reitman, George Clooney, Anna Kendrick and Vera Farmiga were promoting the film. I do, however, admit to feelings of parenthood towards Up in the Air (film) and this article, so I do not have an unbiased point of view in this matter. This article may have already served its purpose and may have outlived its usefulness.
Regardless, I believe there is interesting or unusual, albeit not notable to many people, information in this article:
- Jason Reitman indicated that he could relate to that lifestyle of the lead character, Ryan Bingham, and he enjoys it himself. Reitman said, "I think when you're in an airplane it's the last refuge for the people who enjoy being alone and reading a book." This provides insight into why Reitman spent so much time on the road promoting his films and why he chose to adapt the Walter Kirn's book Up in the Air.
- Reitman documented his experiences promoting the film. He took photos of everyone who interviewed him and recorded videos in each and every city he visited. He edited these images together into a short video titled Lost In The Air: The Jason Reitman Press Tour Simulator.[73][74] This video provides insight into the film release process.
- Peter Sciretta of /Film and Alex Billington of Firstshowing.net interviewed Jason Reitman on video at the Telluride Film Festival in a Gondola. [75] [76] Their interview is cited as Up in the Air (film)#cite_note-SFilm_2009-09-16-21 and Up in the Air (film)#cite_note-FS_2009-09-16-22, but not included in this article. Jason Reitman can be seen taking video of Mr. Sciretta and Mr. Billington during the interview. Reitman's video is included in Lost in the Air.
- Up in the Air was principally filmed in St. Louis, Missouri. Up in the Air was the centerpiece for the 18th Annual St. Louis International Film Festival with Jason Reitman and Michael Beugg in attendance. Kevin Renick, a St. Louis musician who wrote the song Up in the Air, performed half an hour prior to the screening. Yukon Jake, a local St. Louis band who performed during the wedding scene in Up in the Air, provided entertainment during the party held prior to the screening.
- Paramount flew 50 members of the press to New York with Anna Kendrick, Sad Brad Smith and representatives of American Airlines to promote Up in the Air. The film was shown on the aircraft's video monitors during the flight from New York to Los Angeles. American Airlines provided the Boeing 767 gratis. Smith performed a few songs including Help Yourself in the aisle of the aircraft. I have not been able to find another example of a press conference for a film being held in aircraft flying coast to coast.
- American Airlines and Hilton Hotels were heavily involved in the production, filming and promotion of Up in the Air. Including that information in the main article seems like it would be tangential, but it would be more appropriate for this article.
--Dan Dassow (talk) 20:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Just my two cents here, but this is an well-written, unusual article with interesting contents. Zmalk (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 no consensus. There is some legitimate disagreement on whether her productions are significant enough to make her notable, and even though the people who think so are in the minority, their arguments are not ridiculous either and I cannot really read a consensus out of that. I have also taken into account that some effort to rewrite the article from a pure autobiographical piece. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sarina Singh[edit]
- Sarina Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article created by its subject and while there is some evidence of notability it appears to be promotional in nature and the notability isn't all that solid. Eeekster (talk) 08:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. B;atant self-promotion. All the links are stuff by this person, not evidence of her notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep She directed (and wrote) the movie Beyond The Royal Veil. Links [77] [78] [79] [80] allow Sarina Singh article to qualify for notability under Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Creative professionals. Additional mention of Beyond The Royal Veil can be found here. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 09:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain exactly how she qualifies as a "Creative professionals" because I'm just not seeing it and I don't think that film is anywhere near sufficient for a claim of notability. The links you cite are insufficient as they are just database entries that prove the documentary exists, not that it is notable or that she is a notable film maker. If you're seeing something beyond that, please elaborate. Sarah 07:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. Please read my reply below. If the 'work' (documentary in this case) is well known (the guideline doesn't require notability required of her work, but only of it to be "well known"), she qualifies for having an article. See the Google search I've provided below. Thanks ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 06:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think the documentary is at all well known, though. I've seen no evidence at all that suggests it is well known. Of what you've provided so far, the ghits are insignificant (see below) and the linked above database entries only prove it exists. If there is a real case to be made that she is notable, I think it's only on the basis of Lonely Planet and not the documentary, which I think is not well known or notable. Sarah 09:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but only after a serious NPOV rewrite. Notability appears to be there, but the article is way too promotional at the moment. Has potential, but needs a neutral editor to help. RWJP (talk) 10:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Sarah 01:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and RHaworth. I disagree that the one hour documentary is sufficient basis for a claim of notability. I don't find notability here to be at all compelling and certainly not on the basis of the documentary. IMDB and the Australian FFC and National Library links posted above are just database entries which only prove the documentary exists but they don't prove notability. Even if the documentary is notable, it seems that would justify an article about the documentary, not necessarily the writer. I've spent quite a lot of time on Factiva and the Australian New Zealand Reference Centre today but I really can't find much that would qualify as non-trivial or anything that would be useful in sourcing the article. Most of the articles that come up are articles that describe locations she has written about in the Lonely Planet books and are merely mentions in passing. There's a small number of articles she has written for newspapers but again, she's not the subject of the articles and merely has a byline. There's also a not insignificant number of articles about someone of the same name from Ireland and a couple of very short articles saying she was acting as agent for the sale of her parents multi-million dollar property in Hawthorn, Victoria, which also doesn't support notability. I'm also concerned about the quality of the sourcing in the article and I really don't think it's heading in the direction of complying with WP:BLP, WP:RS or WP:V.
- Three of the 12 citations go to Amazon pages for Lonely Planet books.
- Six of the twelve citations go to the National Geographic Traveler website - one of these cites is merely a list of contributors, three are links to two articles she contributed to their site, and two are to what seem to be the same page, an article which refers to an article she wrote.
- Citation ten is a link to www.eternalmewar.in which appears to be user-generated and lists 70 titles (including Singh's polo in India book) which received grants from the "The Maharana of Mewar Historical Publications Trust". The only thing this link is able to confirm, is that Singh received a grant for a polo book in 2000.
- Citation 11 is a PR page for the documentary at the Ronin Films website
- Citation 12 is the Screen Australia database entry for her film, again all it does is prove the film exists.
- I don't think any of these sources are adequate for a BLP and if the article is to be kept, it must be properly sourced to verifiable, reliable sources - the question is, do such sources even exist? I haven't been able to find anything of a reliable source nature which isn't either the byline or introduction to articles she has written, mere database entries (Amazon, IMDB, Screen Australia etc) and mentions in passing. Sarah 07:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm still for a Strong Keep. I'm sorry Sarah. Perhaps you didn't read my earlier message. Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Creative professionals clearly mentions that if "the person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews," then it's enough for the person to qualify as notable. You can argue that a "documentary" is not a "feature length film". But you cannot argue that "Beyond The Royal Veil" is not well known, which is the basic criteria for notability of the professional who is linked with the work (as per the guideline). Here are 9000 odd links from Google Search for "Beyond The Royal Veil". [81] Even if you take out arbitrary links, a common sense approach will show that the work is pretty well known. That's enough for Sarina Singh to qualify for an article. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 06:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no need to apologise! Of course I read your earlier comment - I replied to it! But I just don't agree with you.:) You need to be able to write a reasonable article about a person which requires sourced information about the person. The difficulty with writing about, researching and assessing the notability of contemporary writers is that generally we have a significant number of hits for their name, but when you actually examine them, you find that most are merely bylines for articles/books/etc they've written or contributed to or references to content they've written. We only report what has already been published by reliable sources, and this is especially vital for biographies of living people, so to be capable of writing a reasonable biography about someone, we need actual published information about them, not merely a swag of pages mentioning their name. And I'm sure you'd agree that the last thing Wikipedia needs at present is more poorly sourced biographies of living people, but that is exactly what this article currently is. As I said above, on the weekend I spent a few hours looking through Factiva and the Australian New Zealand Reference Centre (an Australian database of news, journal, magazine articles) but have not been able to find anything substantial about her. I also think you're chasing a red-herring here with the documentary. First, you're right that it's not feature length - it was about 50 minutes long, but regardless, I still see no evidence that leads me to believe the documentary is notable or well known and as I said above, I think if there is a reasonable case for asserting notability, it's on the basis of Lonely Planet. I'm actually quite stunned to see that you're actually arguing a case for notability via the documentary. That seems most unusual to me, to say the least, particular when we're talking about someone who has contributed to published books. Yes, I see there are over 9,000 g-hits for the documentary's name, and yes, I agree that pure g-hit numbers are pretty meaningless, but when you look a bit further than google's first page, you'll see that there are actually only 60 distinct g-hits for "Beyond The Royal Veil" [82]. I'd argue that's even more evidence that this is not a well known or notable documentary. I also noticed that according to IMDb (and recognising IMDb's fallibility), the documentary did not receive a broad release (they only have a release date for Germany). Likewise, "Sarina Singh" gets 306 distinct g-hits (of 36,000 total) [83] and most of those are mere references to material she has written and book shop entries. I actually spent a considerable amount of time researching both the writer and the film because I'm Australian and I have a particular interest in Australian culture in general and I would have been interested in working on the article and trying to save it from deletion and bring it in line with policy, but the more I looked, the more I became convinced that this person is just not ready for Wikipedia yet. Sarah 09:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Appears to fail WP:BIO and is clearly at some level self-promotion. Orderinchaos 10:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, the crux of this argument seems to have boiled down assertions that Singh is notable for her role in creating "Beyond The Royal Veil". With all due respect to User:Wifione though, I don't see that that particular documentary is notable enough to be considered a "well-known or significant work". For instance, not only do we not have any article on it already (which one would expect we would if it were notable), it hasn't got five votes at IMDB, and I can't find any real independent coverage of it. Without that, any claim of notability for Singh falls rather flat, I'm afraid. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep Author of a substantial number of books who has also made an interesting documentary. I have edited the article removing unreferenced material and peacock language. Fred Talk 14:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fred, if you want the article kept, please find WP:RS-compliant sources and ensure that it is adequately sourced. Currently the article still does not comply with WP:BLP because the sourcing is inadequate. The article is basically sourced to Amazon and a few articles she wrote about places. The first source, for example, is absurd. An Amazon listing for a book does not support that information - it doesn't even support the claim that she's Australian! I also do not believe that "interesting documentary" is a policy-based rationale for keeping articles. Your removal of material is all very well but given the origin of the article and the user's comments etc it's hard to believe the unsourced biographical and promotional material won't simply return after the AFD. I also disagree with your claim that she is the "author of a substantial number of books". And some of your edits seem to have introduced errors where you give her sole credit for books she was just one of many contributors. (the polo book, the Aboriginal and Tores Strait Islander book and the Pakistan and the Karakoram Highway, for example, all had multiple contributors but you're presenting it as though she was the sole author of them). I find a claim of notability on the basis of her writing far more reasonable than claiming she is a notable film-maker but I'm still not at all convinced. I'm pretty confident that if she was a notable Australian author, there'd be newspaper, magazine, etc, articles about her, not merely bylines and references to her writing. The people who want this kept really need to address the lack of RS-compliant material about her. Sarah 16:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sarah, your points were well made, but just to qualify my keep. I agree with Wifione that she meets the minimum notability requirements as to her work on the documentary alone, and there are also the Lonely Planet contributions. I also agree there is little, beyond these contributions, to write an encyclopaedic article "about her", but biographical details are not the only criteria: work done is another. There are plenty of celebrities whose biographical details are multiply sourced: there are other authors (especially documentary makers) who are almost invisible in front of their subject. Though we may debate the merits of the policy, "work done" is sufficient notability for the article to comply. Moloch09 (talk) 18:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Moloch09, thanks for clarifying your thoughts. I'm still quite baffled by the belief that notability is established via the documentary. It was financed and aired by SBS which a well known public television network in Australia that often passes under the radar and generally doesn't rate very well. SBS airs tons and tons of these types of short docos about people's personal stories, ancestors etc. I'd say this is part of the reason the Australian editors/admins who have commented so far seem to be of the view that she and the documentary, at least, is not notable or well known. Australia has a population of around 22 million people and SBS's slogan is "Six Billion Stories and counting..."! (you can see it in their banner at the top of their website.) Which works out to be around 273 of these documentaries for each man, woman and child living in Australia! I still think that *if* she *is* notable, it's as Fred sort of said and because of her work with Lonely Planet. She's contributed to a number of LP books and articles and if you're weighing notability, it seems to me that has an awful lot more weight than the the 50 minute documentary episode, apparently about her family's ancestors. I also disagree that work-output is sufficient to get over a lack of verifiable material about a subject. As someone said above, if the doc or books are notable, then the article ought to be about the documentary, book etc. I'll also say now (not to you, Moloch, but in general) that if the article ends up being kept, and it starts creeping back to being promotional when the next book comes out, or we see PR type activity and unsourced peacocky material back (remembering that this article began life as a copy and paste of her own promotional article), I will bring it straight back to AFD. Hopefully by then the recent unsourced/poorly sourced BLP-related discussions, RFC, arbitrations, etc will have concluded and we will have much clearer guidance for dealing with poorly sourced bios of living persons. Sarah 04:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I confess. I saw the documentary and found it very interesting. Not a source, I know... Fred Talk 22:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sarah, I've added a few secondary links: from The New York Times, The Times of India, The Tribune, Asia Times. Maybe that's a start. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 19:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wifione, the edits since I was last here yesterday have certainly improved the article and it's far better than the version I saw yesterday, but there's a couple of obvious problems. First, per WP:SURNAME, please refer to bio subjects by their last names, not their christian names - it's way too familiar. You (or someone, I haven't actually gone through the contribs) also added material claiming that she was the wardrobe designer for an American film and on that basis made the heading refer to movies and documentaries (plurals). I'm pretty sure that she was not a wardrobe designer for that American Desi film in 2001. In 2001, when that film was being made, she was working on two books - one in India and one in Australia. There's also not a single mention of that film, fashion or costume design, etc on her website and if you take a clser look at IMDb, you'll see they have two separate listings for Sarina Singh, one the author who co-wrote the documentary, the second, a wardrobe person (see Sarina Singh list at IMdb [84]). Both have only been credited for working on one production. I also noticed that there's at least half-a-dozen Sarina Singhs, (which obviously needs to be considered when looking at search engine results and g-hits) so it would be wise to be especially careful when adding information about someone of this name who's work is not as an Australian writer because this Sarina Singh seems to be purely and pretty much exclusively a writer. I'm not sure but her father or grandfather may be notable themselves. I think, from the information she wrote in that editorial about her father and what I have found in other articles, that the documentary is at least about some of his relatives and ancestors (which actually would make complete sense as short tv shows about people's genealogy, family histories, autobiographies, etc is exactly the type of material that SBS gets behind and airs)It is very hard to find and untangle appropriate information from back the thougn because there seems to be a number of people from that generation that share his exact name (possibly they were named after Bhagat Singh, an Indian freedom-fighter. Her editorial said "My father, Dr Bhagat Singh - whose father had migrated to Fiji after World War I..." I could be very ignorant about the movement of the Indian people post-WWI, but I would think it would be unusual for two Bhagat Singh's to move their family from India to Fiji at the same time. A Bhagat Singh who moved from India to Fiji after WWI, has a lot of newspaper articles at the time and is possibly notable. Sarah 04:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sarah, your points were well made, but just to qualify my keep. I agree with Wifione that she meets the minimum notability requirements as to her work on the documentary alone, and there are also the Lonely Planet contributions. I also agree there is little, beyond these contributions, to write an encyclopaedic article "about her", but biographical details are not the only criteria: work done is another. There are plenty of celebrities whose biographical details are multiply sourced: there are other authors (especially documentary makers) who are almost invisible in front of their subject. Though we may debate the merits of the policy, "work done" is sufficient notability for the article to comply. Moloch09 (talk) 18:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fred, if you want the article kept, please find WP:RS-compliant sources and ensure that it is adequately sourced. Currently the article still does not comply with WP:BLP because the sourcing is inadequate. The article is basically sourced to Amazon and a few articles she wrote about places. The first source, for example, is absurd. An Amazon listing for a book does not support that information - it doesn't even support the claim that she's Australian! I also do not believe that "interesting documentary" is a policy-based rationale for keeping articles. Your removal of material is all very well but given the origin of the article and the user's comments etc it's hard to believe the unsourced biographical and promotional material won't simply return after the AFD. I also disagree with your claim that she is the "author of a substantial number of books". And some of your edits seem to have introduced errors where you give her sole credit for books she was just one of many contributors. (the polo book, the Aboriginal and Tores Strait Islander book and the Pakistan and the Karakoram Highway, for example, all had multiple contributors but you're presenting it as though she was the sole author of them). I find a claim of notability on the basis of her writing far more reasonable than claiming she is a notable film-maker but I'm still not at all convinced. I'm pretty confident that if she was a notable Australian author, there'd be newspaper, magazine, etc, articles about her, not merely bylines and references to her writing. The people who want this kept really need to address the lack of RS-compliant material about her. Sarah 16:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per Fred. His rewrite enforces NPOV. She sails just above notability criteria.
Moloch09 (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Does not meet the criteria of WP:CREATIVE. In particular, she has not "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." Wikipeterproject (talk) 16:41, 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. Cirt (talk) 21:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sean Case[edit]
- Sean_Case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])
- Speedy Delete
or add referencesas there are no references or external links whatsoever meaning that the article is currently unnotable.ToxicWasteGrounds (talk) 17:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I can't find evidence to suggest that this novel has actually been published - no Amazon results, for example, other than for the DJ Mathematics album (which was a good one, btw). Speedy A7 doesn't apply to fictional characters, but A1 (No Context) doesn't apply either - we know the subject is a particular character from a particular novel. G3 (hoax) would apply, though, if the novel doesn't actually exist in any form, pre or post publication. Even if the novel exists, we should delete because there isn't anything here to merge over to the novel's article, if it even has one. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I can't quite find any CSD that would fit, but neither can I find any indication that the alleged novel series exists. Even if it does, the article's basically a WP:DICDEF, with no indication it would pass WP:Notability (fiction), Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 19:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not that it affects this discussion very much, but note that the nominator of this AfD is an indef-blocked sockpuppeteer... Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 19:07, 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. Cirt (talk) 01:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Vantaa Chamber Choir[edit]
- Vantaa Chamber Choir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:MUSIC. Finnish article is just as bare. search in Finnish doesn't reveal much [85]. 1 gnews hit in English [86]. LibStar (talk) 11:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep--Musamies (talk) 18:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:JUSTAVOTE is not a valid reason. LibStar (talk) 22:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Comment: no point deleting because of lack of content. There must be thousands of articles that have even less content. —Tve4 (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason. LibStar (talk) 23:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: has released an album through a major label (Fazer Finnlevy, now Warner Music Finland) [87], newest album (Marian Virsi) has been covered in many magazines ([88]), according to Helsingin Sanomat has won silver in an international choir competition in 1996 at Riva, Italy ("Vantaan kamarikuoro menestyi Italiassa", 9 April 1996, non-free archive) --Jusba (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Comment User Jusba founded links are valid--Musamies (talk) 06:25, 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. Cirt (talk) 21:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Richelle Monk[edit]
- Richelle Monk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No sources are given to substantiate claims to notability, including multiple awards. Web search yields only self-published stuff, and news search nothing at all. Favonian (talk) 11:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as a useless promotional piece.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No reliable sources found. Daa89563 (talk) 12:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No reliable sources cited or found in search. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – Lacks sources to support notability. ttonyb (talk) 16:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Blatant self-promotion of non-notable figure 7triton7 (talk) 08:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Doesn't pass WP:BIO. Warrah (talk) 19:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nothing to show it passes WP:BIO. Kyle1278 20:45, 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. Cirt (talk) 21:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Iggy Tavares[edit]
- Iggy Tavares (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
looks like a resume. fails all of WP:BIO, WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF. nothing in gnews, 1 hit in gscholar, 4 hits in gbooks. LibStar (talk) 10:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. NN per WP:BIO. Daa89563 (talk) 11:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —LibStar (talk) 05:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this article a hoax? Xxanthippe (talk) 05:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment searches under name "Ignatius Tavares" also reveal very little. [89]. LibStar (talk) 11:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete then. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:46, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 21:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stuart Harvey[edit]
- Stuart Harvey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
From the deleted prod: Subject has not played any games for a top-flight club, therefore fails notability. Eeekster (talk) 10:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Notability not established per WP:ATH, does not compete at the top-tier. Daa89563 (talk) 11:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Does not meet WP:ATH and searching does not come up with anything to meet WP:BIO. Quantpole (talk) 12:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Please note that the original article was over-written by this edit 196.219.24.34. Cuddy Wifter (talk) 05:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable under WP:ATH. Wikipeterproject (talk) 23:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:ATH and WP:RLN. Subject has not played top-flight rugby league nor represented internationally. GW(talk) 19:29, 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. Cirt (talk) 18:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Son of Slaves and Lords[edit]
- Son of Slaves and Lords (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable album released for free on the artist's own website, with little or no media coverage of substance. Fails WP:NALBUM. Prod removed without comment. TheJazzDalek (talk) 10:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —TheJazzDalek (talk) 10:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable WP:NALBUM. Daa89563 (talk) 11:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP. Satisfies #1 on WP:NALBUM (http://hhhdb.com/index.php?id=605 & http://www.ieweekly.com/cms/story/detail/atom_tha_immortal/681/ are two examples.) Ghernandez152 (talk) 21:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC) — Ghernandez152 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (Note: Ghernandez152 is a blocked sockpuppet of Gerryh7 (talk · contribs))[reply]
- Mention in an unreliable "database", and an article about the artist that doesn't mention the subject of this AFD. TheJazzDalek (talk) 01:00, 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. Cirt (talk) 21:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Business Decision Maker[edit]
- Business Decision Maker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Take your pick: WP:OR essay or WP:NN neologism. Failed {{prod}}
when sole author objected. Toddst1 (talk) 08:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. per WP:SYN. Daa89563 (talk) 10:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Daa89563. There aren't reliable sources for this sort of thing. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, also an extended dictionary definition for a phrase that really doesn't need explanation. And even if it did, this isn't it: a person responsible for showing proper directions to the business, considering the business drives, needs and priorities of the company against the risks, TCO and ROI involved in the any new deal,... - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOR, unreferenced. See also nearly-identical article Technology decision maker, created by same editor. MuffledThud (talk) 11:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, a dicdef for a vague term. Where it's not tautological, it's outright false (I have to sell IT services to be a "business decision maker"?). Hairhorn (talk) 12:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. per all the above. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 18:35, 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. Cirt (talk) 21:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Karyadi Sutedja[edit]
- Karyadi Sutedja (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article appears to be a hoax. Subject was not in fact nominated, but was on the ballot per microphonium and failed. All sources are misrepresented. Subject appears to fail WP:BIO. Toddst1 (talk) 08:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Sources listed for the article have almost nothing to do with the information presented. Non-notable per WP:BIO. Daa89563 (talk) 09:47, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 18:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jasmere.com[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}} . |
- Jasmere.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
All of these sources are blogs - some are from people at news outlets, but there is no indication that they are subject to the same editorial scrutiny that news stories are subject to - therefore fail WP:Reliable. {{findsources}}
returns only 2 results, both press releases. As a result I can only conclude that this article written by a WP:COI WP:SPA is about a company that fails WP:Corp. Toddst1 (talk) 08:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as db-promo. Bueller 007 (talk) 08:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The first reference is a news report from a television station. The second is from the Washington Business Journal's site, and bears the byline of a journalist. The third is from the site of Self (magazine). These are not written by independent bloggers, but are the responsibility of the media involved. As such, they are reliable. I added the "Terms Of Use" page from Jasmere.com only to confirm the company's legal name and location. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting that even Google doesn't consider those media blog outlets "news". See
{{findsources}}
on talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 09:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I agree with Eastmain, the first reference is a news report from a DC area CBS affiliate news station. The second and third references help establish the notability of this article. It should be improved but not deleted. Daa89563 (talk) 10:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I live near DC, and I heard about this site because of the news channel 9 story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phacts (talk • contribs) 13:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC) — Phacts (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep. I live in Pittsburgh, PA. I heard about this site from a friend in Denver, who saw it on a KUSA news feature. I have since used it for a couple of purchases and the site is exactly as described. Deal of the day with more buyers = greater discount. Article not available on KUSA anymore but can be viewed at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6I64L88juY —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myboysmommy (talk • contribs) 20:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC) — Myboysmommy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete as non-notable. The first source is the site itself; the second, fourth and fifth sources are blog-type postings with a promotional tone; the third source is a very brief mention in Washington Business Journal (just a paragraph). To my mind that does not meet WP:RS. --bonadea contributions talk 21:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable. I can not find any more Reputable and Reliable sources that meet WP:RP than the Washington Business Journal coverage, and while the WBJ may be reputable the size of the coverage barely meets wiki standards. In all, I don't see enough coverage (even with a few seconds of local TV news coverage) to warrant a stay of execution on this article --Brian(view my history)/(How am I doing?) 04:08, 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 Speedy Delete as WP:COPYVIO Toddst1 (talk) 08:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
James Raphael[edit]
- James Raphael (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
First, the text is a copyvio of http://www.jamesraphael.com/, Second he's non-notable as it doesn't appear he's actually won any awards, Third while it says that sources acclaimed him, the only source link provided is to his personal website. MBisanz talk 07:58, 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. Cirt (talk) 18:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lake Mower[edit]
- Lake Mower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Promotion of a non-notable commercial product Epipelagic (talk) 07:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. I think this reference from the State of Washington's Department of Ecology suggests a bit of notability for this product. It's interesting technology, anyway. The original version of the article had lots of trademark symbols, but I removed them all, per WP:MOS. - Eastmain (talk) 10:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete G11 advertising for the "Jenson Lake Mower", a product that one can use to skim the surface of a lake to clean it up of plants that are growing above the water. The text indicates that there are other machines that do "mechanical aquatic weed control" (but this one is "the most cost-effective"). Plus it "easily fits" on your boat and can be powered by any 12-volt battery, and it's been "praised" for its "ease of use and durability" and "applauded" for being "environmentally friendly", etc. etc. Mandsford (talk) 15:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Obviously just an advertisement. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This article is written like an advertisement but the machine as such is notable enough to be kept. I think we should rewrite this article from a neutral point of view. --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 18:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The fact that an article has a company or commercial product as its subject does not make the article into an advertisement. Consider Cadillac Eldorado, for example. - Eastmain (talk) 01:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I wrote the article and where I put the aforementioned '"the most cost-effective""easily fits" on your boat and can be powered by any 12-volt battery, and it's been "praised" for its "ease of use and durability" and "applauded" for being "environmentally friendly"' I was merely using the information from the references I found but I can rewrite so that it doesn't sound so 'one sided.' For example, we could add a 'criticism' however most of the reviews which I have run across have turned up to be generally positive. The "environmentally friendly" part though has to be understood in the context of choosing to use a Lake Mower rather than chemicals (which some can have side effects on the plants and wildlife.) I'll work on it some to make it more NPOV. Invmog (talk) 03:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment P.S.- Someone said earlier that "it skims the top of the water" but my research shows that people use this stuff to cut the weeds under the water so that they can swim or drive their boats around in the cleaned area, sort of like a lawn mower but for lake weeds as one of the sources put it. Invmog (talk) 03:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Another Comment Say, I just removed/reworded more NPOV most or all of the contested parts so if there are any further deliberations for deletion then please make them known by stating them clearly and concisely and I'll do my best to accommodate them. Invmog (talk) 04:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. At this point, I would still lean towards delete. To be more specific than I was before: (1) The lead refers only to one brand, by the brand name, and is sourced to the company's website. (2) There are only two sources that satisfy WP:RS: the inline cite to a municipal report (#6), and the inline cite to the Washington State Dept. of Ecology (#10), and neither really establishes notability. Cites #1, 2, 3, 5, and 14 go to the company's website and are promotional. Cites #4, 7, 8, 9, 11, 15, and 16 are essentially paid advertisements. Cites #12 and 13 are dead links. (3) The external link is also the company's website. (4) Even after the new edits, the page still contains "Many long-time customers have given the Lake Mower generally positive reviews" and "one of the most cost-effective mechanical aquatic weed control methods available." Maybe it would be best to userify until the page can be made encyclopedic. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Alright then; I removed the two sentences which you quoted and I also removed 'Jenson' from the 'Jenson Lake Mower'. Although I wouldn't completely agree that "#4, 7, 8, 9, 11, 15, and 16 are essentially paid advertisements" I'll see if I can find some more reliable references. Thank you for assessing the article and for letting me know what I can do to improve upon it. Invmog (talk) 22:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're welcome, and I hope it helps. Maybe I shouldn't have said "paid", since I don't know that, but the point stands, paid or unpaid. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I would favour keeping the article if there is an undertaking to redevelop it as a general article called something like "aquatic weed control machine", which is not confined to just one commercial product. (There is, in any case, a problem with the current title "Lake Mower" - Initially I thought that was the name of a lake). There is also a useful companion article waiting to be written on the "seaweed harvesting machine". --Epipelagic (talk) 23:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks also, Tryptofish, for being so WP:CIVIL; it's pretty refreshing to find in deletion discussions and so I removed some of the links going to companies who sell lake mowers but I didn't get them all yet but I'm all for having them removed. Also, I was wondering if we should completely remove the 'Accessories' section to make it sound less like an advertisement (the only reason that I included it in the first place was because I modeled the whole page after the String trimmer page which is why the sections are called History, Operation, Environmental impact, and Accessories.) Epipelagic, I know naming it just 'Lake Mower' could be very confusing which is why I wanted to name it 'Jenson Lake Mower' but I think if we could secure a free picture it'll a lot less confusing either way. Oh, and Tryptofish, you said "The lead refers only to one brand, by the brand name" which was very true, but as far as I can tell no other company makes the stuff and I think they have it patented but I'm not sure, but regardless I removed the 'Jenson' part.Invmog (talk) 00:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're welcome. Please also don't overlook Epipelagic's very correct observation that "Lake Mower", as opposed to "Lake mower" (note the capitalization difference), sounds like the proper name of a lake. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete: From the above post, it is clear that Invmog has no interest whatever in the suggestions above, is not prepared to expand the article into a general article, but is determinedly focused on promoting one particular product. There is no lack of equally worthy and equally interesting alternate products: WeedShear, WeedRoller, BeachBuddy, Aquatic Vegetation Groomer, Truxor amphibious weed cutter, SonicSolutions, Aqua Blaster, Lake Roto-Tiller, Big Tooth Lake Weed Rake, Aquamog, AquaTractor... the list goes on.
- It would be absurd to create individual articles for each of these. An interesting and neutral general article on the mechanical control of aquatic weeds could easily be written, but Invmog is not prepared to even consider this. He is not interested in lake weed control machines in general, he is only interested in this one product. This has clear hallmarks that an undeclared COI and blinkered agenda is operating here, and the article as it stands should be speedy deleted. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment About the name; maybe we could even do 'Lake Mower (machine)' but anyway I found a really good, solid, independent, reliable, notable source. No, really, I did; took me about an hour and a half. Anyway, It was a report done for the city of Richland, Washington. It's really, really long (I think 84 pages, and the page numbers aren't marked...) so I found the part where it talks about the lake mower and it lists advantages and disadvantages and some other stuff. Again, the page numbers aren't marked so look for it under 'Mechanical Harvesting' which is about 3/5ths of the way down. I hope this'll resolve the notability issue and I can remove more of the poor references later. Here is it: [90] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Invmog (talk • contribs) 01:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentMy apologies; I just now saw Epipelagic's last comment and I also forgot to sin my last comment. Um, Epidelagic, I'm not opposed to there being a more general article which is includes many different types of mechanical lake weed harvesting methods. However, I haven't done any research on those so you'll have to do that on your own. With the latest reference that I found (the one which I found after you said that the article "as it stands should be speedy deleted") I think the article meets now WP:N. It's true that I'm opposed to usurping this article into a more general one, but if you really that a more general article is needed then I could help you with it some, but after my latest reference I think Tryptofish would agree that this article has at least three very reliable and independent references right now and I can remove more of the poor references later (it's dinner time, sorry). Thanks for the feedback. Invmog (talk) 01:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well, Epidelagic, we can make your "Aquatic Weed Control Machines" article. I'll help you with it, but I still think that after my latest reference 'Lake Mower' is notable enough for its own article. We can get started on it right away, but I guess we should make it in someone's user subpage first. Do you want to make it on my subpage or yours? Invmog (talk) 02:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess it's not not so much that you have a COI, it's rather that you don't actually read what people say before you reply. I didn't say I would write the general article, nor did I did say that it would be a good idea to write articles on every aquatic weedeater on the market. I said the opposite. Let's see if we can make a deal. If you agree
- for a while, to read what people say to you, and then, before you reply, take a deep breath and carefully read again what they actually said
- to drop your idea of writing separate articles for individual products like LakeMower
- I guess it's not not so much that you have a COI, it's rather that you don't actually read what people say before you reply. I didn't say I would write the general article, nor did I did say that it would be a good idea to write articles on every aquatic weedeater on the market. I said the opposite. Let's see if we can make a deal. If you agree
- then in return I will agree to write the article "Aquatic weed control machine" with you over the next few days, and we will submit it for a joint DYK. LakeMower, and maybe some other models, can redirect to the article, and possibly to its own section in the article if we have notable sources. If that's a deal, then I'll start the article at the start of the next day, Wikipedia time (UTC). Have we a deal? --Epipelagic (talk) 06:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I've now read what you three times and I fully agree with the first bullet point and the offer you that make is very tempting. The only reason that I don't completely agree with the second bullet point and make a deal with you right now is that I was kind of hoping that the last reference which I found and listed above would help to establish the article's notability. I'll seriously consider your generous offer and I'll let you know before the day is through, Central Time. I wish I could prove this article's notability and still work on an "Aquatic weed control machine" article. I think that all of the before mentioned products "WeedShear, WeedRoller, BeachBuddy, Aquatic Vegetation Groomer, Truxor amphibious weed cutter, SonicSolutions, Aqua Blaster, Lake Roto-Tiller, Big Tooth Lake Weed Rake, Aquamog, AquaTractor" could be in the general article and then starting with the most notable ones we could create articles for them and we could link to them from the general article with the "See main article _________" But anyway, I think submitting "Aquatic weed control machine" for a DYK is a good idea and I'll let you know soon about that offer. Invmog (talk) 17:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm putting down what I said on the talk page because probably not everybody checks there always; "Unless, of course, we're talking about the Flymo article which has about one reference which goes back to it's own website, has a list of other products from that company, and has about three external links to its own company's sites... I'd say that the Lake Mower is equally unique but the article is much better sourced than the Flymo page. Not to mention, with y'all's guidance (I've only made one other article which lasted) this article doesn't sound like an advertisement and I'm willing to cut off the 'accessories' section if that'll help attain 'not advertisement' status. I'll put this on the deletion discuss as well so that the other editors can see it." Any thoughts? Invmog (talk) 00:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFF. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S.- Does this article still sound like an advertisement? Invmog (talk) 02:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Epipelagic, I said I'd let you know about the deal before the end of the day, Central Time, which is in less than two hours so I'll just say that although I think it's a good idea to create an "Aquatic weed control machine" article I won't accept your request right now because to do that I'd have to scuttle the Lake Mower article which I was still hoping would be notable enough to stay as an article by itself. If it turns out that none of the references provided show this article to notable enough then I'll either look for more references or be glad to co-author an "Aquatic weed control machine" article. But, I do appreciate your generous offer and civility. I was also kind of hoping that after reading my latest comments and as a Senior Editor if you help me improve the Lake Mower article to sound more like an encyclopedia article because I'm comparatively new to editing Wikipedia. Invmog (talk) 04:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)Invmog (talk) 04:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for bringing up WP:OTHERSTUFF, I didn't know it existed, but of course it's obvious that my only reason for keeping the Lake Mower article isn't because there is a Flymo article; I just wanted to use it as an example of a unique-to-one-brand technology and I wanted to submit to y'all that the Lake Mower article might be more notable than the Flymo article and it is definitely better sourced, more independently sourced, and also a lot less sounding like an advertisement (I do apologize for making a "too advertizy" article in the first place; I thought that it had been sourced enough and NPOV but y'all have really helped me to improve upon the article, it is the first article that ever written about an aquatic product.) WP:OTHERSTUFF does also say that "...an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement..." P.S.- Does the Lake Mower article still sound like an advertisement? Invmog (talk) 23:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It feels to me like one step forward, one step back. The capitalization problem still needs to be fixed, both in the title and in the text (fixing it in the text will help with the advertisement-sound issue). But for notability, the references are still the important question. The un-numbered reference at the end is a reliable source, but it doesn't really discuss what is on the page. The numbered references now: #1/6, 4, and 11 are RSs, but are more primary sources than secondary ones, #2, 3, 5, 9/12, 10, and 13 are not really appropriate sources, and #7 is somewhere in between. I'd say #8 comes the closest to establishing notability, and it's pretty marginal whether it does. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the help, Tryptofish; I've removed references #2, 3, 5, 9/12, 10, and 13 are which were listed as "not really appropriate sources" and I've fixed capitalization... unless the 'e' in "Eurasian milfoil" should not be capitalized. Thanks again! Invmog (talk) 23:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And I've made some further fixes myself. (No the milfoil name is fine!) I think the page reads as though it's early-stage encyclopedic now. The question is whether it passes WP:N, which hinges pretty much entirely on what is now reference #5 (formerly 8). --Tryptofish (talk) 23:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you so much, Tryptofish; I'll see if I can get another notable source when I have more spare time tomorrow just to put notability beyond question. Invmog (talk) 00:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I found another independent article which mentions them using a lake mower to help them gather seeds from aquatic plants. I think that lake mower is only mentioned on the 4th of 15 pages along with two pictures of it strapped to a net-contraption which they had to gather the seeds behind it. It should be here;[91]. It's probably at best a secondary source, so I'll keep looking for a more notable one. Invmog (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know if it's notable enough for a secondary source, which is why I haven't added it as a reference yet, but in the middle of the 7th page in the right column of this [92] Texas Aquatic Plant Management Society, Inc. Newsletter there's a paragraph about Jenson Technologies and their lake mower. Invmog (talk) 19:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just so y'all know; I'll be at a business conference over the weekend and so I won't be able to reply to any further developments or look for more references 'til Monday, Central Time. -Invmog (talk) 03:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted as there appears to have been significant improvement to the tone of the article but the weight of argument remains with delete. I think this needs further review and comment to establish a consensus reflective of the current state. Spartaz Humbug! 06:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A lot of work has been put in to improve the article, but it doesn't seem to be notable enough to stand on its own. As stated above I agree that the proper course of action is to create an overall aquatic weed control article. Daa89563 (talk) 12:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- I'm still for keep because, to quote Tryptofish, "I think the page reads as though it's early-stage encyclopedic now.[i.e. most of the reasons why the article was nominated for deletion in the first place have been fixed] The question is whether it passes WP:N, which hinges pretty much entirely on what is now reference #5 (formerly 8) [which I believe is now reference #6]" and if that source and the others don't establish notability (please check them) then I'm committed to finding more that do, indeed I found two other possibly secondary sources (which I listed above) but I haven't used them in the article yet because I was seeking feedback from Tryptofish as I was taking all of his advice on how to improve the article. Invmog (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Userify. Well, my feedback is to delete from article space and move into user space, until when and if those sources can be found. I've tried to help about as much as I can, but, as I said, it hinges at this point on one reference, but that one reference makes a pretty thin case, and I agree with Spartaz that the weight of argument remains with delete. I also agree with Daa89563 that a more general article about all the devices in this category (there are a couple of them discussed in that one reference) would be a better way to go. I'd be happy to see Invmog develop the page better in user space, and then bring it back when it's ready. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Yes, it looks like I might have to userify it, which, if that's the case, I might need help doing it because I'd love to include this deletion discussion that way when I re-release the article with more references we won't have to have more lengthy deletion discussions covering the exact same topics. I recently came across a reference which could very well prove notability for the article, which means it wouldn't have to be userified, but I have still have to look more closely at it when I get the time to do so, and then I'll put it either in this discussion or in the page itself. If that fails, then I'd be open to having it be userified; I'll try and let y'all know before the end of the day, American Central Time. Invmog (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry; I didn't get to look at more references as I'd hoped to do today. Give me just one more day (January 26th 2010 American Central Time) to try and find references to prove the article's notability and then if I can't do that then I'll freely consent to having this article userified until I can get more references for it and I could also then create a more general article (which I'm not opposed to creating a more general article right now, I was just hoping that this article could sand on its own notability, being a rather unique technology and all.) Invmog (talk) 05:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't mean to be stalling or filibustering, had looked at all of the references provided in the article and the two or three external references which I have listed in the above discussion (which are not a part of the article as of yet) and then I also found a few more references although by themselves they not be the best of references:
- ^ "Jenson Technologies Finds That Forth of July Week Highlights Common Heritage". Retrieved 2010-01-26.
- ^ "Progressive Possibilities". Retrieved 2010-01-26.
- ^ "Notre-Dame and Usher Lakes Association Newsletter – Spring 2005" (PDF). Retrieved 2010-01-26.
- ^ "we regularly mow the weeds with our underwater lake mower". Retrieved 2010-01-26.
- ^ "Online Auction for lake mower". Retrieved 2010-01-26.
I was wondering if finding so many references like them and the ones in the article (some of which are pretty notable) collectively build a case for the article's notability, which is the only contested issue of this deletion discussion anymore. If, after reviewing all of the article's references and the above references and external links, the consensus says that this article is should be userified then I'll happily comply, only as stated earlier, I'd need some help userifying it because I'd love to be able to keep this deletion discussion with the article if that's allowed after something has been re-userified and re-released. Invmog (talk) 04:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The sources provided by Invmog are either press releases or forums. This coverage is not enough to establish notability per WP:N. Cunard (talk) 05:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Cunard, I just wanted to make sure that you also checked reference #6 in the article which is to a report by the Department of Ecology, State of Washington. [93], but yes I figured most of the other references were rather weak, which is why I've consented to the article being placed back onto my user space until more notable references can be found, but as I've said earlier I'd need someone to help me do that as I don't know how to take this deletion discussion along with the article or if I'm even allowed to keep the deletion discussion linked to from the article's talk page if it is userified. Invmog (talk) 18:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I reviewed that source and do not see how it establishes notability. The page appears to be a short directory of companies. It states, "The following list of vendors is provided for your information. It is not our intention to endorse or promote specific vendors or products and this list may not be comprehensive. Vendors who wish to be added to this list should contact [NAME] at [EMAIL]." Cunard (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I was referring to the information provided about lake mowers above the part which you quoted. Again, I'm not opposed to the article being userfied; I just need help doing it. Invmog (talk) 23:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't worry about being able to still have access to this deletion discussion. It will remain archived, and you can come to it from your watchlist or user contributions any time. If the decision is delete (as I expect it will be, to be honest), the closing administrator can help you userify the article. (If you want to do it manually now, create a page as a subpage of your user page, then copy and paste the entire article there.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, thanks, I was just wondering if there was a Wikipedia guideline against me linking to the deletion discussion from the article's talk page after it's userfied. Invmog (talk) 05:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not that I know of, and I doubt it. Normally, when an article is kept after an AfD, there is a permanent link to the AfD discussion at the top of the article's talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, thanks, I was just wondering if there was a Wikipedia guideline against me linking to the deletion discussion from the article's talk page after it's userfied. Invmog (talk) 05:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't worry about being able to still have access to this deletion discussion. It will remain archived, and you can come to it from your watchlist or user contributions any time. If the decision is delete (as I expect it will be, to be honest), the closing administrator can help you userify the article. (If you want to do it manually now, create a page as a subpage of your user page, then copy and paste the entire article there.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:26, 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. Sandstein 07:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Salad days[edit]
- Salad days (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Mere dictionary entry that already exists in Wiktionary. Only four articles in all of Wikipedia link here. Recommend delete under WP:DICTIONARY. Bueller 007 (talk) 05:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - it seems to be notable, historic, and encyclopedic. Do you have any better reasons to delete? Bearian (talk) 05:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please provide a Wikipedia policy source for what constitutes an "encyclopedic idiom". As a general rule, encyclopedias do not include idioms, something that WP:DICTIONARY makes clear. FWIW, neither of the encyclopedias I just checked (Britannica and Encarta) include this. Calling it "encyclopedic" when you apparently can't point to an encyclopedia that includes it or to a Wikipedia policy that warrants its inclusion is a tad outlandish. Bueller 007 (talk) 06:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Agree with Bueller 007, WP:NAD. Plus its already listed. Daa89563 (talk) 13:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think a redirect or merge would make more sense, since we have the confusion of one article called Salad days and a disambiguation page called Salad Days, which is another example of no way to run an encyclopedia. For whatever reason, things like Wiktionary have never been linked on the sidebar, so saying that it already exists on Wiktionary is like saying that it can be found on Google. In addition, as one of those phrases that can be puzzling even for people who are native speakers of English, it is something that one would consult a reference work for. I liken it to "possession is nine tenths of the law" something that people misuse because they don't know what it means, or that they are reluctant to admit that they have no idea what it means. Some expressions fall under the "WTF?" category and are not readily discernible even from context. That said, I think that if the argument is "this does NOT belong on Wikipedia" carries, the information can be mentioned as part of Salad Days, along with a link to Wiktionary. How long it would last there before is questionable. Mandsford (talk) 16:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can see where this is going ... I would go along with Mandsford. Bearian (talk) 18:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A redirect is acceptable, however I think the dictionary stuff should be trimmed down... Delete with redirect to Salad Days, and make the lead sentence something like "Salad days is an idiom meaning "days of youthful inexperience" or "heyday (not necessarily in one's youth)". It was first used in Shakespeare's Antony and Cleopatra in 1606." Then the disambig list. I've created a model by merging Halcyon days with Halcyon Days. Bueller 007 (talk) 07:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOT a dictionary. JBsupreme (talk) 20:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is expandable beyond a dictionary--see the g books and g scholar results. The nature of the metaphor has been the subject of academic discussion: I've added the key source for that. DGG ( talk ) 04:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Absurd nomination of an excellent scholarly article. The matter is notable as DGG explains. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep needs sourcing but that is something that can be provided, (maybe you could stubify the article, moving unsourced information to talk?) like the history of the word. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Salad_days is a mere stub compared to this (only 2 sentences), with little history of this odd term Ikip 02:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for the same reason as all the others. A common idiom should have its own Wikipedia article, there no reason to delete. Dream Focus 06:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - Having two articles with the same name (outside of a single capped letter) is a just a mess. The Salad Days page is a reasonable Wikipedia disambig and gives all the info it should. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 22:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, substantial cultural and historical currency. Everyking (talk) 07:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand. Very capable of being turned into a worthwhile article. --FormerIP (talk) 17:48, 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. The consensus is that Youtube plus WP:ONEEVENT celebrity is not enough. JohnCD (talk) 09:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chris Whitcroft[edit]
- Chris Whitcroft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Speedy deletion under BLP1E reversed by DRV as BLP1E is not a speedy criteria. Relisting to resume discussion. Spartaz Humbug! 05:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Youtube contributor who was injured in a crash. WP:BLP1E.--Michig (talk) 06:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete under db-person and db-promo. Bueller 007 (talk) 07:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete BLP1E. RayTalk 09:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. If the London Free Press writes about him, he's probably notable. And it's not BLP1E: he had an audience for his stunts long before the crash. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep passes Wikipedia's guidelines WP:N & WP:BIO and per eastmain.--Otterathome (talk) 13:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Reliable sources cover that person only in the context of a single event (Winnebago crash) WP:BLP1E. A search for sources on this person returns results for the same incident which broke his back. Daa89563 (talk) 13:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Eastmain. Is he extremely notable? No.--Milowent (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete BLP1E and per Daa89563 and Michig. Kyle1278 02:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, press coverage demonstrates notability. Everyking (talk) 08:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. While he has a following before the crash, reliable sources only cover him the context of the one event. I don't see multiple sources from before the one event or sources after the event that give coverage to his entire career rather than focusing on the crash. Thus, I see this as a clear BLP1E. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Does appear to have garnered RS coverage solely for his crash, which is a violation of WP:ONEVENT. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:07, 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 keep. Cirt (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chip on shoulder[edit]
- Chip on shoulder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Merely an unsourced dictionary entry that already exists in Wiktionary. The only article in all of Wikipedia that links here is shoulder, and that's merely as a "See Also". Recommend delete under WP:Dictionary. Bueller 007 (talk) 05:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - again, here is a notable historic, and obviously encyclopedic idiom. What better reaons are there to delete? Bearian (talk) 05:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please provide a Wikipedia policy source for what constitutes an "encyclopedic idiom". As a general rule, encyclopedias do not include idioms, something that WP:DICTIONARY makes clear. FWIW, neither of the encyclopedias I just checked (Britannica and Encarta) include this. Calling it "encyclopedic" when you apparently can't point to an encyclopedia that includes it or to a Wikipedia policy that warrants its inclusion is a tad outlandish. Bueller 007 (talk) 06:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The only argument that would support the position that this is encyclopedic would be a list of articles on idioms that we do have - but that's WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which isn't a strong argument at AFD either. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are numerous encyclopedias which cover this matter. These include the Encyclopedia of School Psychology, Encyclopedia of murder and violent crime, The Gale encyclopedia of psychology, The Encyclopedia of education, The Encyclopedia of mental health,The Scribner encyclopedia of American lives,Psychology encyclopedia,Encyclopedia of murder,Encyclopedia of disability,Encyclopedia of crime and justice,Encyclopedia of Social Problems,etc. We observe a pattern of coverage - crime, education and psychology. These are quite encyclopedic, not purely lexical and so we're good. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please provide a Wikipedia policy source for what constitutes an "encyclopedic idiom". As a general rule, encyclopedias do not include idioms, something that WP:DICTIONARY makes clear. FWIW, neither of the encyclopedias I just checked (Britannica and Encarta) include this. Calling it "encyclopedic" when you apparently can't point to an encyclopedia that includes it or to a Wikipedia policy that warrants its inclusion is a tad outlandish. Bueller 007 (talk) 06:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Feels like we should have an article on this, especially if the term dates back most of two centuries. It'd be an easy keep, with sources - but the trick is finding those sources. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The sole incoming link at shoulder should be changed to point to the dictionary entry for this term at Wiktionary (which is a dictionary). Thryduulf (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Although it's not exactly the same thing, but would a merger to shoulder angel appeal to consensus? Bearian (talk) 18:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a rather loose usage of 'not exactly the same thing'. ;) Merger into Chip would make more sense. —Tamfang (talk) 06:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Because "not exactly the same thing" is more appropriately written as "not the same thing whatsoever" in this case, I don't think you'll get many people to approve of the merger. Bueller 007 (talk) 06:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOT a dictionary. JBsupreme (talk) 20:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment it seems to be more than a typical dictionary entry; however, it is unsourced at present. LadyofShalott 21:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. It is badly sourced and needs major cleanup if it stays, but this is not a dictionary definition. The suggested etymology and historical discussion (which don't entirely convince me, but are there) approach the sort of 'aim at embracing all knowledge'* seen in other parts of Wikipedia. *to paraphrase the Oxford English Dictionary's definition of encyclopedic. Cnilep (talk) 23:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as original reasearch. Nifboy (talk) 00:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. To those who think that this article should be kept: that's not the way an encyclopedia works. Encyclopedias are lists of subjects or concepts. The concept of "a chip on one's shoulder" is identical to the concept of "grievance", therefore, if anything, it should exist merely as a redirect to that page. The only ways in which "chip on one's shoulder" differs from "grievance" are those ways that are captured by a dictionary (NOT an encyclopedia), namely: pronunciation, spelling, etymology, and usage. Whereas some idioms need to be in Wikipedia because they represent unique concepts unto themselves (e.g., I would argue that "apples and oranges" represents a particular example of incommensurability for which there seems to be no other good term), "chip on one's shoulder" is not such an example. Another good reason for keeping a word or idiom is its actual historical impact qua term, as in the case of "mokusatsu". "Chip on one's shoulder" does not meet this criterion either, and it should be deleted. (One way I could see this article being revived is by making it about the actual practice of placing a chip on one's shoulder, but that seems non-notable and unlikely to expand beyond a stub, and it is probably better handled in the etymology section of a dictionary.) Bueller 007 (talk) 06:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As I read it, the actual practice of placing a chip on one's shoulder to invite a fight comprises about half of the article. I agree that if this were simply a definition of the idiom, it should be deleted forthwith. I disagree, though, that that is all that it is. Cnilep (talk) 16:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe you read it incorrectly. Approximately one sentence describes the actual practice. The remaining sentences in that section are examples of literary usage, which—you guessed it—belong in a dictionary. Bueller 007 (talk) 03:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As I read it, the actual practice of placing a chip on one's shoulder to invite a fight comprises about half of the article. I agree that if this were simply a definition of the idiom, it should be deleted forthwith. I disagree, though, that that is all that it is. Cnilep (talk) 16:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Expandable beyond a dictionary--to a certain extent the nature of a dictionary and an encyclopedia overlap. The statement of the meaning belongs in a dictionary; the explanation of the meaning and extensive examples belong in an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Definitions belong in a dictionary. Explanation of meaning belongs in a dictionary. Examples belong in a dictionary, too. Powers T 14:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep. If I saw this page as a definition in a dictionary I would be arguing that it is far too long and detailed and should be severely pruned, this suggests to me that perhaps it is better placed here.Pete the pitiless (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Encyclopedia articles are not just long dictionary entries. The fact that this precise article might not be appropriate for a dictionary (though there is no reason dictionary articles need to be short) does not mean that its content is not of the sort that belongs in a dictionary. Powers T 00:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The nominator seems to agree that we should cover the topic in some way - as a description of the behaviour or the sense of grievance. The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. Removal of this common phrase would be unhelpful to our readership per WP:COMMONNAME. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep needs sourcing but that is something that can be provided, (maybe you could stubify the article, moving unsourced information to talk?) like the history of the word. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/have_a_chip_on_one%27s_shoulder is a mere stub compared to this, with little history of this colorful term Ikip 02:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Talk about beating a dead horse. Nominator has nominated several related articles at once. Not to Make a mountain out of a molehill, but this is rather ridiculous. Since all the articles are the same, a common expression, why not just nominate all articles for common expressions at once, and save everyone some time? Someone really does seem to have a chip on their shoulder. Dream Focus 06:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have done some work on the article, adding material about the actual physical custom, as suggested by the nominator. This is covered in detail in reliable sources and so the matter is notable. The dictionary aspect then becomes secondary and we have good start on the history of this custom. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Definitions and usage examples belong in a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 21:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Ditto DGG. Dictionaries do not provide the breadth and depth with common expressions as well as we can here. Jojalozzo (talk) 20:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, substantial cultural and historical currency. Everyking (talk) 07:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, although rescue tag is appropriate. Should include the British usage in the lead for starters. --FormerIP (talk) 17:46, 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. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Guillaume de Fondaumière[edit]
Unsourced BLP of a video game executive. Wikidemon simply removed the PROD without attempting to solve the sourcing problem. UnitAnode 05:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I added two references from the French daily newspaper Libération. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I added four references which establish all of the most relevant facts necessary to confirm notability (president of a national assocation should do it). Edward Vielmetti (talk) 06:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per previous two. Seems to be a prominent businessman. RayTalk 09:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Passes WP:BIO. Warrah (talk) 15:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A simple google search will yield many articles about this important figure in gaming. His upcoming title "Heavy Rain," which he was instrumental in creating as an Executive Producer 1, is one of the most anticipated games of 2010.23 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Commidus23 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 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 as per consensus and the addition of references to the article. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 01:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jay Furman[edit]
- Jay Furman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Extremely poorly sourced BLP of a non-notable real estate developer. Only "source" mentions him ONE time. Wikidemon is simply removing PRODs without fixing the sourcing issues. UnitAnode 05:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. I added a handful of references to verify board memberships and trustee status. This dude has made a bazillion dollars in real estate and has been generous with it, generous to put him on the NYU board of trustees; he should be notable at least for that. Please don't confuse "not notable" with "poorly sourced"; those are two completely separate complaints about an article, and there's no question that a little bit of work makes for a better article. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 06:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Thanks to Edward for finding the sources. Unitanode, as your concerns have seemingly been met, will you withdraw this nom? RayTalk 07:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Per Edward Vielmetti--Milowent (talk) 17:14, 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. JohnCD (talk) 22:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dick Forsman[edit]
- Dick Forsman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unreferenced BLP. Proded but removed with a silly (best I can do) edit summary. His book clearly exists but I'm not sure how notable an expert he is. The mentions of his expertise are passing at best and have serious independence issues to be reliable sources.
Sources I've found include:
- This press release calling him an expert (not independent I imagine).
- Another press release
- This webpage-based press release which may be proper if the organization are actually appropriate.
- Here and here (again, independence issues).
- Book-wise, he's thanked, cited or called a consultant here, here, and here Ricky81682 (talk) 05:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. His book won a 1998 award, and his publisher has collected a raft of positive reviews from the bird-watching press. Alas those are all 1998 era reviews from specialist magazines that are not generally online. If you follow through to Worldcat you can get more independent reviews in the scientific press via JSTOR, but those publications are also not online for free. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 06:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No indication that he passes WP:AUTHOR or WP:ACADEMIC. Bueller 007 (talk) 08:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A notable person in his field of study, a prolific contributor in the Finnish section of BirdLife International. See also an interview in Ornithomedia and a profile at the Tammi Publishers website (the third largest Finnish book publisher). His book was reviewed in The Quarterly Review of Biology. In my opinion, Dick Forsman meets WP:AUTHOR and WP:ACADEMIC and the information could be useful for our readers. --Vejvančický (talk) 08:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. The sources provided by Vejvančický make it likely that this person meets the notability guidelines in question and the sources that Edward Vielmetti mentions above further this assumption. Someone with access to JSTOR or similar should add some sources for it but based on what has been mentioned so far it's likely that Mr. Forsman is a notable expert in his field of study per WP:ACADEMIC #1. The amount of GScholar, GBooks and GNews hits where people reference to Mr. Forsman as an expert on raptors further serve to indicate this. Regards SoWhy 13:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Clear keep. The number of reviews and the award are more than sufficient for WP:ACADEMIC which is the applicable guideline as he is not a "creative professional".·Maunus·ƛ· 15:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Passes WP:BIO. Joe Chill (talk) 16:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keep per additional sources listed above by Vejv. Passes both WP:BIO and WP:ACADEMIC. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep a likely search term for raptor scholars Vartanza (talk) 12:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 08:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Established scholar in his field. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:14, 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 Toddst1 (talk) 07:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pizza house[edit]
- Pizza house (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nonsense, non-sourced article, with PRODs and CSDs repeatedly removed. This should be speedied, but with the continued removal, I am moving to AfD. mhking (talk) 04:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speed Delete - Hoax/Vandalism CSD G3--blue520 06:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy - Per above. XXX antiuser eh? 06:50, 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. Cirt (talk) 21:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Randon II[edit]
- Randon II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Claimed to be a member of the French nobility in the 15th century, but no evidence of satisfying the guideline for notability ( WP:BIO). Claimed to be the spouse of a woman who was related to a Pope, but notability is not inherited. A prod was removed by the article's creator. Edison (talk) 04:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions.
- Comment. The title "gouverneur du Dauphine" may be a claim to notability. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- YOU CAN SEE THE PROOF ON THE FRENCH BOOKS.PLEASE IT WAS VERY HARD TO WRITE THIS ARTICLE. HELP ME TO COMPLET IT BUT DON'T DELETE IT .SINCERELY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prince elvis mozart (talk • contribs) 05:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There's no real "nobility notability" criterion in WP:BIO, and this is probably borderline. The family, the Joyeuses, appear to have been on the lower rungs of French nobility (Seigneur and Barony) during the 14th to 15th centuries, but the family appears to have been elevated to Vicomte and Duc in the 16th century, after Randon II's death. On the primary notability criterion, there are a number of hits on Google Books. As Eastmain says, if Randon II was Governor of Dauphiné, the representative of the King in a major province in the Ancien Régime, then that appears to be a pretty notable position. --Canley (talk) 06:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wikipedia is not for genealogies, however noble they may be. No evidence of notability and utterly slovenly formatting. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 07:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The French language website provided as a reference lists people who lived after the time of Randon II, and I did not see mention of Randon II in that website, although my weak French plus Google translate may have missed something. Why is the website to be considered a reliable source for this article? Does it have an identified editor or editors, and does it have a general reputation for accuracy, or does it have unreferenced information contributed by individuals interested in tracing their ancestry? Some more input by editors fluent in French is needed. If an individual can be reliable shown to have been a provincial governor, that should satisfy WP:POLITICIAN. Randon II de Joyeuse appears to be a redlink in the relevant article of the French Wikipedia, Joyeuse (Ardèche), viewable at [94]. If he isn't notable enough for a standalone article there, why would he be notable here? The French article says (Google translation) "En fait, avant le XVI e siècle , on sait peu de choses sur les seigneurs de Joyeuse, aucun ne se signale par des exploits. In fact, before the sixteenth century, we know little about the lords of Joyeuse, none was reported by exploits. Lorsque Randon II de Joyeuse est nommé gouverneur du Dauphiné en 1429 , les seigneurs de Joyeuse n'habiteront plus la ville de Joyeuse. When II Randon de Joyeuse was appointed governor of Dauphine in 1429, the lords of Joyeuse not inhabit the city of Joyeuse. Rangés très tôt sous la bannière royale, Joyeuse n'était pas dans la seigneurie de l'évêque de Viviers, mais dépendait du bailliage royal de Villeneuve-de-Berg . Sorted very soon under the royal banner, Happy was not in the lordship of the bishop of Viviers, but depended on the Bailiwick Royal Villeneuve de Berg. Titulaires de hautes charges royales ou ecclésiastiques, ils s'éloignèrent de leur seigneurie. Holders of high office royal or ecclesiastical, they left their estate." The subject of this English Wikipedia article supposedly died in 1424, so the claims of this article clash with the contents of the French Wikipedia article. Deletion due to lack of verifiable references still seems appropriate. Legend and original research. Edison (talk) 20:37, 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. Nomination withdrawn; article can be merged appropriately. NW (Talk) 20:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kevin D Myricks[edit]
- Kevin D Myricks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is an article about a soldier who was convicted for hitting an Afghan in 2005. This was an isolated incident that involved two soldiers. This, in my opinion, falls under the BLP1Event issue and should either be changed to make it about the incident or deleted altogether. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep/rename, while "accusations of assault" aren't typically fitting for a bio, convictions for a soldier beating a POW are sufficiently rare to be noteworthy...but I can't see any real harm in changing the article to be about the incident itself; since I'd rather see context added about where it occurred, which other officers were present or which prisoners were beaten, than which school Myricks attended, whether he's married and if he has ankle cancer. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 04:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is another soldier who was also convicted of this very same incident, so that is why I suggested this should be about an incident rather than about the person. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The incident merits an article -- This nomination calls the incident an "isolated incident". For "isolated incident" I encourage people to regard this as an "exceptional incident". Brigadier General David R. Irvine, a law professor and specialist in legitimate interrogration techniques, did regard the incident as notable, because of its exceptional nature. General Irvine noted, Lewis Welshofer, who actually suffocated a guy, by stuffing him headfirst in a sleep bag, binding up the bag, and then sitting on his chest, even though almost all his ribs had been broken earlier in his interrogation, only received a month's pay docked, and a month's confinement to quarters, when he was off duty. Welshofer's trial was also exceptional, because most of the (limited number) of similar incidents never got to trial. I agree that the original beatings, and the convictions could be seen as a single incident. I have found no coverage of either soldier, after the incident. But, the incident itself merits coverage, because the GIs who were involved in similar incidents -- or much worse incidents, who weren't court-martialed, considerably outnumbers the number of GIs who were charged. It merits coverage because this is not a local incident. It received coverage in newspapers around the world, in addition to scholarly comments like General Irvine's. It seems to me that not covering this incident would be a serious lapse from neutrality. Geo Swan (talk) 05:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The incident will be covered, but the focus will be less specifically on this soldier and more on the whole acts by all of the soldiers and officers involved. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to some collection of such incidents, if one exists. If not, consider creating such a list, or delete per WP:BLP1E. His notability stems entirely from one event, which is news and only attains significance against the backdrop of multiple such events in the ongoing wars. RayTalk 09:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Call for a speedy close -- everyone, so far, including the nominator, has called for a merge to an article about the incident. Geo Swan (talk) 19:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree to that. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:08, 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 no consensus. Cirt (talk) 01:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Heriberto Gil Martínez[edit]
- Heriberto Gil Martínez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I fail to see much notability in this Colombian military aviator who was killed in a crash. Large flock of WP:PEACOCKs, but Wikipedia is not a WP:MEMORIAL. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think we should keep this because of the material in it about the war, and early Coloumbian military aviation, not necessarily for him personally. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Plenty of these sources are about the article subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:36, 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. Cirt (talk) 01:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MPEG Video Wizard DVD[edit]
- MPEG Video Wizard DVD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unremarkable software. Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Contested prod. RadioFan (talk) 04:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 04:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Per [95], [96], and [97]. Joe Chill (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Per [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103]and [104]Wikierofc (talk) 07:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The first set of links are largely in German from websites I'm not familiar with, can someone else weigh in on their reliability? Are they blogs or are they associated with known publications? The second set of links includes some blogs, shareware directories, and websites that appear to be based around forums. In short it's not clear how the above links establish the notability of this software. Some additional comments from Wikierofc and/or Joe Chill as well as any other editor who is more familiar with these sources would be helpful.--RadioFan (talk) 12:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Those are reliable sources de:Computer Bild, ru:iXBT.com, and even Softonic reviews are okay. I've not heard of videoforums.co.uk; the reviews there are written by amateurs (click "about me") , but they look ok to use as additional source in the article. The other sites listed here are probably not WP:RS. Pcap ping 17:50, 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. Cirt (talk) 21:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alisha Davis[edit]
- Alisha Davis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A wedding announcement and a linkedin profile would not seem to provide the usual coverage of a notable media personality. I'm just not seeing how a freelance writer without major awards or coverage qualifies. MBisanz talk 04:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Her meagre IMDB page suggests that she's not deserving. Bueller 007 (talk) 08:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete She's done a lot of press work, and there was the NYT coverage of her wedding, which doesn't happen for everybody. But I waded through the first 60-70 or so Gnews hits, and I didn't see anything else that wasn't a byline or a trivial mention. RayTalk 09:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Correspondents like Davis are a dime a dozen. WP:ENTERTAINER, which covers "television personalities", is often used for TV news people; she's not even close. The fact that she got a NYT wedding blurb suggests that she is well-connected, not that she is notable. Wine Guy Talk 10:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete simply being a TV news reporter does not guarantee notability. no significant in depth coverage. LibStar (talk) 11:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — I'm not seeing it, either. She went to school, got married and has a job. Full stop. Jack Merridew 05:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Not enough notability to scrape past WP:ENT or the WP:GNG, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 10:31, 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 speedy keep. Article clearly asserts and provides sources showing notability. Current article is not a copyright violation. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular T · C 20:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Paxton[edit]
- Michael Paxton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
See Talk:Michael Paxton for details. In summary: 1) repost of speedy-deleted copyvio 2) limited notability other than the Academy nomination 3) there are other people named Michael Paxton just as notable PleaseStand (talk) 03:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —PleaseStand (talk) 03:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The Academy nomination and the Satellite Award for Best Documentary Film are each enough to prove notability, and even if he hasn't done much lately, once notable, always notable. The existence of other people with the same name is never a reason to delete an article. We can have articles on Michael Paxton (filmmaker) and Michael Paxton (artist), and potentially some other people listed at http://www.linkedin.com/pub/dir/michael/paxton/ - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I don't care for his subject matter, but as an Oscar nominee, he is per se notable. Bearian (talk) 06:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The current content is not a copyvio, so it does not matter if a past version was, and the existence of other notable subjects with the same name is an argument for creating more articles, not deleting this one. "Other than the Academy nomination" is a bit of an "other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play" type of argument; this is obviously the main source of his notability. One likely but unstated reason for the nomination was the presence of a {{BLP unsourced}} tag on the article (today's scarlet letter for articles), but since AFD has spurred the addition of sources, that no longer applies. --RL0919 (talk) 15:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Awards and nominations demonstate notability.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep as current article asserts and sources notability, its time to close this one. Perhaps the nominator might review WP:BEFORE and WP:HANDLE. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:38, 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. Cirt (talk) 21:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ligong Chen[edit]
- Ligong Chen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Lack of notability. Skbkekas (talk) 03:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: does not satisfy WP:ACADEMIC criteria. —3mta3 (talk) 09:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Part of a massive walled garden that includes also functionalized general trichotomic regression analysis, fullwise regression analysis, convergence rate of residuals, Center for Prostate Diseases Research, functionalized general trichotomy, continuity test, threshold in piecewise regression analysis, and many related redirects, dab pages, and redlinks. None of these topics appear to meet WP:GNG and Chen does not seem to meet WP:PROF. All should be deleted. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Continuity test seems to be two articles now, the original one having to do with electronics and a new one added recently by User:Yuanfangdelang. It would probably be best just to revert the additions in this case.--RDBury (talk) 02:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It might also be worthwhile to check Weighted_PRA, Uniformed_Services_University_of_the_Health_Science, Enforced_continuity, Piecewise_regression_analysis & Constant_expectation_(statistics).--RDBury (talk) 02:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What a mess You have to read several sentences into the article before you come to anything about the alleged grounds for notability. Is he a politician, a novelist, a theologian, an athlete,.....or what?? If the article is kept, it should get drastically cleaned up. I'll be back....... Michael Hardy (talk) 02:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No mathematical hits on GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete No evidence of notability per either WP:BIO or WP:PROF. GS[105] shows nothing relevant (note that there is a chemist with the same name). Nsk92 (talk) 02:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete--Kmhkmh (talk) 06:06, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 21:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Qjoypad[edit]
- Qjoypad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 03:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 03:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Nifboy (talk) 01:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Bueller 007 (talk) 08:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No coverage that I can find. Pcap ping 17:33, 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. Per policy/guidelines and the discussion below I believe "delete" was the only valid close for this discussion. The original concerns of the nominator were mooted once the article was sourced, so ultimately this was a discussion about notability. Those arguing in favor of deletion cite WP:POLITICIAN and the fact that the article subject fails the criteria there, a point not really refuted by anyone supporting keeping. Those on the keep side argue that Jones might well win the election and if not we can do an AfD again later, but that is simply not a valid argument per WP:CRYSTAL. Also on the keep side, victor falk argued that Jones has "received significant press coverage" (basically saying he is a local politician but still passes WP:GNG), however this was clearly not the consensus view. Given existing policies about notability in general and politicians specifically the arguments for deletion have to prevail here.
Turning this into a redirect was also very much a possibility, but there simply was not consensus for that option, and while it strikes me personally as a good idea I cannot ignore the stronger (and quite valid) support for outright deletion. Even after deletion there is nothing wrong with creating a redirect, though the history will be lost. If anyone is interested in having the article userfied I am happy to do that (just drop me a note on my talk page), and there would be no prejudice against moving it back into article space if enough sources came out such that Jones passed the general notability guideline, or (obviously) if he is elected.
Finally I'll point out that there seems to be a consensus that we need a general way to handle these "candidate" articles as we approach a big UK general election in a few months (many seem to recognize that, inevitably, more will be created). My close and rationale here are quite similar to the one presented in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tammy Jennings, and perhaps these will be worth referring to during future discussions. Martin451 commented about setting a precedent by just turning these articles into redirects to pages like Hyndburn (UK Parliament constituency), and that might be the way to go in the future even if it's not how this AfD ended. It would have the advantage of: A) Preserving edit histories; B) Avoiding running basically the same AfD over and over (a newly-created article would simply be redirected). DGG argues that WP:POLITICIAN is out of step with the current media environment and perhaps with a developing consensus among Wikipedians, which is probably a point worth pursuing on the policy talk page. I would enjoin all participants here (and other editors interested in this topic) to come to some kind of consensus on how to handle these sort of articles going forward, as ideally we would be able to avoid lengthy AfDs like this as the UK, Australian, and U.S. electoral seasons heat up (if not others as well). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Graham Jones (politician)[edit]
- Graham Jones (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced BLP. Deprodded with an odd edit summary, and then reverted when readded. This needs to be deleted. UnitAnode 03:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteRedirect Fails WP:POLITICIAN, so we need to examine for significant coverage in secondary sources. Gnewsing is made difficult by the fact that Graham Jones is a rather common name, but I took a bit of a look and didn't find anything that wasn't incidental to his various political roles, and hence I conclude that until and unless significant coverage appears, fails WP:GNG as well. RayTalk 03:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Note Change to permit redirect, as I've read the discussion below. I don't think, given the nature of parliamentary elections in the UK (where vote is much more on lines of party than on the merits of the individual candidate) that a major-party candidate is necessarily notable, but a redirect would serve the purpose well, while letting us preserve material in case he's elected. RayTalk 22:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- RayTalk 03:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- RayTalk 03:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. As above, the only coverage I could find was incidental. Here the clear failure to pass WP:POLITICIAN should outweigh any marginal case there is for WP:GNG. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- FIX or DELETE - No other outcome is compatible with policy, closing admin is instructed to disregard any keeps that do not assert the article has been properly sourced. Once sourced, consider the notability. Until then it is not acceptable to have this article here. ++Lar: t/c 03:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep He is standing at the next general election , there is plenty of coverage.Off2riorob (talk) 03:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete "Graham Jones is the Labour Party candidate for the Parliamentary constituency of Hyndburn at the 2010 UK General Election" supported by a primary source doesn't pass any of our BIO thresholds.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete, but… Jones currently fails WP:POLITICIAN. Local council members are not notable, nor are candidates for office. So, we look to WP:GNG. There's an article on his candidacy. He's mentioned in a number of articles, but I haven't seen anything that qualifies as significant coverage. For example, one article had about two paragraphs with his opinion on an issue affecting the local council. Accordingly, I don't see where he passes GNG; he is not currently notable. That said, while notability is not temporary, the lack of reliable sources could be. If he is written about extensively in the course of the election, he could then qualify as notability. Of course, if he wins the election, he automatically qualifies under WP:POLITICIAN. However, I don't see anything that shows that he's notable yet. —C.Fred (talk) 04:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- As Labour PPC in a Labour-held seat, there is a significant chance that he will be elected. If he thus becomes an MP, he will be notable. This is currently a horrid article, but that is a reason to improve, not delete. The time for deletion will be if he fails to get elected. I think we have to put up with biographies of PPCs until the election is over (or their formal nomination fails). Peterkingiron (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's exactly the issue I wrestled with. There's a reasonable chance that he will be elected (automatic notability), but that's future possibility and not current reality. Is the better path to have a weak article in the interim or no article at all? Frankly, I would not object to this discussion ending with a no consensus result, so that (pardon the Canadian political reference) we can prorogue this discussion until after the election. —C.Fred (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment After this got nailed the other day - about a certain election winner - I suggest we ought to be reluctant about including candidates merely because they are likely to win. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete. The fact that he may be notable in the future is irrelevant. Ironholds (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no evidence of notability. Being a PPC does not, of itself, provide notability. If he is elected, then an article should be created. Warofdreams talk 00:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Major party candidates for national office should be considered notable, to end nominations like this, if the nomination can be shown to be real. In the last year or so, with the growth of google news, almost all of them have turned out to have good secondary sources. Until we have that agreement, the sources need to be looked for, but this should be done first, before nominating. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So you aregue that all major party candidates are notable, and then that those major party candidates with good secondary sources are notable, and then that you've got no proof such sources exist. Ironholds (talk) 10:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To expand more fully; Major party candidates are not considered notable. Full stop, end of discussion. A keep vote that is against policy and questions the actions taken by the nominator (without any evidence to suggest the nominator did not look for sourcing, or any attempt to provide such sourcing) is a waste of bytes. Ironholds (talk) 15:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Quoting WP:POLITICIAN: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article.'" —C.Fred (talk) 16:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To expand more fully; Major party candidates are not considered notable. Full stop, end of discussion. A keep vote that is against policy and questions the actions taken by the nominator (without any evidence to suggest the nominator did not look for sourcing, or any attempt to provide such sourcing) is a waste of bytes. Ironholds (talk) 15:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So you aregue that all major party candidates are notable, and then that those major party candidates with good secondary sources are notable, and then that you've got no proof such sources exist. Ironholds (talk) 10:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- right, I am aware of the guideline, and I am arguing that the guideline is obsolete. We can almost always find sources for anyone running for a national level office who has won a major party primary in the US, and equivalent in other countries with a basically 2 party system. I have never encountered an election where there is not local newspaper coverage. All coverage before the election will include both party's candidates. What has made it obsolete is the extension of coverage in G Books and G News, but it was always the case that if they are not online, they will be in print.(and that one article was deleted unrealistically does not prove that another one should be also) I'm not sure I expect this argument to be accepted now, but if not, i think it will be in another year. DGG ( talk ) 19:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your argument is that the guideline is obsolete (which is irrelevant in terms of a single AfD) and that there should be enough sources to pass WP:BIO. Firstly, if there are enough sources to pass WP:BIO, WP:POLITICIAN is not applied. Secondly, you have made no effort to demonstrate that there are such sources, while simultaneously telling the nominator off for not looking when you've got no proof that he hasn't! Ironholds (talk) 23:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Guidelines should not be ignored on the basis of a unilateral assertion that they are obsolete. If you think WP:POLITICIAN should be scrapped, make a policy change proposal and see if you can get consensus to delete it; but until that has happened it can still be cited and applied. (Side-note: we really should have that policy debate soon, or we shall be repeating this discussion several hundred times in the next few months). JohnCD (talk) 22:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about the leader of a Borough Council, is that notable? "The borough council’s Labour Leader Graham Jones" Off2riorob (talk) 19:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be an "elected local official", so no. —C.Fred (talk) 19:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". Why are we arguing about this? Everyone knows that a major party candidate for a parliamentary seat is going to have substantial press coverage, and it's trivial to look up such sources when the election is currently in the news. Everyking (talk) 07:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry? "The guideline allows for significant coverage, and since something he's a minor cog in is happening, that coverage must exist, but I'm not going to look?". Ironholds (talk) 09:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are two news articles, in which he is the primary subject, already given in the article. Are you saying they don't count? Everyking (talk) 10:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry? "The guideline allows for significant coverage, and since something he's a minor cog in is happening, that coverage must exist, but I'm not going to look?". Ironholds (talk) 09:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Hyndburn (UK Parliament constituency), or if the seat itself becomes notable in this election, then redirect to the article about this election. Having an AfD for each and every PPC in the up-coming general election will be a huge amount of work, and think we need to set a precedent to redirect rather than go through up to 2000 AfDs in the run up to the election. Martin451 (talk) 10:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That makes sense. Hyndburn (UK Parliament constituency)#2010 has a list of the candidates and a link to the article on the (UK-wide) election. —C.Fred (talk) 17:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (voted above) It seems to me that it is going to be dififcult to resist having PPC biographies within six months of an election, but we should have a mass cull of articles on unsuccessful candidates as soon as the election is over. I would suggest a revision to WP:POLITICIAN to the effect that candidates for natioanl legislatures, elected presidency and smiliar major offices for major parties should be regarded as notable until the election has taken place, when notability must be reconsidered. I would suggest that a major party should be one with at least five existing represnetatives in the preceding legislature. How far down this should extend is debatable: possibly to US State legislatures and Austrialian provinces, with the Scottish Parliament, and Welsh and NI Assemblies, but not UK county and distriuct councils. However perhaps this discussion needs to be continued at WP:POLITICIAN. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep He also is the opposition leader in Hyndburn; that makes him fulfil wp:politician #2 to the tee: Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Generally speaking, mayors are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city.¨¨ victor falk 01:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On what grounds does any of that qualify him for a speedy keep? A standard keep, yes, but it doesn't invalidate anything about the nomination. —C.Fred (talk) 01:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Further, the requirement is for significant coverage about the subject, not just for his name to be mentioned in every article about a political issue in Hyndburn. —C.Fred (talk) 01:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As the article stands, does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Possibility of future notability is not enough for inclusion. Best to stick with the policy guidelines on this one. If there are other reasons for notability (other achievements as a politician or social activist), then they should be reflected in the article, but they're not there now and they don't seem so easy to find! Wikipeterproject (talk) 23:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:POLITICIAN. I do not see notability apart from his candidacy. Creating hundreds of candidate articles before the election and deleting the unsuccessful ones after it, as suggested above, does not seem to me a sensible plan. JohnCD (talk) 22:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleting this article now is a bit excessive, its got a couple of citations and a couple of externals and the coverage is only going to grow exponentially, if you delete it now, it will definitely get re created when the hullabaloo and the reporting kicks off for the election, even if he loses he will be notable for a couple of months, why delete an article with a degree of notability that people are going to be coming looking for, if he wins all good, we will have our article and if he loses we can delete it in June, if he wins, we won't have an article and about a hundred people will suddenly require an article, if we are a bit lax with their notability at the moment then the articles will be there ready and waiting, no worries really. Off2riorob (talk) 22:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- While consensus can change, notability is permanent. We can't make the judgement now that the candidate is notable and then consider him not notable if he loses the election. Its contrary to the concept of notability and turns wikipedia into a campaign portal. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really, we are just allowing a little common sense, there will be so much coverage soon that not having an article will be the poorer position, the not news issue is a bit dated as far as I have seen reflected in article creation on wikipeadia over the last year, we can not be a portal when massive coverage will be at every click of a mouse and an every newspaper across the UK. Off2riorob (talk) 22:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you run that last bit past me again? I couldn't understand it. You're making the assumption that he wins; we are not a crystal ball. If he wins, he can have an article. Arguing "we better have an article now, because we'll need one in three months, and anyway it doesn't matter that there's insufficient sourcing because there will be in 3 months" is something straight out of "AfD arguments to avoid". Ironholds (talk) 23:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To be a bit clearer, I am saying keep, if he wins he will be notable, if he loses then we can AFD him then, right now he is semi notable and rising. I am just throwing in my opinion with what I see as a bit of common sense, and looking outside of the box a bit, I have also added a comment and another citation. Off2riorob (talk) 23:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Major party candidate who is notable enough now. If he loses the election the article can be revisited (although there will be lots more coverage by then...) ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain how he is notable now, don't just state it. He doesn't currently satisfy WP:POLITICIAN, and we're not a crystal ball. UnitAnode 03:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From the guideline page ..Basic criteria
A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5] Off2riorob (talk) 03:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Needs to be closed[edit]
There's clearly consensus to delete the article as of now. I'd also suggest userifying it for Off2riorob, as he seems genuinely interested in the content, and it could be moved into the mainspace if the guy DOES win and become notable. UnitAnode 04:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. It does not appear that a consensus exists to delete. The suggestion to merge appears to have some support, but I am a bit unsure how to do this in a neat manner. I'll leave that matter up to editorial discretion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Junker and Crow Show[edit]
- The Junker and Crow Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can't find significant coverage for this radio show. Joe Chill (talk) 23:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I've found a few articles, nothing major but enough to pass muster. Seems to be notable in Pittsburg, which is hardly a small town. Here's a possible source. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to WEAE, the AM radio station that hosts the show. I'm sure that they're local celebrities, but there's no indication that they are on the radio anywhere but in Pittsburgh. Licensed radio stations are inherently notable, but their on the air personalities are not. Mandsford (talk) 21:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge or delete - Local notability only established, makes sense to merge to the radio station. Shadowjams (talk) 02:34, 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, Blodance the Seeker 03:06, 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. Cirt (talk) 21:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jewy Sabatay[edit]
- Jewy Sabatay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't meet guidelines at WP:Band and fails WP:V, only two sources are band's MySpace page and their own website. missrain(talk) 02:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 02:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Neither can I. Syn 03:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 03:44, 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 no consensus. A quick review of the article and arguments finds me agreeing mostly with Edison's delete vote, but Wifione's keep argument is well reasoned, and appears to have a fair level of support. No consensus here in other words. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Juraj Tóth[edit]
- Juraj Tóth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Claim to notability appears to be that he witnessed a meteor shower, and worked at a university. Clearly not worthy of an encyclopedia entry. Contested speedy. Prodego talk 02:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I had contested the speedy on the assumption that Prodego deleted the article without seeing darkfalls' new version. To me, the professorship indicates that he might be notable. However, if no one can add sources indicating that he meets WP:PROF within a week, then we should delete the article. NW (Talk) 02:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Does not appear to satisfy WP:Professor. Merely being a college teacher and publishing something are not sufficient. Significant impact? Prestigious academic award? What is supposed to make him stand out beyond tens of thousands of other professors? Edison (talk) 03:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Please note that I have been unable to retrieve many of the foreign sources for Tóth (he has published several papers in Slovak) due to language difficulties. If anyone can speak Slovak here can find these sources, it would be much appreciated. —Dark 04:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - if the contributions to science were significant, English sources would not be difficult to find, as English has become the lingua franca of most sciences. The fact that many publications are in a language few people can read is not a sign of notability for academics.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 19:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A source written in a different language should not be given less weight than a source written in English. The fact that English is the lingua franca of most sciences is an irrelevant point. —Dark 07:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that sources in other languages can be given the same weight but, the matter of fact is that, unlike, say authors of novels, singers and entertainers which can be well known in a culture and completely unknown outside of it, scientists with significant contributions to science will be at least noticed in English publications. Now Juraj Tóth could still technically pass the general notability guidelines through reliable sources in Slovak (if there are enough of them), but it's unlikely that he passes the notability guidelines for academics in light of the lack of English sources about his scientific work.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 12:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. See this list of publications. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - does not seem to pass WP:PROF.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 16:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. He witnessed a meteor shower, really? Wow. Congrats. JBsupreme (talk) 19:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you even read the article? His photographs and findings of the meteor shower was published in various journals, and in use by NASA. —Dark 02:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That still falls short of WP:N and WP:PROF. No significant coverage by mainstream media, no significant coverage in scholarly publications.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 14:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you even read the article? His photographs and findings of the meteor shower was published in various journals, and in use by NASA. —Dark 02:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Wikipedia:CREATIVE#Academics clearly mentions "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources.". The person Juraj Toth is well known amongst his peers (including NASA, European Space Agency). Wikipedia:CREATIVE#Creative professionals mentions that notability is further assured if "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work that has been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles." Considering that his photograph (and his contribution, per se) is listed by Department of Astronomy[106], The Observer[107], European Space Agency[108] which btw has only his photograph for reference, Bath University[109], NASA[110], Harvard[111], Michigan Technology University/NASA[112], and others mentioned in the article, and sundry sites like Meteor Observer[113],Comenius University[114],Astronomical Institute of the Slovak Academy of Sciences[115] Environmental Graffiti[116], Arizona University[], and for the sake of brevity, conferences [117], one could surely keep the article. I also think one could even look at notability criteria for photographers which says that "if a photographer is significant historically (e.g. the first to photograph this)", the person is notable. In that context too, Juraj Toth would qualify (if one considers purely the photograph). ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 14:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep on the basis of the arguments above. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:21, 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. Cirt (talk) 21:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of Shoreliner names[edit]
- List of Shoreliner names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I believe this is a clear case of WP:NOT, as Wikipedia is not a railfan spotter's guide oknazevad (talk) 01:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment is there a wikibook or wikia to dump this to? 76.66.192.206 (talk) 04:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 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. I have taken note of MichaelQSchmidt's keep vote, but note that the articles in the second Google news link contain nothing non-trivial and the first shows only brief local coverage. Therefore, Wine Guy and Bearian's comments appear stronger. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Amanda Sickler[edit]
- Amanda Sickler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Seems to have had multiple small roles in notable television series but I can't find anything to substantiate her own notability... HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 01:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. In her most "significant" role (on Charmed), she appeared in 11 of 92 episodes over four seasons, hardly significant. Fails WP:ENT. Wine Guy Talk 11:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per significant coverage in reliable sources. Seems she was notable as a child model [118] before she grew up to act. Coverage then and even minor coverage now [119] grant notability per WP:NTEMP. Time to expand and further source. What can be accomplished through regular editing is no reason to delete.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelQSchmidt (talk • contribs) 20:35, 25 January 2010 UTC
- I really don't see much non-trivial coverage in those sources. While I agree her name appears to have been floating around for a while, I still don't see notability per WP:ENTERTAINER. Wine Guy Talk 21:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the problem is sourcing. I can't find any legitimate film reviews that mention her, except for the Times listing and a cursory mention at the WatchThis website. Bearian (talk) 22:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Jayjg (talk) 04:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Desire (band)[edit]
- Desire (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
Aside from one review through Pitchfork Media, no (other) reliable sources to establish notability of a band. Searching for "Desire" is hard, but searching with a band member's name only brought up one result from an apparently unreliable source. tedder (talk) 01:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 01:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 01:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 01:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably should be kept. Here are some other sources.[120][121][122][123][124].Prezbo (talk) 04:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Multiple sources found. Clearly notable.--Michig (talk) 06:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for finding those sources, Prezbo. Prylon (talk) 09:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the sources only mention the band in passing, except one unreliable source which is a review. Rapido (talk) 10:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Meets WP:MUSIC based on sources provided by Prezbo. Chubbles (talk) 20:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep Some references found help establish notability. Kyle1278 15:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – The sources Prezbo are hardly substantial.
- #1 Is about the record company and only mentions the band in passing.
- #2 Is about the producer and and only mentions the band in passing.
- #3 Is about their record and interestingly talks more about the producer than the band. The band is almost an afterthought.
- #4 Is about the producer and and only mentions the band in passing.
- #5 Is about the Montreal music scene and only mentions the band in passing.
- My question to Prezbo, Michig, Chubbles, and kyle1278 is how do these qualify as substantial coverage of the band. These are at best all passing references. ttonyb (talk) 17:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The Portland Mercury, Now, and Guardian articles contain short but non-trivial coverage. The RA article is about the band's album - I don't see how that can not be considered significant coverage of the band, since the band exists to perform live and make records. See also this interview, and possibly this, although I'm not familiar with the site. Add in the fact the band's main man is also the main man behind this band, and I think it's clear that this should be kept.--Michig (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – The Portland Mercury, Now, and Guardian articles are trivial coverage - see description of the articles above. You have a point about the record coverage, but the gist of the article is about the album, not the band itself. The fact the band's "main man" is also behind another band is not a factor in establishing this band's notability. ttonyb (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The Portland Mercury, Now, and Guardian articles contain short but non-trivial coverage. The RA article is about the band's album - I don't see how that can not be considered significant coverage of the band, since the band exists to perform live and make records. See also this interview, and possibly this, although I'm not familiar with the site. Add in the fact the band's main man is also the main man behind this band, and I think it's clear that this should be kept.--Michig (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – The criteria in WP:BAND is "Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians..." ttonyb (talk) 20:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but that's only a rule of thumb, and in this case the clearly-notable Glass Candy was producer/musician Johnny Jewel plus a vocalist, and Desire is producer/musician Johnny Jewel plus a vocalist. There's also this Pitchfork review, which goes well beyond a brief mention.--Michig (talk) 20:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – The criteria in WP:BAND is "Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians..." ttonyb (talk) 20:17, 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 article was substantially improved post-nom, so - keep (nomination withdrawn). –xenotalk 20:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Joe Connelly (writer)[edit]
- Joe Connelly (writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced BLP of a writer. WIkidemon is mass-reverting PROD tags from unsourced BLPs, without even bothering to try to source them. UnitAnode 00:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Writers are notable, especially when their books are notable and made into movies by notable directors. Grsz11 02:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Clearly notable. I added some references. The nominator should review WP:BEFORE - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sourcing verifies notability.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I am not sure whether all of Wikidemon's deproddings are justified, but many of them are, such as this. Each time one of them is sourced, it proves that the prodding was unjustified is the prodding. It is time we settled the whole issue, by simply making WP:BEFORE a requirement, here and at WP:PROD. DGG ( talk ) 05:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Alternatively, we could strike WP:BEFORE completely and also change the detailed policy wording to disallow keeping unsourced material past a certain deadline after it has been added, in accordance with the broader policies in effect. ++Lar: t/c 18:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My standard for deprodding was a lot stricter than that. I only deproded articles that, upon review, were not plausibly deletable under current policy. That was somewhere more than half of the ones I reviewed. The remainder of the PRODs were at least arguable, even if most of them failed in the end. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Alternatively, we could strike WP:BEFORE completely and also change the detailed policy wording to disallow keeping unsourced material past a certain deadline after it has been added, in accordance with the broader policies in effect. ++Lar: t/c 18:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Highly notable Vartanza (talk) 12:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Sources exist. Might want to check before starting an AfD in the future. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and suggest speedy close. It's obviously notable and now sourced. The author wrote a bestselling book that became a movie. I deprodded, and restored the close, because there is no plausible argument for deletion, and no chance at all that this article will be deleted. The nominator has reverted two attempts to close. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the article if it remains in the state it was in at the time of the nom, which was valid. Keep if it remains in at least as good a state as it is of this writing. ++Lar: t/c 18:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Pardon but I don't know any other way to say this. What the hell does that mean?--Cube lurker (talk) 18:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems pretty straightforward to me. this version of the article is deleteable on sight. Completely unsourced. Has been for more than 2 years. Astoundingly valid AfD nomination, since the PROD was removed without sources being added. this version of the article is adequately sourced, and would qualify as a keep. IF the article is reverted to something approximating the earlier unsourced version, I think deletion is appropriate. But that's not going to happen, is it? Hopefully not, anyway. ++Lar: t/c 18:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So you're saying keep since we're talking about the article as it stands? I haven't seen anyone suggesting reversion to an inferior version.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Look, as we all know, this is a scuffle over the failed attempt to start deleting BLP articles out of process for lack of citation while the RfC is in process on how to deal with them. Lar is at one extreme of the opinion spectrum here, that such articles should be deleted on sight even while the RfC is in process. That's not going to be the outcome of RfC, and ArbCom has repudiated that position. The article is not going to be deleted, the nominator has re-opened twice, so here we are prolonging a moot discussion just to prove a WP:POINT. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You will stop accusing me of bad-faith, or it's you that will be sanctioned. My nomination was done in good-faith. UnitAnode 19:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You sound like you need to take a break. You are not doing the encyclopedia or any of its editors a favor with this misguided belligerence. I get that you have a nonstandard interpretation to the rules. You're certainly free to your interpretation but when it crosses the line to process abuse, confrontation, and edit warring, you need to cut it out. I do not appreciate the mischaracterization of my edit history or the over the top threats. You're capable of making fine contributions to the encyclopedia when you edit collaboratively and in good spririts. Please keep that in mind. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You will stop accusing me of bad-faith, or it's you that will be sanctioned. My nomination was done in good-faith. UnitAnode 19:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Look, as we all know, this is a scuffle over the failed attempt to start deleting BLP articles out of process for lack of citation while the RfC is in process on how to deal with them. Lar is at one extreme of the opinion spectrum here, that such articles should be deleted on sight even while the RfC is in process. That's not going to be the outcome of RfC, and ArbCom has repudiated that position. The article is not going to be deleted, the nominator has re-opened twice, so here we are prolonging a moot discussion just to prove a WP:POINT. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So you're saying keep since we're talking about the article as it stands? I haven't seen anyone suggesting reversion to an inferior version.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems pretty straightforward to me. this version of the article is deleteable on sight. Completely unsourced. Has been for more than 2 years. Astoundingly valid AfD nomination, since the PROD was removed without sources being added. this version of the article is adequately sourced, and would qualify as a keep. IF the article is reverted to something approximating the earlier unsourced version, I think deletion is appropriate. But that's not going to happen, is it? Hopefully not, anyway. ++Lar: t/c 18:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Pardon but I don't know any other way to say this. What the hell does that mean?--Cube lurker (talk) 18:16, 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 no consensus. I have read the arguments, and I do not share the nominator's assertion that the "boil down to nothing more than "keep, because he 'discovered' asteroids/stars." The keep arguments have presented a reasonable case that Cooney's work has been reported in numerous media outlets, which relates directly to notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Walter R. Cooney, Jr.[edit]
- Walter R. Cooney, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced BLP of an astronomer. WIkidemon is mass-reverting PROD tags from unsourced BLPs, without even bothering to try to source them. UnitAnode 00:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keep This guy is discovering asteroids and planets, that is so notable. Off2riorob (talk) 01:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment AfD nominations coupled with accusations of bad faith don't bode too well for the nominator. Please strike that bit here, and at all of these other nominations. Grsz11 02:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey kettle. How many AfD's did you post that in? Good lord. Grsz11 02:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As it stands, the brief article does not satisfy WP:PROFESSOR. Is it unusual to do the work he is paid to do? Edison (talk) 03:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there any particular reason to believe that he's paid to be an astronomer? I'm pretty sure that a lot of these asteroid-finder sub-stubs we've been seeing in prods and afds are amateurs (and that the observatories they're supposedly associated with are their home telescopes); is there some evidence that he's an exception? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is the best source I can find about the guy (that isn't behind a pay wall). Basically, he's a chemical engineer and amateur astronomer who made a bunch of asteroid discoveries before the computers took over and did it automatically. There are some references in gscholar, but these mainly seem to be data from tracking some of the asteroids. The reason I am saying delete is that the only coverage is in a local paper, and his exploits as an astronomer do not appear to have brought much recognition from people in the field. Quantpole (talk) 12:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per Quantpole's link and plus other coverage such as this [125] and citations in Minor Planet Bulletin [126], a journal for the type of discoveries that Cooney makes. Being an amateur astronomer does not disqualify one from making major astronomical discoveries, as per the early work of Maria Mitchell and Clyde Tombaugh. Warrah (talk) 15:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked at the papers he has written/co-written with and they really didn't seem to have been cited much at all. The only real coverage I see for him is the local paper, which doesn't indicate to me that he has made much of an impact in the world of astronomy. Quantpole (talk) 15:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep sufficient sourcing. I would not be inclined to classify the discoverer of one asteroid as notable; this is a good deal more. Warrah has found the necessary citations. Given that he's an amateur, the strange argument: "is it notable to do the work he's paid to do?" does not matter, but on that principle, we would remove all the articles on professional athletes and musicians. . DGG ( talk ) 05:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So, if I buy a strong telescope, set it up in my back yard, and discover an asteroid, I would be notable enough to have an article about me? That doesn't make any sense at all as an argument for keeping this article. And I can not make heads nor tails of your disjointed argument about professional athletes and musicians. They're notable because they are professionals. This guy is not notable because he's an amateur. It never ceases to amaze me the lengths people will go to in an attempt to save a non-notable article. UnitAnode 05:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you get ample news coverage for your discovery, you would. The newspapers determine its notable enough to talk about. Dream Focus 22:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ample news coverage? Hardly. A bit about the telescope he used in a local newspaper, where he is talked about. There are hundreds of thousands of people mentioned in local newspapers, but that doesn't make someone notable. As far as I can tell his achievements haven't been recognised by anyone in astronomical society. Yes, he has written or co-written a few articles, but as far as I can tell they are mostly measurements of asteroid data. His work does not appear to have been cited by others in the field. Here is a piece in my local paper - does that make the couple notable enough for an article? Quantpole (talk) 15:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you get ample news coverage for your discovery, you would. The newspapers determine its notable enough to talk about. Dream Focus 22:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So, if I buy a strong telescope, set it up in my back yard, and discover an asteroid, I would be notable enough to have an article about me? That doesn't make any sense at all as an argument for keeping this article. And I can not make heads nor tails of your disjointed argument about professional athletes and musicians. They're notable because they are professionals. This guy is not notable because he's an amateur. It never ceases to amaze me the lengths people will go to in an attempt to save a non-notable article. UnitAnode 05:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 08:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Many significant discoveries. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep Google news search has dozens of results when you shorten his name. [127] And he isn't paid to do this, it just a hobby, as the Baton Rouge newspaper says, "Walter Cooney, a chemical engineer by day and stargazer by night, spotted the first of the three free-floating space rocks on Sept. 24." Dream Focus 22:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There are maybe 10 news sources that mention him, when you subtract baseball and narrow it down to 1980-2009. None of them go beyond a trivial mention. I'd encourage the closing administrator to keep these things in mind when making this close. This is not a majority vote, after all. UnitAnode 22:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep An amateur who's discovered 50 stars, 60 asteroids and 33 planets is obviously notable. TomCat4680 (talk) 09:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep—Frequently mentioned on The Minor Planet Bulletin and other astronomical pubs.—RJH (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete - anyone with access to a telescope can find asteroids, and many will given their number, so that does not make him notable. The only reference is to a short local news story about the telescope he uses, i.e. not primarily or mostly about him.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 23:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per JohnBlackburne. JBsupreme (talk) 12:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to closing admin: Many, if not most, of the "keeps" boil down to nothing more than "keep, because he 'discovered' asteroids/stars." This is not valid, and I would think that all such recommendations should simply be discarded as this is not a majority vote. UnitAnode 13:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Per RJH. He's mentioned in sufficient sources to be notable, in my book; the deletion arguments simply don't hold up. Rebecca (talk) 15:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per JohnBlackburn. Googling the subject, it does seem to be the case that any amateur can discover asteroids. It seems like a nice thing to do, but doesn't require the sort of skill or talent that would make someone notable. Here is an example of a group of undergrads fining 1,300 of the things [128]. I bet they don't have WP articles. --FormerIP (talk) 17:39, 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. JohnCD (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Coşkun Sabah[edit]
- Coşkun Sabah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable and unsourced BLP of a Turkish singer. WIkidemon is mass-reverting PROD tags from unsourced BLPs, without even bothering to try to source them. UnitAnode 00:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 01:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He's written 100 songs, many of them notable in Turkey and was involved in a notable court case regarding copyright. Off2riorob (talk) 01:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. The claims, if true, would demonstrate notability, but they need to be sourced. Lots of ghits, but they're all in Turkish, so I can't verify the claims myself (he doesn't seem to have gotten much press in English). If reliable sources can be provided, I'll be happy to change my !vote. — Gwalla | Talk 21:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I've added some sources to the article to demonstrate notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:44, 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. Cirt (talk) 21:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bobby Cruise[edit]
- Bobby Cruise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable BLP of a wrestler. Wikidemon is mass-reverting PROD tags from unsourced BLPs, without even attempting to source them. UnitAnode 00:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki♥311 01:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Premier League noted wrestler. Off2riorob (talk) 01:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes but hes a notable announcer. Off2riorob (talk)
- No, he's not. And even if he were, the above is proof that you're not even investigating, and just voting "keep" on everything. UnitAnode 01:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Here he is being interviewed about it, there is loads of stuff out there about him, sure hes not obama but people are interested. Also.. I have looked at some and not voted to keep. Here he is being interviewed in a radio interview . Off2riorob (talk) 01:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- MYSPACE?!? You're linking me to MYSPACE?!?!?!? UnitAnode 01:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Easy tiger, I am just had a little look and there does seem to be notability, I am not a wrestling fan but I am sure the article can be improved and saved by someone that is. Off2riorob (talk) 01:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- MYSPACE?!? You're linking me to MYSPACE?!?!?!? UnitAnode 01:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes but hes a notable announcer. Off2riorob (talk)
- delete or stub down to nothing - not reliably sourced. Off2riorob, we get it, you're against doing something to solve the BLP problem. Closing admin should disregard most of your view I think since it's kneejerk (the mass keep votes suggest that), and focus on the part where you assert notability. ++Lar: t/c 02:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unsourced BLP with not a shred of notability. Think Different? {{sofixit}}. Jack Merridew 04:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Google News searches are good so I'll talk about that since no one else has bothered to (believe it or not this AfD is not just merely a site to continue the Great BLP War of Early Twenty-Ten). The archives that pop up on a search on "Bobby Cruise" suggest there is little or nothing to work with in terms of writing an article (not all of the 22 articles are even about the wrestling dude, and those that are do not seem to be substantive). There are some mentions on blogs and other places on the web but I'm not finding reliable sources, meaning we have a definite failure to establish notability and arguably cannot even verify basic facts about this chap. I'll also point out that the "source" cited by Off2riorob (not the MySpace one) includes this marvelous piece of information: "Bobby then talks about working for Zero-One Max and Dragon Gate, mentioning that there'll be a Dragon Gate dojo in the US before finishing off the interview with one of those CW Anderson Tokyo stories and eating COW'S COCK! Keith talks briefly about testicles before talking about his favorite colour cupcakes!" So if we do keep this bad boy that bit about cupcakes and cow cock should definitely go right into the article because that source is like as awesome as wrestling or sumething lol. Sorry about that last bit but I really hate wrestling and don't get to make fun of it nearly enough. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I only see passing mentions in dubious sources. As always, will reconsider if better sources are found. Quantpole (talk) 11:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - thoroughly unnotable, an announcer in some minor league? fails WP:N big time. MPJ -DK 05:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- STRONG Delete Fails every applicable WP policy and essay without exception. RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 10:50, 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. Scott Mac (Doc) 22:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Simon Cole[edit]
- Simon Cole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable and pathetically-"sourced" BLP of a businessman. The only "source" is to some list of "fellows." Wikidemon improperly removed the PROD without even attempting to fix the underlying sourcing issue. UnitAnode 00:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Major buisnessman, Chief Executive of UBC Media Group, pioneer of sponsored programming. Clearly notable enough to pass WP:BIO Off2riorob (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment AfD nominations coupled with accusations of bad faith don't bode too well for the nominator. Please strike that bit here, and at all of these other nominations. Keep as a notable businessman. Grsz11 02:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. CEO of a company significant enough to have its own Wiki article and a bunch of press, Cole himself is discussed in a number of news stories including this from The Independent, so I think he probably passes the notability threshold, though not by a significant degree. I've sourced the article using the above news story and an online bio, so the nominator's original concern is now moot. Demerits to the nom for having a go at another contributor in the nomination statement—not classy. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Thanks to Bigtimepeace for actually coming up with some sources (shock horror!) Can the BLP battle be kept to other venues please - it's not like there aren't enough of them to keep people occupied. Quantpole (talk) 11:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 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. Cirt (talk) 21:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pierre Estable[edit]
- Pierre Estable (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable, and wholly unsourced BLP of a painter. Wikidemon improperly removed the PROD tag without bothering to actually source it. UnitAnode 00:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Respected cartoonist, he worked on Scooby do! and exhibitor of his art. Off2riorob (talk) 01:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Regardless of his work on Scooby Doo, unfortunately no-one has written enough about Estable for us to write a biography. Kevin (talk) 03:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:BEFORE. Bearian (talk) 06:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I too could not find any decent sources. I could find a promo but that was about it. At the moment there are no sources with which to write an article. Quantpole (talk) 12:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC) Note - the french version does not have any sources either (and hasn't been edited in over 2 years). Quantpole (talk) 12:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. If this is a "respected cartoonist" then there should be non-trivial coverage of this person by reliable third party publications. Where are they? JBsupreme (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as there is absolutely no independent coverage of this person. Many people worked on Scooby-Doo. Most of them are not notable. freshacconci talktalk 14:58, 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. Cirt (talk) 21:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ross Dolan[edit]
- Ross Dolan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable, and almost wholly unsourced BLP of a musician. UnitAnode 00:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 00:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Immolation (band). Didn't need an AfD for that. Grsz11 02:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable unsourced BLP. The 'source' there at the moment is a dead link. Epic Fail. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:23, 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. consensus is that the article is notable, however sourcing concerns have not been addressed. This may be undeleted if someone is willing to source it. Scott Mac (Doc) 15:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Subsequently restored after editor offered to source it. Do not delete if this promise is met.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DJ Quicksilver[edit]
- DJ Quicksilver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable and unsourced DJ. Only sources are his "official site" and his Myspace. Wikidemon improperly removed the PROD, without bothering to source it. UnitAnode 00:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 00:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Major Techno DJ Quicksilver with iconic record releases a forerunner in his field. Off2riorob (talk) 01:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: He has a top 10 hit in Europe. Joe Chill (talk) 02:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment AfD nominations coupled with accusations of bad faith don't bode too well for the nominator. Please strike that bit here, and at all of these other nominations. Keep per Joe Chill. Grsz11 02:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Artist with hit singles and album in the UK. Basically the nomination comes down to "unsourced", which isn't a reason for deletion.--Michig (talk) 06:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - They had a No4 in the United Kingdom at a time when the singles chart actually meant something. The probably reason why it's unsourced was because of when that song was (1997 - in other words, pre-Internet for the masses). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 14:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Notable artist. However, needs sourcing.TheTakeover (talk) 20:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete without prejudice if this article is not sourced before the close of this discussion. JBsupreme (talk) 18:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep without reservations, as the subject is notable. Chubbles (talk) 20:16, 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. Cirt (talk) 21:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dragan Danevski[edit]
- Dragan Danevski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable and unsourced BLP of some coach. Wikidemon improperly reverted the PROD without even attempting to fix the unsourced problem. UnitAnode 00:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep United States Ski and Snowboard Coach of the year award winner in 2002, is clearly a notable award to win in his field. Off2riorob (talk) 02:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Subject is a ski coach (and former athlete, though not a notable one it seems), apparently at a school but also for this group. In any case he teaches kids how to ski. He did apparently win a teaching award, but his overall Google hits are quite limited and Gnews shows six entries which consist of quotes in the local paper about his skiers and a couple of stories about his one student who made it to the Olympics (apparently). Surely a fine coach but I don't think we have enough here to pass the notability bar per the "significant coverage" aspect of the GNG. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, doesn't appear to be the subject of significant coverage or the recipient of a significant award. Nyttend (talk) 19:54, 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 with Children of the Red King, per other books in series. Jayjg (talk) 04:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Charlie Bone and the Hidden King[edit]
- Charlie Bone and the Hidden King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I am completing a nomination for 98.248.32.44 (talk · contribs · block log), who tagged the article and added it to today's AfD log, but did not create this AfD page. User's stated reason in his edit summary is "Fails criteria for notable books". –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 06:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The full AfD rationale can be found on the article talk page (where the AfD template indicates it should be) - The article shows nothing that indicates this novel meets the notability criteria - no reviews, no third-party references, no awards, and the author doesn't appear to be historically significant. 98.248.32.44 (talk) 06:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A note for the future, the AfD instructions refer to "the article's deletion discussion page" as the place to state your rationale; that is this page. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 06:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You obviously haven't looked at the template for unfinished AFDs lately, where the last line clearly states "Unregistered users placing this tag on an article cannot complete the deletion nomination and should leave detailed reasons for deletion on the article's talk page. If the nomination is not completed and no message is left on the talkpage, this tag may be removed." Yes, I know what I'm doing. 98.248.32.44 (talk) 06:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Pardon me for not being aware of the difference in procedure for users who do not have an account, as I have had an account for over five years. I, too, know what I am doing. While we are on the topic of procedure, please note from this section of WP:AFD: Note: Users must be logged in to complete steps II and III. An unregistered user who wishes to nominate a page for deletion should complete step I, note his reason on the the article talk page, and then post a message at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion asking for a registered user to complete the nomination. You had failed to post such messages at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. I suggest you obtain an account, it greatly simplifies matters for everyone if you intend to stick around. Finally, please note that your condescending tone is not appreciated, especially considering that I am only trying to help you. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 08:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Help is only helpful if the information is accurate - otherwise it's misinformation. 98.248.32.44 (talk) 08:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- An experienced editor such as yourself should be familiar with the proper way to go about responding to "misinformation"--polite correction and explanation of the error. In this case it appears that neither of us were correct. I do not understand your hostility at all. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 09:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Help is only helpful if the information is accurate - otherwise it's misinformation. 98.248.32.44 (talk) 08:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Pardon me for not being aware of the difference in procedure for users who do not have an account, as I have had an account for over five years. I, too, know what I am doing. While we are on the topic of procedure, please note from this section of WP:AFD: Note: Users must be logged in to complete steps II and III. An unregistered user who wishes to nominate a page for deletion should complete step I, note his reason on the the article talk page, and then post a message at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion asking for a registered user to complete the nomination. You had failed to post such messages at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. I suggest you obtain an account, it greatly simplifies matters for everyone if you intend to stick around. Finally, please note that your condescending tone is not appreciated, especially considering that I am only trying to help you. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 08:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You obviously haven't looked at the template for unfinished AFDs lately, where the last line clearly states "Unregistered users placing this tag on an article cannot complete the deletion nomination and should leave detailed reasons for deletion on the article's talk page. If the nomination is not completed and no message is left on the talkpage, this tag may be removed." Yes, I know what I'm doing. 98.248.32.44 (talk) 06:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A note for the future, the AfD instructions refer to "the article's deletion discussion page" as the place to state your rationale; that is this page. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 06:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My own opinion is to Delete per nomination, not a widely-recognized book. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 06:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I support a merge with Children of the Red King as I do feel the series meets notability requirements. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 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, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To expand on my merge comment, I will just add that this was the consensus reached on two other books in the series recently when nominated for AfD. Barkeep49 (talk) 13:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- merge with the series--it seems the obvious way of handling this, as for most series of the kind. Technically, it would be possible to justify a keep, on the basis of the GNG--there are probably reviews, as the book is very widely held by libraries. But unless there is something really special to say, I think we would do better not to have articles on every books of a childrens' series, when the material can be covered in a single article. It keeps the material together and avoids repetition. The plot summary of this one would need to be shortened whether stand alone of separate. It's really a style decision, not a notability decision, but I think it's pretty clear what to do. I'm inclusive about including appropriate content, not about having lots of articles. the decision should probably be recorded on the series talk page, as a guide to other editors. DGG ( talk ) 18:36, 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 deleteconsensus is that the article is notable, however sourcing concerns have not been addressed. This may be undeleted if someone is willing to source it. Scott Mac (Doc) 22:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dillon Dougherty[edit]
- Dillon Dougherty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable and unsourced BLP of an amateur golfer. Wikidemon removed the PROD with an untrue edit summary claiming the article was sourced. It is not. UnitAnode 00:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 00:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Looks like he easily passes notability to me. Off2riorob (talk) 01:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Passes WP:ATHLETE per [129]. Joe Chill (talk) 02:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And there are these Google News results. Joe Chill (talk) 02:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure. The most notable thing this guy has achieved is coming second in the 2005 US amateur championship. This meant he got to play in the 2006 US Open and Masters. He turned professional and played on the NGA Hooters Tour, which is 2 steps down from the PGA Tour. In the only season I can find any data for, he missed the cut in most competitions, and didn't finish particularly high in any of them (see this). He does not appeared to have played 'professionally' since 2008, with no updates to his own website, or records on the tour website since then. All of the coverage I can find about the guy is from when he was an amateur, and most of the coverage is of the 'sport results round up' variety. Yes he was a decent amateur, but he doesn't seem to have made it as a professional. I would not classify the NGA Hooters Tour as fully professional, given that it is mostly funded from the players' entry fees. Overall, I would go for a delete on this, but can understand if others think his appearing at the Masters and US Open mean he meets athlete. Quantpole (talk) 12:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Looking at google news results, seems to have enough coverage to pass notability guidelines. Jujutacular T · C 20:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a catch all search including results going back to before the guy was born. The vast majority of references which mention this person are just summaries of results, with nothing about him at all beyond his score on a particular day. There are a few more, mostly in relation to his runner up position, of which this is a typical result. There are a couple of slightly more in depth pieces in the Chicago Tribune, but they seem to be local interest stories. If that is considered significant coverage, then fair enough, I bow to the consensus, but please at least give some reasoning for why the coverage is good enough rather than just pointing to a search where most of the results aren't even about him. Quantpole (talk) 21:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He seems to pass WP:ATHLETE is my opinion. Joe Chill (talk) 21:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Chicago tribune article, Sacrament Bee article, L.A. Times article. I consider those to be non-trivial. Together, those satisfy WP:GNG in my opinion. Jujutacular T · C 22:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a catch all search including results going back to before the guy was born. The vast majority of references which mention this person are just summaries of results, with nothing about him at all beyond his score on a particular day. There are a few more, mostly in relation to his runner up position, of which this is a typical result. There are a couple of slightly more in depth pieces in the Chicago Tribune, but they seem to be local interest stories. If that is considered significant coverage, then fair enough, I bow to the consensus, but please at least give some reasoning for why the coverage is good enough rather than just pointing to a search where most of the results aren't even about him. Quantpole (talk) 21:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep It seems to me that he was a notable amateur who went pro. Professional athletes are usually kept. He was not a successful pro, but he should probably be kept.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:52, 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. Cirt (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Michelle Phan[edit]
- Michelle Phan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is rife with references to unreliable sites, and I can find no significant third-party coverage (as required by WP:RS to justify the notability of this person. I do not believe she passes WP:N in the strictest sense as being popular on YouTube is not inherited notability, IMHO.
On the search I did on her I was unable to come up with any sources that I would consider reliable enough to stick in the article. If all the unreliable sources were removed from the article, it would be unsourced, I believe as the four external links all go to social networking sites. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 04:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Despite the fact that her popularity on YouTube is undeniable, to say that Michelle Phan is notable enough to be documented within Wikipedia is to say that every YouTube user who has accrued over 500,000 subscribers also deserves to be included. More reliable outside coverage should be obtained and the "biographical facts" acquired about Ms. Phan should be properly confirmed and corrected prior to publication. Soleil786 (talk) 07:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: although the article includes a couple references to newspapers, I do not believe it all adds up enough to confirm notability. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 07:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Unreliable references. Zohairani (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: somewhat loosely per WP:N:Entertainers:"2. Has...a significant 'cult' following." Presumably largely made up of adolescent females who find makeup experimentation entertaining. But article does await more neutral sources/detail. (No vested interest, just happened on a video, curious to know her story/age/education, Googled and wound up here, not itself a justification.) 96.227.148.61 (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The St. Petersburg Times source in the article is certainly reliable, and for this subject matter, Las Últimas Noticias and Seventeen would also appear to be reliable. These sources were in the article at the time of nomination, so this would not be unsourced if we removed all the unreliable sources. These sources, along with coverage from as far afield as Japan[130], China[131] and Vietnam[132], demonstrate notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. Bueller 007 (talk) 08:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing admin should note for vote above WP:JUSTAVOTE Kyle1278 15:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep over half a million subscribers? Notable!--Otterathome (talk) 13:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I just added an article from a Vietnamese news outlet, as well as from a Memphis, USA paper. In addition the other sources cited above and included in the article are significant enough for inclusion.--Milowent (talk) 16:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure if I can vote without an account, but as of today Michelle has become the #1 most susbcribed Guru period on youtube. Doesn't that alone qualify as notability?165.196.0.10 (talk) 21:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment We usually don't use the amount of subscribers or where their status is on the YouTube rankings we look for out side coverage, and as for you question about if you can vote or not yes you can it dose not matter if you have an account or not. Cheers Kyle1278 17:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep due to added reference's now believe it slightly for WP:N or WP:Web .Kyle1278 15:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep and Cleanup I would call her marginally notable, given the number of YouTube subscribers. However the article needs to be cleaned up in terms of the puffery in the piece. --mhking (talk) 17:05, 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 delete. Scott Mac (Doc) 22:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wetware hacker[edit]
- Wetware hacker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The biggest problem with this article is that it is a POV screed. It presents the topic as positive and does not reference the controversy surounding the term Hacker (computing). It ignores the Wkipedia articles for wetware and hacker, and thus puts its own original research spin on these topics. It contains no citations. This article could perhaps be cleaned up, but there is nothing useful in it to clean. I recommend deletion. Jarhed (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This was a good article. I ran across the term & had no idea what it meant until I read it. I don't think you should delete it at all. You could edit it to make it less positive but I don't even see the need, seems neutral enough to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.184.13.163 (talk) 01:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC) — 216.184.13.163 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – I can't find any source that can assert this article's notability. It's probably completely original research and has no sources. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The article is unsourced and looks like a possible violation of WP:OR. No relevant results on Google Books/News/Scholar. Most unique Google Results for "Wetware hacker" seem to be Wikipedia clones or otherwise unreliable: [133]. — Rankiri (talk) 01:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- with modifications, including re-naming. There are multi-sides to the article, but research along this line has continued from the 60s. Even at respectable institutions, such as Johns Hopkins. Knee-jerk reactions to the subject cause it to be pushed under the rug. The current generation (who seem to be increasingly running to the pusher) need to see the science, philosophy, economics, etc. It may be that the subject is subsumed elsewhere. Or, it needs to be re-titled and re-written. The subject? Very much apropos to the modern times and our future. How many of our youngsters have been mummified under mind-altering chemicals just to keep them quiet and in order? jmswtlk (talk) 16:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are many sources to be found. For those wondering about the justification, just browse this book: 3-lb Universe We are definitely more wetware than hardware (meaning, any hard circuit analogy ought to be suspect from the getgo, and that opens up issues on many levels that have not yet been addressed adequately (of course, who said that these were easy?). Of course, NOR is always an issue with subjects like this. Potential sources for an adequate article are not in a sparse set. jmswtlk (talk) 17:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to be clear, this discussion is not about the term 'wetware hacker', it is about the actual WP article. I would be delighted for someone to clean it up so that it kinda halfway conformed to WP standards. I have done that to other articles, and I can't find anything in this article that can be kept.Jarhed (talk) 07:40, 25 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 00:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Neologism. See Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms#Articles_on_neologisms. I think that such topics should first be accepted at Wiktionary. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:20, 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. Cirt (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suelyn Mederios[edit]
- Suelyn Mederios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested prod. Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Lots of hits in Google images but zero hits on the name in Google news. Does not meet WP:BIO RadioFan (talk) 00:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Minimal 3PSources. 7triton7 (talk) 08:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This article is a copyright violation of [135] and has been listed at the copyright problems board. However, I think the AfD should be permitted to close. Copyright problems can be resolved through permission, but permission will not address notability concerns. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:29, 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 withdrawn by nom — Jack Merridew 04:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
John Doyle (rugby league)[edit]
- John Doyle (rugby league) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable and completely unsourced BLP of a rugby player. The PROD tag was removed, with a deceptive edit summary claiming that the ELs were actually sources. They're not. Neither even pointed to links that referenced this guy. UnitAnode 00:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 00:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Passes WP:ATHLETE, plays in top level of rugby league in Australia. Grsz11 02:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: This verifies it. Joe Chill (talk) 02:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He is mentioned here as being in the team and transfered, so , yes plays in high level sport. Off2riorob (talk) 02:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above. Doc Quintana (talk) 04:29, 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 no consensus. Scott Mac (Doc) 22:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Summersteps Records[edit]
- Summersteps Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested Prod, non-notable record label. Ridernyc (talk) 17:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 18:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 18:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Having two notable acts under contract implies notability. Plus, it gets a respectable number of views per month (about 30 on average), so there are people referring to it for information. Kindofdavish (talk) 19:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Another lazy nomination, proposer clearly does not understand that most articles need expansion rather than deletion. Reliable sources exist which proove notability. Dr. Blofeld White cat 18:43, 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) 00:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Having two notable acts doesn't equal notability per WP:CORP. Joe Chill (talk) 00:29, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) DustiSPEAK!! 21:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Samahang Kapatid[edit]
- Samahang Kapatid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Last AFD ended in no consensus, but this article has to go. It is a mess, has been abandoned by its promotor, and is about a dance troupe that has performed a few places. The Google News results are just notices of upcoming acts, nothing substantial. I say this fails WP:N, and WP:ENT/WP:MUSIC if one extends the spirit of those guidelines to dance troupes. Speciate (talk) 20:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:39, 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) 00:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I did a bit of cleanup - looked like an experiment/test for me. I think the group is borderline notable, based on a search showing up quite a bit of sources, although I'm not very sure if they are all reliable. Blodance the Seeker 02:13, 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. Cirt (talk) 00:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Josh Surratt[edit]
- Josh Surratt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable person. No search result can be found for this name as a film director, nor for the mentioned films or production companies. Probable hoax. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:32, 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) 00:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 02:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete G3 None of the listed films were directed by a "Josh Surratt". Definitely a hoax. Jujutacular T · C 20:28, 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. Cirt (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reggie Austin (actor)[edit]
- Reggie Austin (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
It appears that his television roles are minor ones. Also no reliable sources. ~DC Talk To Me 18:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. Reggie Austin was on all 10 episodes of the first season of The Starter Wife, and will be in 7 episodes of Life Unexpected. He has 18 additional television and film credits. I created the page in part because he is starting to be searched online regularly, and there is another Reggie Austin who played football, and whose page was being linked to Reggie's acting credits in error. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do to validate the need for/validity of this page. Thanks! Culvercitygirl (talk) 08:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Agree with nominator--appears to be only minor roles. While there may be many roles, I can find no coverage of this actor from an internet search. Not notable. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 04:26, 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. Note that this does not at all preclude merging and/or redirecting this to an existing article, it's just that there is not a general consensus for doing that, and certainly no consensus for a specific merge/redirect target. Discussion about that possibility could continue on the article talk page. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Christianism[edit]
- Christianism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced. Neoligism. Not notable. Fake. Fauna Gland Rocker (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Plenty of google news hits, mostly seem to be from Atlantic Online Polarpanda (talk) 19:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep
Christian Science Monitor: "Onward, Christianist Soldiers?" http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0520/p18s04-hfes.html
Time Magazine: "My problem with Christianism" http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1191826-2,00.html
What this Wikipedia article needs is not deletion, but rather someone who can summarize, among other things, the history of the term, what Christianism is, and (like the term Dominionism) how it is differentiated from the term "Christian fundamentalist" in an encyclopedic way. There have been many edits to the article over the past and it was once more substantial than it is now. Unlike the term "Christian fundamentalism", the intention behind its use has been to highlight a direct parallel between militant Christians and Islamism/militant Muslims, and it's therefore a contentious issue and controversial term. The article as it exists now is not NPOV, BTW.Adrigon (talk) 20:22, 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) 00:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Andrew Sullivan. Should not be a stand alone article until there are multiple reputable independent secondary sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Is Andrew Sullivan coextensive with (one-and-the-same-as) the Christian Science Monitor and Time Magazine? Did he even write the articles for those publications? I say "Keep"; heck, there's a whole Wikipedia series or portal on "Islamism", so why not on Christianism? Just because the term is used less in the US than Islamism or might be misunderstood (and because of mental blocks, taken offense to) by many is no reason to delete or merge it out of Wikipedia. Let's not shy away from controversy or kow-tow to sectarian/partisan sensitivities just to avoid deletion wars. Shanoman (talk) 21:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to DominionismKeep. This diff of mine shows that at one time this material was inside the Dominionism page, but it looks like the purists have purged that material and those sources. The useful Safire aside, the links I added to the dominionism page in that diff show that another liberal blogger, Tristero (long associated with Digby) wrote a column on June 1, 2003 laying out an extensive case for calling certain religious people "Christianist." A week later, June 8, another popular progressive blogger, David Neiwert, made the case for Tristero's assertion. BusterD (talk) 12:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There's really nothing to merge, but since none of the citations in that diff mention Dominionism I don't think it makes sense to talk about Christianism in that article. It seems like that would mean Wikipedia making a connection that isn't found in the sources. Christian right or Andrew Sullivan would probably be better merge targets.Prezbo (talk) 07:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First, there's already a section inside the Dominionism pagespace, so saying we shouldn't discuss it seems disingenuous.Since I've demonstrated through citation bloggers Tristero and Sullivan "coined" the word on the same day, June 1, 2003, Andrew Sullivan is a decidedly unsatisfactory merge target. One of the reasons I originally posted the links to neiwert and tristero was that the Christianism section of the Dominionism page seemed to indicate, like the sources on this pagespace, that Sullivan was the initiator of the meme. That's not proven by the collected sources. If a satisfactory merge target can't be found, I'd be inclined to keep. I'm adding the sources directly to the page, just in case. BusterD (talk) 14:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There's really nothing to merge, but since none of the citations in that diff mention Dominionism I don't think it makes sense to talk about Christianism in that article. It seems like that would mean Wikipedia making a connection that isn't found in the sources. Christian right or Andrew Sullivan would probably be better merge targets.Prezbo (talk) 07:37, 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. Scott Mac (Doc) 19:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tara Babcock[edit]
- Tara Babcock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:ENT. Assertion of notability as glamour/expo model is stretched, as her credits are all rather insignificant and vague and the vast majority of claims (many weasel-ish) are sourced to self-published websites while G-news returns results on a student of the same name instead. Any model whose most noteworthy claims include Twitter fans, appearing on websites like CoEd Magazine and ManHelper, and supposedly being known as "Queen of the Underboob" probably doesn't warrant an article. Mbinebri talk ← 18:52, 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) 00:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tara Babcock is a very well known glamour model who has been included in well known iPhone Apps, known magazines (American Curves, MuscleMag, etc) commonly found in popular book stores and gas stations internationally. Also, well known TV programs have featured her as well (Men's choice awards, G4, etc). She has created her brand name without signing exclusive contracts and is much more notable than some models who have had verified Wikipedia pages (Teresa Noreen, etc) Nowhere does it state anything about her main achievements being "Twitter" fans. If the model in question, though, created her initial fame based upon social networking sites this is a notable fact that must be reported. Upon searching Tara Babcock in any search engine you will find dozens of pages of images, articles and links that replicate or exceed other notable models. This argument sounds more like an attack filled with personal opinion rather than fact as you are conveniently forgetting to mention all of the most notable achievements on the article and twisting the words so that they fit your ideas. Although I have not been able to find citable proof, I have also seen Tara Babcock in many other television shows hosting and in a few other magazine articles. I have heard of her repeatedly without looking for her or other models. In my professional opinion as a writer and consumer of media, there is no doubt of the notability of this Wikipedia article. Thank you. Infoleader (talk) 10:26, 27, January 2010 (UTC)
— Infoleader (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete of course, she has numerous google hits for her image. however, i cannot find any text documents asserting her notability. COED magazine isnt notable either. if she becomes notable purely for her internet presence, surely there will be coverage in RS. I would support, of course, adding her name to a list of models, and in recreating her article once notability is established. Infoleader, please assume good faith. WP guidelines require notability beyond simply endless mirroring on the internet (though as i said, if its extremely voluminous, which is very hard to measure, that may qualify her at some point)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:57, 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. Cirt (talk) 00:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jill Cadreau[edit]
- Jill Cadreau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The subject of the article does not meet notability criteria for inclusion as outlined at WP:GNG. It would appear that any attention Cadreau received was minor local coverage for a single event and therefore falls under WP:BLP1E. Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 20:07, 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) 00:07, 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. unsourced after 2 weeks on afd? Scott Mac (Doc) 19:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Grisha Georgiev[edit]
- Grisha Georgiev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails to meet ARTIST requirements. I can find no related articles on Google News about the band or the person and as the article has been tagged as needing links for a year, there seems little prospect of this improving. There may be sufficient evidence for the band (to meet BAND) but evidence seems too thin to substantiate a separate BLP. —Ash (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- —Ash (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I don't see evidence that he could meet WP:MUSICBIO (and in the unlikely event that he later does it's not like we're losing any valuable text here). I found his Facebook and Myspace pages, but no significant coverage in reliable sources. Glenfarclas (talk) 00:01, 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, Tim Song (talk) 00:06, 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. Cirt (talk) 00:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah Jayne Jensen[edit]
- Sarah Jayne Jensen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete — Non-notable actress. [email protected] (talk) 16:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. She seems to have had one significant(ish) role in a notable(ish) film - Center Stage: Turn It Up. In the remainder of her work, she seems to play very minor roles. WP:ENT requires multiple significant roles; I think she fails that standard. News coverage and reviews of her work barely mention her incidentally; I therefore think she fails WP:GNG. As an untended unsourced BLP stub, we're not losing anything if the delete button is pushed on this. --Mkativerata (talk) 17:55, 23 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) 00:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Delete - no notable roles yet. When she gets a major role, this can be re-created. Bearian (talk) 06:08, 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. Scott Mac (Doc) 19:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kara and Shelby Hoffman[edit]
- Kara and Shelby Hoffman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
non-notable twin child actors with only 2 verifiable roles, as babies. Does not meet WP:GNG, let alone WP:ENT. There are hits for Google:News, but they just mention the twins portraying a role in movie, nothing really notable. Logical Fuzz (talk) 14:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — Cargoking talk 17:28, 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) 00:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete as not meeting WP:BIO or WP:N as a pair. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with a short statement (eg inclusion in a list of actors) in articles on notable films in which they appear. Wikipeterproject (talk) 16:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge. Being on TV as a baby is nice but not notable. --FormerIP (talk) 17:24, 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. Cirt (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chris skinner[edit]
- Chris skinner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable person. Only one independent hit can be found for him, and it is a single quote attributed to him in an http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2010/01/08/239877/Financial-services-technology-predictions-for-2010.htm article] in Computer Weekly. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Skinner appears to be somewhat notable commentator and writer in the world of finance, see a profile in Businessweek, Global Investor Network. He also contributes to The Banker and comments in BBC [136], [137]. It is possible to write an article using reliable and independent sources, in my opinion. --Vejvančický (talk) 16:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment His Business Week profile is in a section called "Business Exchange", a section where readers are allowed to log in and create profiles for themselves in order to engage in a forum. The Global Investor link is simply a listing of his book, not an indication of notability. His contributions to The Banker are not themselves notable; if they were, every journalist on earth would qualify as notable. The two BBC links are one line "comments" from Skinner. Notability is established by significant coverage from third party sources, not by one-line comments attributed to the subject. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments: "Best known through his blog" is a classic line found on pages about to be speedy deleted. If you're best known for a blog, you're probably in trouble. However, this guy has written two books for Wiley, so he probably is notable. I'm willing to bet this is copyvio from somewhere though, the writing style screams "industry bio" ("When he’s not travelling and delivering keynote speeches...", "...leading industry forums...", "Prior to founding Balatro, Chris was..." etc). Hairhorn (talk) 17:46, 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) 00:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Looks like a NN freelance journalist. --FormerIP (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete his notability is shakey at best.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:04, 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. Scott Mac (Doc) 19:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ionel Istrati[edit]
- Ionel Istrati (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- Wait (Ionel Istrati song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
Fails WP:MUSICBIO, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Proposed deletion contested by creator. MuffledThud (talk) 09:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 09:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because it asserts no notability other than association with the artist, and fails WP:NSONG:
- Wait (Ionel Istrati song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) MuffledThud (talk) 11:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not sure if Mr. Istrati qualifies as notable (I'm inclined against him clearing the bar, but then again I tend to be a little trigger-happy on deleting things), but if he's not notable then I do feel that the one-off single he had (here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wait_%28Ionel_Istrati_song%29 ) also probably doesn't qualify.
- Agreed: I'm adding that article to this AFD. Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 11:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both. "Wait" being one of 25 finalists in Eurovsion is not enough to establish notability. Criterion 9 of WP:MUSICBIO states 'Has won or placed in a major music competition', he could achieve notability if the song continues on but not now. J04n(talk page) 13:26, 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) 00:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both per nomination and J04n's comment above. Nymf talk/contr. 14:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per CSD-G5: created by a sock of Xtinadbest, a banned user.—Kww(talk) 20:02, 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. Scott Mac (Doc) 19:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chris Philpott[edit]
- Chris Philpott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
However, there is little coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. This Google News Archive search (with the search term: "Chris Philpott" magician) returns one article from the local newspaper, the Isle of Wight County Press. My other searches for sources have returned no substantial results. If more sources can be found, I will withdraw this AfD. At present, the article fails Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Cunard (talk) 09:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I can't comment on the ITV News coverage, but the newspaper article is simply a human interest story. The Comedy Magician Award doesn't seem to be the subject of news coverage, so receiving it is unlikely to be an encyclopaedic achievement. Chris Philpott may become a celebrity in the future, but isn't there yet. EALacey (talk) 12:00, 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) 00:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - this article doesn't seem to have demonstrated any evidence of notability Theserialcomma (talk) 23:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Disappear. Abracadabra, this person is not notable. JBsupreme (talk) 18:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unsourced BLP, no apparent reason for notability. Raising £140 for charity is not notable and neither is having a career. --FormerIP (talk) 17:14, 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. Scott Mac (Doc) 18:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew Lawton[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}} . |
- Andrew Lawton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nomination created on behalf of 67.193.129.239 (talk · contribs). The user's rationale should be given shortly. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 08:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note The nominator's concerns at WT:AFD were "Similar non-notable biography was deleted in 2006". I withhold !voting delete or keep until a more thorough indication of why this article should be deleted is asserted by the nominator. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 08:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Article violates WP:NTEMP. Being a blogger with mentions in a couple of news stories about specific incedental events does not provide enough notability to warrant an article. Also doesn't meet WP:BIO. Not a depth of coverage, and coverage that exists comes only from a local newspaper and a campus newspaper. Also, subject clearly does not meet WP:POLITICIAN, WP:AUTHOR or WP:ENT. Won one category in a blogging award that itself did not receive any covereage and I don't believe that the award org is notable itself. Can't find any coverage in Google News for the last 4 years besides the two sources noted. 67.193.129.239 (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I would defend the presence of this article based on Mr. Lawton's status as a columnist for the Examiner and panelist on the Michael Coren Show. I did a Google-search on the websites of both the Examiner and the Michael Coren Show and there is no question that Lawton has appeared in both of those sources. With a position writing for an international news publication and being a panelist on a National television program, what more is needed for notoriety? Jamie.wallace123 (talk) 21:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- According to their website, there more than 24,000 'Examiners' who write for Examiner.com. Lawton is a Toronto Policy Examiner, and if I lived in Toronto I could be one too, judging by the active recruiting the site is doing in the Canadian market. Hardly meets the notability requirements for a columnist. As for being a regular panelist on the Michael Coren show, not only would that not be enough for notability, but it's not even true. A quick look at the Google cache for Michael Coren's website shows the entry for Jan. 13, 2010 as having "debut guest Andrew Lawton." Maybe he'll become a regular panelist, but until then refer you to WP:CRYSTAL. My original opinion stands. --67.193.129.239 (talk) 03:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep.Personally, I don't see how a website paying a large number of people to write takes away from the notability of those people. Perhaps the Wikipedia guidelines themselves need to be updated? Andrew has a strong web presence and a history of controversy. I have been reading his work for a few years and only found his old blog because of the reputation that preceded him. He's most certainly not an unknown. 129.100.191.74 (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC) — 129.100.191.74 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep. I'm inclined to agree. I'm from London, Ontario as well...and Andrew is definitely a public figure on a local level, and a celebrity within a certain (large) niche on a national level. Truthfully, there's a lot more he's done that's not in this article (such as organizing a National tour for Ann Coulter, but he still warrants an article. 206.53.157.54 (talk) 14:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Do you have any reliable sources to back up your comments? If so, those sources would meet the general notability guideline, but without sources nothing can be done, really. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: The topic is covered in detail in reliable sources. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete could not find significant coverage by reliable sources. University paper not enough. Coverage by London Free Press (not including the 404 relating to a small rally) is about a child porn scandal, not Andrew Lawton, which makes it a case of WP:BLP1E at most.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 23:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Could not find coverage using the Tri-State (ND,MN,SD) library book/periodical system. Can not find any sources that meet the WP:RS guidelines nor the WP:GNG guidelines. Where are the national news articles? Where is the non-local coverage by a reputable, peer-edited sources on this person? The hero worship is getting a bit thick on Wikipedia lately. --Brian(view my history)/(How am I doing?) 04:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Writing for Examiner.com is not notable. Editorial oversight or fact checking is virtually non-existent. It is little more than an online equal of a vanity press. Nothing else I see makes him notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Sources are not independent and/or are not directly about the subject; looks promotional; has no mainspace incoming links. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I just deleted refs which were no longer valid. The strictly right link is from his own blog, the UWO pieces either don't mention him at all or are a "letter to the editor". The winner of religion/philosophy seemed incorrect -- when I followed the link given his blog didn't appear in the list. The child pornography thing seems to be that he found porn on an unmaintained university bulletin board that was open to the public (surprise, surprise). So he won one blog award for his blog and found porn on an old university website. Perhaps in a few years he'll be notable. Banaticus (talk) 00:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It was another blog of mine that won the Religion/Philosophy award. And please delete this page...I have no idea who wrote it, and I really don't want it here. It was written without my consent, I expect it removed ASAP. andrew.lawton (talk) 00:52, 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. Olaf Davis (talk) 19:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Preganesia[edit]
- Preganesia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable fictional element outside its universe (as far as I can tell). Pcap ping 07:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Really uncontroversial. From a 2009 book for which there is nil coverage and no chance (for now at least) of an article. There is even less coverage of "Preganesia". A PROD would do just as fine. Power.corrupts (talk) 18:19, 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, Tim Song (talk) 00:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete too trivial of a topic for reliable coverage in independent sourcing. ThemFromSpace 03:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 18:09, 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. Long-term unsourced BLP. Relist not necessary. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rhea Vedro[edit]
- Rhea Vedro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:BIO. 2 hits in gnews [138]. google reveals mainly directory listings [139], [140] LibStar (talk) 06:25, 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) 00:03, 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. Cirt (talk) 00:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Benjamin Royaards[edit]
- Benjamin Royaards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:BIO, WP:CREATIVE for producer (only 1 film), and WP:ENT for actor. IMDB confirms a lack of roles [141]. gnews. LibStar (talk) 06:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I added a reference. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:13, 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) 00:02, 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. Cirt (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
River City Saints[edit]
- River City Saints (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable club of soccer boosters. The author (who also claims to have started the club) contested my PROD, but hasn't offered sources or references for notability. I can't find anything remotely significant. Glenfarclas (talk) 05:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. In addition to being a non-notable club which I can't confirm as having played in at least two years (there's no info on them having actually played in the 2008 season, which would place their last season in 2006 acc. to their 'old' website; their 'new' website either never got established or, if it did, didn't get maintained), there's also a clear WP:COI here.Tyrenon (talk) 10:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Sorry, I ought to have been more clear, I shouldn't have used the word "club," as in FC. I meant it as in, "band of associates." That is to say, from what I can tell of the article the River City Saints are a booster club (or maybe just a rooting section?) for a soccer team, not a soccer team themselves. Glenfarclas (talk) 10:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 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) 00:02, 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. Cirt (talk) 00:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nikoghos Tahmizian[edit]
- Nikoghos Tahmizian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:BIO, WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF (not sure if he can be considered an academic. Also no Armenian language WP article exists. 1hit in gnews, not much in gbooks, same for gscholar. LibStar (talk) 04:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I found on the web some references to a reference, "Lark Erazhshtakan Lnkeraktsutean Hratarakchakan Handznakhumb. Nikoghos S. Tahmizean: Eotanasunameak [Nikoghos S. Tahmizian: On His 70th Anniversary Jubilee] (Glendale, CA: Lark Erazhshtanots, 1996)." If this is a festschrift, it might be enough to pass WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:36, 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, Tim Song (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete NN unreferenced BLP. ViridaeTalk 09:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete Needs references on Awards or Prizes..Rirunmot 23:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rirunmot (talk • contribs)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Youth Inclusion Support Panel. Cirt (talk) 22:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Group Intervention Panel[edit]
- Group Intervention Panel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:ORG. hardly anything in gnews. LibStar (talk) 01:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can't find significant coverage of this organization. Jujutacular T · C 19:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is actually a ground breaking project and worthy of being on here, the UK's YIp's projects are based upon it. As for significant coverage think we can't banish most of wikipedia to the bin.--Pandaplodder (talk) 00:04, 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, Tim Song (talk) 00:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Youth Inclusion Support Panel. The Group Intervention Panel article itself states that the term is just local branding for the national scheme. --FormerIP (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Youth Inclusion Support Panel as the best alternative to deletion. Using the Google News Archive link provided by LibStar (talk · contribs), I found mostly passing mentions about the topic. Not enough to establish notability. A redirect to Youth Inclusion Support Panel would be useful to preserve the page history in the event that this local chapter becomes notable. Cunard (talk) 06:26, 2 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.