The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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The result was Speedy keep because nomination withdrawn; several reliable sources found. (non-admin closure) TheFeds 05:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No sources to establish notability, a soon to be new provider of news is not notable. Can not find any thing to establish notability. ~~ GB fan ~~talk 23:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like I was completely wrong on this one, nomination withdrawn. ~~ GB fan ~~talk 00:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. SilverserenC 00:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added references to the article. Notability is established because of the numerous in-depth coverage from secondary sources. WP:CRYSTAL does not apply because it states "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place", and it is almost 100% certain that this pilot will air, as it is necessary for coverage of news for multiple areas. SilverserenC 00:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 00:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was a speedy keep, per WP:SNOW and/or the "obviously frivolous or vexatious" rationale of WP:SK. One of the most widely-recognized Beatles songs of all time. (Non-admin closure). Tarc (talk) 14:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable non charting Beatles song OttomanJackson (talk) 14:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable as it has sufficient coverage and was released as a number one single by Elton John. It also appears to have been covered by numerous other notable artists as well. The nomination is certainly rich coming from you, OttomanJackson, considering the amount of recent attempts you have made to create articles on non-charting, non-notable Michael Jackson songs. Perhaps we have a bit of a bias here? Pyrrhus16 21:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. This is messy. AfD is really not meant as a step in dispute resolution. Nevertheless, it seems concensus leans toward keeping this material in some form, though not necessarily this particular article. Closing as no consensus, discussions regarding the proper name and content of the article can proceed in more appropriate forums. Shimeru (talk) 00:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cut-and-dried: no significance whatsoever (WP:N). "House of Cerva" has zero hits on any and all search engines.
Google, Google Books, Google Scholar, and Google News, you name it. A search for "Cerva" renders unrelated results ("CERVA Services for a cleaner environment" :). "Speedy delete" in all but name. --DIREKTOR(TALK) 20:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note the family name on the grave: Ghetaldi GondolaKeep In my opinion sir, this shouldn't be the meter to judge this case. You should check on the Almanach de Gotha or control on off-line written sources, like The Britannica or The Treccani.
Should be perfect to ask a member of the family, but I think that someone could not approve it. For example, the articles House of Gundulić and House of Getaldić (title using diacritics!) has changed into the actual names despites the Family grave report the correct original name Ghetaldi and Gondola.
I wrote personally the article House of Cerva, spending lot of time and working hard, and I think this's the proper title for the voice, according with the note and the bibliography cited at the end of the article. House of Cerva is mostly different from the article House of Crijević because some sources and some lines have been cancelled or changed.
Yes, I've noticed you spent much effort here. Unfortunately you have not checked notability and English language usage. Understandable error in part, since you're from itWiki. --DIREKTOR(TALK) 22:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)*What does this have to do with anything?? --DIREKTOR(TALK) 22:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
commentPlease sir, do not slide down in discrimination, WHAT DOES EXACTLY MEAN you are from "it.wiki"??
There isn't any errors in what i wrote, Google test It's not the best way often.
Thanks sir, i hope you understand, and without offending me any more you will choose a civil dialogue.
Oh lolz! Unbelievable... What I meant was that you did not check English usage since you work in Italian. Not that Italians are an "inferior race", or whatever you seem to have imagined. It would be advisable for you to note that I am of Italian ancestry myself. I think it may be my turn to take offense and start demanding an apology for this "YELLING" and aggressive posturing. --DIREKTOR(TALK) 22:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. References need not be online to be valid. As well, a better way to search online is to search for the surname (without the words "House of") and a word with which the family is associated, such as http://www.google.com/search?q=Cerva%20Ragusa Perhaps a better name for the article would be Cerva (family) rather than the "House of", which might be misunderstood as the name of a company or name of a building. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Sigh* They need not be, but the issue here is notability, not verifiability (the family certainly existed). The Almanach de Gotha practically lists every single guy who ever held a title. We're looking for English usage, the vast majority of those hits are Italian (English search). Cerva is a company, a common surname, a character from The Sopranos, Ragusa is a city, and Cerva is a town as well, not to mention that Wikipedia hits are included there, etc. etc. Granted there are a few hits, but this obscure surname is way waaay below note for an encyclopedia article. --DIREKTOR(TALK) 03:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy KeepKeepGiven the merging by Ed, that showed the clear intention to use a valid article in a personal position way I felt compelled to change my vote. This article is IMHO one of the best about the Ragusan nobilty series, rich of informations, and well supported by reliable sources; it should, then, be kept. --Theirrulez (talk) 16:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC) - Obviously Cerva is a very common word in Italian, that the searching can't work well as a reasonable test. Not always online sourced are valid in these cases, often there are different reliable source to be considered. See for example how has been choosen the correct name for the article regardin a similar argument House of Bona, and check the discussion on sources regarding Bona family on Talk:House of Bona. Quite always the romance transcription "Cerva" reflect the original name of the family[reply]
Then check this book, online on google.co.uk, wrote in 1841 in Munich, which is a sort of General resume of the aristocratic families and patriciate in Dubrovnik until that date.
I am the author, I wrote the article, translating it from Italian and I think it's correct. The page House of Crijević created after, as a replicant (urge to be cancelled), copying content from House of Cerva, it's an article with strange missing part and with a wrong use of family name. Note that the title House of Crijević contains diacritics. --Theirrulez (talk) 05:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. This is a duplicate article of House of Crijević. Until the weekend, it was a redirect, until someone with an axe to grind decided that that would not do. The issue here is whether Wikipedia should refer to this family by the name of Crijević or Cerva. As far as I can tell, none of the authors (although these are scant in both directions) uses House of Cerva, so either the redirect should be restored, or this article deleted, whichever is considered more appropriate. The policy on merging duplicate articles is however pretty specific here. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 07:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (off crono) I want to underline, sir, that I created this page before and only after this it has been deliberately duplicated by User:Direktor who created House of Crijević. History of articles never lie. Thanks for consider it, sir. --Theirrulez (talk) 13:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. DIREKTOR(talk·contribs·count) states that "We're looking for English usage, the vast majority of those hits are Italian." No. References in any language can be valid. There is no requirement that references be in English. (External links are another matter.) Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I know sources can be in any language (thanks you for pointing that out to a guy with 3,000 edits on you). :) What I am saying is that the subject of this article is unknown or completely obscure in the English speaking world and does not meet notability requirements. The article was created for personal reasons more than anything, as part of an ongoing conflict. This is an obscure surname shared by a LOT of people. --DIREKTOR(TALK) 11:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I struck-through your !vote here, because you are the nominator; adding a !vote down here in addition to your nomination comments above, 12+ hours after the nomination, is confusing and could be seen as disingenuous. --Darkwind (talk) 13:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I wasn't aware this was frowned upon. Apologies... --DIREKTOR(TALK) 18:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you favor "delete" is established by the fact that you nominated the article originally and provided the rationale for such at the top of the page. Adding a !vote is acceptable, but typically you'd do so right after the nomination (at the top), in the form "Delete, as nominator. ~~~~" or similar. Waiting until discussion has begun, then adding a !vote with a restated rationale can be confusing to editors who may not be reading carefully, as well as possibly creating a surface appearance that there is more support for "delete" than there is.
In the end, it doesn't make a difference to the outcome of the discussion, as the closing admin would already know you're the nominator, but it doesn't look good. I'm sorry if I sounded like I was accusing you of anything - I'm not, and I take no position in this particular discussion. As for this thread, it's getting off-topic; if you'd like to discuss further, let's use the talk page of the discussion, or you can comment directly to me. --Darkwind (talk) 22:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with House of Crijević and keep this page as a redirect. If, then, someone thinks that this article should go under the Italian version of the name, they can go here. Salvio (Let's talk 'bout it!) 11:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an Italian name, Salvio. It's simply the original romance form of the name, which is the official one on the documents and it's also the preferred to pronounce in english. I's not a language matter. Look at Grifter72 explanation. --Theirrulez (talk) 17:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've read it and, in fact, I support the proposal to move this article to the romance name. My opinion, to make it plain, is that we should first merge the two articles, and then decide which title the resulting article should go under. For the record, as I've said, I think it should be Cerva.Salvio (Let's talk 'bout it!) 19:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Given the merging by Ed, I change my !vote. This article is notable; it should, then, be kept. Salvio (Let's talk 'bout it!) 23:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge and change name. --Ilario (talk) 13:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For example there are not "Ghetaldi" in Italy and when "Gozze" family moved to Trieste the surname was italianized in "Gozzi": Carlo Gozzi. --Grifter72 (talk) 13:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is almost certainly a sock vote. This and similar articles have been under consistent attack by IP socks of several banned sockpuppeteering users. --DIREKTOR(TALK) 18:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article on Ragusan nobility was created as a copy from itWiki. It may be notable in Italian-speaking world, but certainly not here. --DIREKTOR(TALK) 18:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Grifter72 in consideration of the existence of local romance language that is different from Italian. The Croatian translation is subsequent. In the historical articles we must respect the historical authenticity of the surname and be in favour of the most used surname during the centuries. --Ilario (talk) 19:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I feel compelled to clearly point out that the user who consider this article notable in Italian-speaking world, but certainly not here, is the same user who have copied the exact same brand new page I created (House of Cerva) to write the article House of Crijević: page history shows the truth. This evidence, added to all the reliable sources here shown about he matter, has contributed to my decision to propose (trough this) the moving of the replica article, House of Crijević to his correct original name, House of Cerva.--Theirrulez (talk) 20:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After having fixed the cut-&-paste move by merging the page histories at "House of Cerva", reading the edit history is less simple. I provide a time-line here to illustrate Theirrulez's comment (all times UTC):
23:37, 16 February 2010: "House of Crijević" created as a redirect to "Patrician (post-Roman Europe)".
14:45, 1 May 2010: "House of Cerva" created as an article by Theirrulez.
15:00, 1 May 2010: DIREKTOR transforms "House of Cerva" into a redirect to "House of Crijević".
15:24, 1 May 2010: DIREKTOR transforms "House of Crijević" into an article by copying-&-pasting the contents of "House of Cerva" (with some modifications). – To simplify comparisons between both versions of the article, I have made this diff. comparing their respective states before being merged.
Reverting & parallel articles ensue. - Ev (talk) 23:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have merged both entries at House of Cerva (details). Now that the technical details have been solved, I hope it will be easier to focus on the merits of the topic itself, without being distracted by the existence of duplicate entries, improper cut-&-paste moves or licensing violations. - Best, Ev (talk) 23:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reading Giorgio Orsini I've learned that this great medieval Italy's architect is no more than a Croat (Juraj Dalmatinac). One day we'll read: George Washington is actualy Croat Juraj Zagreb.--71.163.232.225 (talk) 00:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is for learning. You may also be surprised to find that many people from the Croatian region of Dalmatia, a region inhabited by a majority Slav (Croat) population since the early Middle Ages, - are Croats. :) I hope the shock is not too great. --DIREKTOR(TALK) 01:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find your response not shocking, rather infantile. I. K. Sakcinski, who is considered to be patriot and cultural figure did some pioneering work in Croatian historiography and bibliography, wrote in his book Lexicon of Yugoslav artists that Roman emperor Diocletian was one of the Yugoslav artists. Another Croatian 'historian' D. Pavlicevic wrote that American native tribe Mateo descends from a common ancestor, some Croat Mate. Moreover, this 'discovery' was an entry in a history textbook of the Croatian primary school curriculum. I did not expect that you might be at a higher level of knowledge than these two 'historians'.--71.163.232.225 (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Leaving a part stupid nationality matters, I just finished an hard but satisfying job: I completed the articles fixing the infobox including croatian transcription of the original name, fixing the links, and adding a new image. I left some modifications found in the DOKTOR's version, and now IMHO the article matches exactly the standards. --Theirrulez (talk) 05:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The reasoning behind the nomination does not hold: "I get zero Google hits, therefore the subject is non-notable". Maybe it's simply mistitled, which is solved by renaming, not deletion. Maybe it is a duplication of a correctly titled article, which is solved my merging, not deletion. A bad nomination marked by a lack of good faith effort to establish and/or communicate alternative ways of solving the perceived problem. GregorB (talk) 07:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per Salvio & GregorB. Sir Floyd (talk) 08:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 00:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article about an "upcoming graphic novel series". No source, no author, no publisher, no dates. I can't find any confirmation. Likely hoax or something made up one day, but anyway fails WP:V, WP:BK, WP:CRYSTAL. PROD removed by author. JohnCD (talk) 20:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hoax or made up. Joe Chill (talk) 20:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (as prodder) – I tried all sorts of searches using combinations of character names and other plot elements, but could find no evidence at all that this "graphic novel series" exists (or is planned). It appears not to meet verifiability requirements. Paul Erik(talk)(contribs) 20:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would say why, but JohnCD said it best in his nomination. Erpert(let's talk about it) 21:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't even find any sources for this article by doing a google search! Most likely this is a hoax! --Siva1979Talk to me 15:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 00:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for the obvious reason (WP:CRYSTAL). The scant info in the article isn't even correct, as it would be Oakenfold's fourth studio album, while he also has about two dozen DJ/mix albums. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 00:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Was BLP prodded and prod was contensted due to having a reference. Prod readded, but due to change in policy sending to AFD. I can not find any reliable sources to establish notability. ~~ GB fan ~~talk 20:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this perhaps vandalized article on an apparently respectable but unremarkable commercial photographer. -- Hoary (talk) 00:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 00:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there are NO references at all and the article is too old for WP:BLPPRODToxicWasteGrounds 19:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This person exists, and is a record producer, but has not received more than trivial coverage to meet WP:GNG or had enough impact to meet WP:ENT (arguably not even valid for a producer). A thorough search finds that at best, Billboard has made mention of him a few times since the 1990s; but never more than one sentence in the context of other artists. TheFeds 05:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Rough consensus is that the combination of a notable author and ample sourcing derives sufficient notability for this book. As DGG said, however, more discussion on this type of situation in general may be warranted. Regards, Arbitrarily0(talk) 00:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Criterion 1: there are no published works concerning this book.
Criterion 2: this book has won no literary award.
Criterion 3: this book has had trivial historical or cultural impact.
Criterion 4: this book is not used in academic instruction.
Criterion 5: this book's author is not particularly historically significant.
I cannot think of other reasons why this book is in any way notable. Additionally, the article has no citations for verification, and contains no claim of notability. The creator of the article declined the PROD placed on the article.Claritas (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly meets Criterion 1.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide me with the title or IBSN of a book whose main subject is this book ? Claritas (talk) 12:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Let me tell you why I "created" this article. There's an article called Win shares, which prior to this afternoon had a section on the book and some other sections on the statistic. The information about the book didn't fit in with everything else very well (check previous versions to see what I mean), so I moved it to this article. I understand Claritas' notability argument; I think it's a little more notable on #3 though. Purplebackpack89(Notes Taken)(Locker) 19:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Win Shares needs a serious clean-up, and the book itself seems not to be notable outside the subject of Win Shares. Hence, I would suggest merging it back into the article once it is deleted. I'm not sure how it meets #3 - this would by default infer that it had had an impact outside baseball. Claritas (talk) 19:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merging it back would defeat the purpose. I put what little relevent information there was from the article back already; the rest probably should just die Purplebackpack89(Notes Taken)(Locker) 19:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a reference book. Saying that it's not notable outside the subject of Win Shares (the statistic) is like saying that a dictionary is not notable outside the subject of definitions. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, absurd nomination. Bill James, the "Godfather of Sabermetrics", isn't "particularly historically significant"? Someone should tell Time magazine - they're apparently under the impression that he was one of the most 100 influential people in the world as recently as four years ago (Link). As for the discussion of the book itself, the statistical metric of Win Shares (which James describes and delineates in this book) is a standard and notable tool of baseball analysis. It's used in numerous serious books on baseball history and academic works on statistical analysis - it even got written up in Popular Mechanics, for pete's sake. The nom plainly did no research before nominating the article for deletion. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bill James is ultimately a baseball commentator, and not the sort of individual who is so historically important that anything they publish is article worthy (We're talking about the likes of Frederich Nietzsche or Noam Chomsky here). Likewise, just because an article or a book is cited or mentioned, this does not automatically make it notable. You may be able to push it on the fact that people have written about it, but as far as I can see, most mentions are essentially in passing. There hasn't been any work on this book as a book. Claritas (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That statement of the authors' relative importance is, certainly, your opinion. Personally, I disagree. And it seems fairly strange that you would support the inherent notability of the works of someone like Chomsky. I'm not disagreeing that Chomsky's work is inherently notable - I just don't understand why you, personally, would think that it is, given your stated standards (e.g. Hitler's works are inherently notable because he had "a great effect on the 20th century", while James's are not because "he isn't of great historical importance outside [his] rather narrow field"). Is generative grammar not a "rather narrow field"? If you stopped a large group of 20th-century people on the street, how many would be able to describe the ways that Chomsky changed their lives? -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Hit bull, win steak. It's sufficient for the writer to be notable in his field. We are not limiting application of the provision in question to the author of the Ten Commandments.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is not sufficient for the writer to be notable in his field: "This does not simply mean that the book's author is him/herself notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of work would be a common study subject in literature classes" - please see WP:NB. Claritas (talk) 17:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. I made the mistake of not double-checking myself. I stand corrected. I had in mind wp:author. Which tells us that an author is notable if: "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique." I would argue, though the language at the books guideline has not been revised to reflect this, that that should be the standard we consider in any event -- it makes little sense for an author to be notable for that reason, but none of his books deemed notable for that reason. (Alternatively, we could always hang our hat on books criterion # 3: "The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable ... religious movement." Inasmuch as sabremetrics is clearly a religious movement. ;) )--Epeefleche (talk) 17:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: per my comment about the information not fitting well in the parent article, and also because I think this interpretation of notability is too stringent...I could probably find a dozen books that violate it, and haven't been AFDed Purplebackpack89(Notes Taken)(Locker) 17:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete'changed to uncertain, see below. perhaps we should talk about revising the book guideline, but in practice it is usually met by there being substantial reviews of a book, which meet the basic requirement of published works about it. Myself, I think this over-generous to all modern non-fiction books, but at the moment we are still using it. I'm generally somewhat of an inclusionist--some people might say a good deal of an inclusionist-- but this is already much too far and I can not see extending it--like many things based on the GNG, it was adopted without realizing the extent to which sources would be able to be found for even the relatively trivial. I think we have never accepted that all the books written by a notable person are notable--this is true only of famous authors, not ones that are merely notable--an author is notable if several of his books are notable, but we would hardly expect that all of them are--with most authors, even fairly good ones, some are trivial variations, and others are failures. Nor are all books about a notable subject notable. That would, for example make every book ever written about baseball individually notable, not every book ever written about the United States. It should be merged back , as withe most books. No reason is given for doing otherwise, except "IT'S IMPORTANT TO ME." DGG ( talk ) 06:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting. Well here's another area where approaches are not parallel on wikipedia -- the music wikiproject approach is to generally consider all albums by a notable band or singer to be notable. As to reasons why I imagine that approach is adopted by the music wikiproject, are: 1) album covers cannot be reflected on band pages, but can be on album pages; 2) one loses the cats for the album if it is in the band page; 3) one reflects more detail, as in track listings, on the album page template than one would in the band page. But for those issues, I really can't see much difference to anybody which way it is done, in practical effect. I mean -- if it can be a section of an article, it takes up the same amount of wiki space (as if that mattered; which of course it doesn't). I'm actually surprised that there aren't reviews of Will's book -- he is the god of sabremetrics, and win shares is part of what he is famous for (among baseball fans). --Epeefleche (talk) 16:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – We already have a piece called Win shares that describes the book. This new article is just duplication. On the other hand, while I totally agree with DGG’s assessment above (paraphrased) “…Not everything a notable author writes should be classified as notable in and of itself based on the prose or notability of the subject matter”. However, it should be pointed out that when a notable author, who I believe Mr. James qualifies under our current standards to be considered notable, does write a new book, the notability of the author, I believe, passes to the book, based on the notability of the author. The new book will be reviewed by major critics, one of our guidelines for inclusion, as this book was. Likewise it ranks as #92 in Books > Sports > Baseball > Statistics, which I believe is notable. I believe we must be careful using subjective guidelines with what we consider notable and use the objective guidelines that we currently have such as have reliable sources reviewed the book, are these creditable sources and are they verifiable sources. If it meets these criteria’s than it should be included. If we follow DGG’s assessment we should also start an AFD for Mein Kampf. Thanks. ShoesssSTalk 19:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, because notability only passes from authors to their works in extraordinary cases, when the author is so historically significant that all their works are automatically notable. James doesn't meet that qualification, because he isn't of great historical importance outside the rather narrow field of baseball analysis. However, Hitler had such a great effect on the 20th century, anything he wrote automatically becomes notable, as per Friederich Nietzsche or Karl Marx, to give another example. [Mein kampf]] is also notable simply because it meets the basic guidelines of WP:NOTABILITY, whereas this work does not. Regards. Claritas (talk) 19:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that James's influence extends beyond baseball, in that his work helped foster the increased use of (and popularity of) statistical analysis in many aspects of daily life, not just baseball. Also, I do not feel that Win shares and Win Shares (book) are redundant, in that the one is a statistic used and described in several of James's books, while the latter is a specific reference work. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
James does not meet the criteria - he is not "a person whose life or works is a subject of common classroom study." Claritas (talk) 21:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there are a surprising number of colleges and universities offering classes in sabermetrics: "Courses, course modules, and independent study in sabermetrics are being or have been taught at a number of respected colleges and universities, among them Bowling Green State University, Columbia University Teachers College, Muhlenberg University, Seton Hall University, Tufts University, the United States Military Academy, and Williams College." (per SABR). -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If only seven universities teach James, he probably doesn't meet the criteria of "common classroom study". I admit that this is heading towards the borderline. Claritas (talk) 21:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back in to Win shares. James is notable. The stat is notable. The book is just a reference for the stat. Commentary and criticism is about the stat, not the book itself. There is no meat for a separate article. Info on the book belongs with either James, the stat, or both. »scoops“ŧäłķ„ 17:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Epeefleche has done excellent work on the article. I'm concerned that a couple of the citations still refer more to the stat than to the book itself, but there seems to be more coverage than I realized about the book. The article probably could use a little further editing for tone, but I think independent notability and verifiability have been established. »scoops“対談„ 19:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep The fact that the author made the Times list of 100 most influential people doesn't make any book he wrote notable. The fact that this book is (about the subject that's) the reason he's on that list probably does make the book notable. IMO. Maybe. If he wrote a book on gardening, that wouldn't be notable; this may well be.David V Houston (talk) 01:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The author is notable and the metric probably is too, but qua book there's nothing notable about it beyond the metric it describes, which is treated in Win shares. Seems redundant. -- Rrburke (talk) 02:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This book has a number of reviews and references to it not previously reflected in the article. I've reflected now a number of references to the book that appear in various articles and books. More are out there if anyone else wishes to reflect them. Most clearly notable.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Click the Google news search at the top of the AFD, and you already find sources reviewing the book. DreamFocus 08:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain I would like a discussion by the knowledgeable about how this book relates to the other books by the author, and which of them are notable and which are not. I remain completely unwilling to accept that all his works are automatically notable because he is, but it is possible that some of them are. Nor do I accept that being used in a limited number of schools makes it notable, or a few dozen citation to it. With respect to reviews, I have learned to trust as reliable only formally published full reviews in respected sources which are selective about which books they review, but never to trust blurbs about the book on amazon or the book jacket, no matter how respected the author of the blurb, for experience shows people will not refuse to write laudatory comments about anything published by their friends. From the discussion in the article, it appears that this book is the theoretical work on the basis of which his system of rating is constructed, along with examples, a system then applied to actual statistics in some of his other books. It is possible that both the theoretical and the applied works can be notable, but the standards would be different: one would be studied, one used as a reference. It seems that some of his books may be used as standard reference works in their subject by those interested in baseball, and therefore be notable, but it would be very exceptional that all of them would be. I see we have articles on
Normally, for reference books, people do not write articles about both the annual volumes of a series and its cumulations, but rather a combination article about them all. Normally there would be articles about the more general books, not the more specialized, which in normal cases are excerpts from the general ones,and would better be mentioned in the articles about the more complete works. Normally there would be a decision which of several overlapping titles is the basic or primary one, and the others mentioned in that article. (with redirects for the ones mentioned but without articles in all these cases). It is normally more helpful to the reader here if related works are discussed together, rather than in separate articles. The present selection seems to need some adjustments here. It seems better to discuss this as a general question for all the books. If the specialists will decide, and their decision seems rational, I will accept their judgements about which to select. If I had to decide based on the titles alone, I would demote the guide to pitchers, combine the annuals with the two historical books, and consider the three distinctive books including this one on their own merits. DGG ( talk ) 12:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article is replete with formally published reviews and references to the book in RSs, and I don't believe any of them are "blurbs about the book on amazon or the book jacket".--Epeefleche (talk) 22:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 00:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Its totaly unsourced seems to only exist on urban dictionary (and I find it very difficult to belive that in the 19thC any one would create a hybrid this word . May well be a hoax.Slatersteven (talk) 19:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO, WP:DICDEF, probably a hoax. (Apparently it's a common and amusing Freudian typo—instead of "security"—as seen here and here.) TheFeds 06:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I figured that this would be about the concept of one partner providing sex in return for a secure relationship, and the other providing the offering security in return for the sex, a symbiosis that typifies a lot of steady relationships (which are strong until one side isn't able to carry out their side of the bargain). I'm not sure whether this is a chauvinistic insult about women, or about someone's fetish for women, who do secuirty work. However, this looks like a pure hoax-- were there that many "female security personnel" in the 19th century? Mandsford (talk) 13:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tim Song (talk) 04:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable, "run of the mill" type earthquakes. Three have occurred, but nothing in the article indicates that it is a notable event. None of the three caused any major property damage and no casualties. None of the three had any significant coverage of it beyond the usual initial news blips when they occurred, if that. Prod removed with note that "subject is notable" not no notability shown nor significant coverage added. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 18:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was the creator of this article, but I now think it isn't notable. Justmeagain83 (talk) 18:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteSeems to be just another earthquake.Slatersteven (talk) 19:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These quakes are more than likely part of the aftershock sequence to the 8.8 in February (within the aftershock zone and same mechanism). Any info on significant aftershocks should be added to the 2010 Chile earthquake article. RapidR (talk) 20:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under G7, "Author requests deletion". Mandsford (talk) 12:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:NOTPAPER. The concern should be whether the article is verifiable, and it is. This is not like a single-event newstory that is just a blip on page seven. If a geographical region has a history of earthquakes, even if just one, is noteworthy. I want to know which regions of the world are stable or otherwise. This article, and others like it, are the starting point of what may become a comprehensive collection of earthquakes. I suggest that this earthquake article, and others like it, be organized in a way similar to articles on asteroids which keeps the stubs on minor asteroids, but also keeps lists and larger articles for other notable asteroids. There is no need to delete this article as it adds to wikipwdia's value as an on-line resource of encyclodedic information. Vanruvan (talk) 12:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiability does not equal notability. How does it add to value as an encyclopedia to have random, unnotable topics included? If that were the case, we would not have notability guidelines at all. But we do, and this fails it. A single earthquake is NOT noteworthy, and if you want to know about a region's geographic stability as a whole, you would check that region's article, not go hunting around for every little earthquake. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 13:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "Hunting around" will not be an issue. Wikipedia editors have demonstrated that they are very capable at building useful links, lists and other types of methods to aid the navigation through wikipedia's millions of articles. It will be no different for the organization of articles on earthquakes. Vanruvan (talk) 02:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All earthquakes are notable by rule of common sense. This is what should be in an encyclopedia. And of course, if you don't want to think for yourself, but just let it be notable if someone in the media decided it was worth mentioning, you can obviously find all earthquakes mentioned in the news. Here [1] are 10 results in English, through Google news search. The language spoken by the people in that area, will be one you can search for, for additional coverage, if that isn't enough to convince you. DreamFocus 13:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that you are mistaken Thank you for the lecture on common sense and people who don't want to think for themselves, but you (and other people who think that this is "wide coverage") should look at some of those "10 results in English" to see if they really are discussing this minor event that happened on March 15. Articles dated February 27, March 1, March 4, March 5, etc. are not going to be about something that happened on March 15. In fact, out of those ten results, nine of them have nothing to do with what's being discussed here, and only one of them, a Chilean news source [2] mentions it, and even at that, it's only a couple of sentences at the bottom of the page. The other nine sources are about the 2010 Chile earthquake of February 27 that killed hundreds of people. Most of us do not subscribe to the rule that all earthquakes are equally notable, because they are not equally destructive. Mandsford (talk) 12:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wide coverage of a notable event. Lugnuts (talk) 17:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not very wide coverage, as it turns out. Mandsford (talk) 12:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Not a speedy, because others advocate keep, but as the search above showed, this received almost no coverage at all, even in Chile, where the deadly (nearly 500 people killed) earthquake that struck two weeks earlier. Mandsford (talk) 13:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The earthquake was certainly well covered in Chile. Perhaps the US news services have not fully covered it, but that does not mean it is not notable. There are other countries in this world - just because it wasn't reported in the US doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Vanruvan (talk) 02:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then see if you can come up with some sources. It's just as easy to find an online Chilean news service as it is to find a US news service. If you prove what you say by providing some Spanish language sources about the "terremoto" of 15 de Marzo (3 or 4 would be OK), then I would certainly reconsider. Start at El Mercurio which is the Santiago newspaper online, and see what you can find from after "15 de Marzo". Over in Argentina, there's La Nacion. However, I doubt you'll find more than passing mention. Mandsford (talk) 13:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage found to establish notability. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or redirect. OK... [3] is datelined 26 March. [4] is about the 15 March quake. I did a 'news' search on the individual word in the title, and these were the only hits in the first 8 pages. OTOH, I didn't go further than 8 pages, and, understandably, there is a lot more coverage of the original super quake. I suspect that more coverage, likely enough to be 'significant' is out there. David V Houston (talk) 01:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious, how is a single news article from the time of the second quake mentioned in this artice, one in eight pages of results, enough to make you feel the topic is now notable. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 02:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Shimeru (talk) 00:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep the book and the magazine make two examples of non-trivial coverage in secondary sources, which is what's important here (regardless of how suuuuuuper it is or not, thank you so much for your highly cogent argument JBsupreme). I would agree this individual is probably not VERY notable, but according to wikipedia's guidelines, he barely passes WP:N -Markeer
Keep. The book seems to be an interview (which isn't exactly independent, but is in-depth). But in addition to the detailed Mother Jones article, see also:
Judge Backs F.B.I. in Dismissal of an Agent, The New York Times, January 24, 1991, Thursday, Late Edition - Final, Section A; Page 20; Column 5; National Desk, 178 words, AP
Pacifist ex-FBI agent loses court fight, United Press International, January 23, 1991, Wednesday, BC cycle, Domestic News, 323 words
Judge Upholds FBI Firing of Pacifist Agent, The Associated Press, January 22, 1991, Tuesday, AM cycle, Domestic News, 297 words, By BILL VOGRIN, Associated Press Writer
JOHN (JACK) RYAN, WHO ADOPTED PACIFISM, The Oregonian (Portland, Oregon), January 11, 1991 Friday, Pg. D07
FBI: No Room for Pacifists, The Associated Press, January 10, 1991, Thursday, AM cycle, Domestic News, 561 words, By BILL VOGRIN, Associated Press Writer
Pacifist Former FBI Agent Suing to Get His Job Back, The Associated Press, January 10, 1991, Thursday, PM cycle, Domestic News, 531 words, By BILL VOGRIN, Associated Press Writer
FBI: No Room for Pacifists, The Associated Press, January 10, 1991, Thursday, AM cycle, Domestic News, 621 words, By BILL VOGRIN, Associated Press Writer
Judge to rule in pacifist former FBI agent case, United Press International, January 10, 1991, Thursday, BC cycle, Domestic News, 528 words
Federal Agency Upholds Firing of FBI Agent Who Disobeyed Orders, The Associated Press, July 14, 1988, Thursday, AM cycle, Domestic News, 294 words, By BILL VOGRIN, Associated Press Writer
Ex-agent disillusioned with FBI policies, The San Diego Union-Tribune, February 15, 1988 Monday, OPINION; Pg. B-7, 1387 words, ANN LEVIN, Ann Levin is a Tribune staff writer.
Fired FBI Agent Negotiating For Reinstatement, The Associated Press, December 2, 1987, Wednesday, PM cycle, Domestic News, 537 words, By BILL VOGRIN, Associated Press Writer
FBI Agent, Fired over Work-Conviction Conflict, Seeks Reinstatement, The Associated Press, December 1, 1987, Tuesday, AM cycle, Domestic News, 652 words, By BILL VOGRIN, Associated Press Writer
(Text available via LexisNexis.) TheFeds 06:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KeepOK we have lots of sources. Seems that he is slightly notable. The article need a lot of work but does pass.Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. King of♥♦♣ ♠ 06:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whole pages for a team's draft seems like overkill. Is there any reason one particular team's draft is notable? If we made pages for every team in every draft, it would be full of red links and unlinked names, with only a few real links. Muboshgu (talk) 17:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Sorry but your arguments are WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFF. Neither are a valid reason to delete the article. Not only that but the article in question is well sourced and has RS's to back it up.--White Shadowsyou're breaking up 17:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wasn't finished with the listing actually. In addition to bundling these other pages, I was refining my argument as based on notability. The list of 40 or 50 players a team drafts in a given year, half of whom won't sign (plus half of those who sign won't ever make the majors) is not notable. --Muboshgu (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, my !vote is still keep. Belive it or not, the article is notable IMHO.--White Shadowsyou're breaking up 18:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a valid opinion (I AfD'd this instead of PROD'ng it for a reason), but in my opinion this grouping is too trivial to merit an article. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. I understand your POV as well. It does seem a bit trivial but It just does'nt make since to delete the whole lot. Perhaps a bigger list can be made like List of Seattle Mariners draft picks (2006-2009) or something along those lines that would encompas more than one year.--White Shadowsyou're breaking up 20:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR, but this seems like an issue that should be discussed at WP:NSPORT in general, to decide if such articles are desirable at all (as we could repeat this exercise for each team, each year, in the NFL, the NHL, etc.), etc.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right, though WP:NSPORT seems to be more concerned with individuals, rather than lists. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It can't hurt to try some discussion there, or to bring it up at WP:SPORT otherwise.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 21:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with White Shadows' comments. The page was created after a deletion of a page about New York Yankees' draft picks (not created by me) so I thought it was a good idea to create some as a test subject. The idea was to see if the pages would take off and people who followed other teams would create pages like them for their teams. However, that has not been the case. I think a compromise could be forged. How about merging the list into the teams' season article under a header "Draft" (e.g. List of 2006 Seattle Mariners draft picks to 2006 Seattle Mariners season)? I think we should see what discussion brings up before we compromise, but it sounds reasonable on my side. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 01:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, in further cases involving my work, please alert me. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 01:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Having some time, I would like to go over why the article meets notability. First and foremost, the article is well referenced and incorporates reliable sources. Second, WP:GNG is met as the subject of the article (Mariners' picks) receives "significant coverage", is "reliable", the article cites "sources", the article is "independent of the subject", and is "presumed". The basis of your argument seems to be personal opinion, and there's nothing wrong with that. However, nothing you state is based on guidelines. Also, the argument that there are not other teams' articles is a WP:WAX argument. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 01:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chiming in on the IP's comments, I don't see how it classifies as a "directory" (per WP:NOTDIR). They are not "loosely related" (as they were all selected by the Mariners), they are not "enealogical entries", they are not yellow or white pages, they are not a "resource for conducting business", they are not "sales catalogs", they are not "non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations", and they are not "a complete exposition of all possible details". --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 02:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the seven examples of WP:NOTDIR are illustrations of what "not a directory" means, not the be-all and end-all of it. See WP:IINFO: merely being true and verifiable is not sufficient for inclusion. The complete list of draft picks is indiscriminate, as most entries are not notable, and the fact of them being drafted falls under old news report, WP:NOTNEWS. Still, I believe a more appropriate place for discussion would be something like WP:NSPORT, where the notability of drafts choices per team per year for all major sports league should be addressed once and for all.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 04:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTDIR is still not a sufficient argument for deletion as it has nothing to do with this case. Your bare-bones argument is that the subject in question is not notable and I have stated my belief that it is above. Also, stating that it viloates WP:NOTNEWS is incorrect. WP:NOTNEWS states that Wikipedia is no place for articles that are news reports or fictional works. The lists in question are not news articles, they are lists of draft picks by year made by the Seattle Mariners. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 06:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-Since you mention a similar article that was deleted, I tried to find the log and couldn't. Could you point to the AfD or deletion log for that New York Yankees draft article? Why was that one deleted? Could it be that there is no significant coverage of the subject beyond the usual news report? All drafts will be covered in the media obviously, but I still don't see how that passes WP:N (just like WP:POLITICIAN guards against election candidates with no coverage outside the elections because they are also automatically mentioned in the media during elections). Right now the sources are a Baseball database (not significant coverage, only useful for verifiability, not notability), two cites from Major League Baseball which is not an independent source, including a press release, which is again, not sufficient to establish notability. All you have is one article about the draft but that is again, expected local coverage, not significant coverage by independent sources. My local paper regularly reports about pee-wee teams too, yet somehow pee-wee teams are not included in WP:NSPORT.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 14:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There can still be reliable sources that are not independent to the subject. MLB.com is considered a reliable source, though it is not independent. The basis of the article is not hinged on articles from MLB.com. A general reference is given from Baseball-Reference, a reliable and independent source. Your arguments are going completely off topic. If the article was only backed up on one non-independent source, that would be questionable, however, the article cites multiple sources so clearly the citations are not the issue. The article I was bringing up was entitled "Yankees Draft Picks" and the deletion discussion could be found here. The deletion was not on the basis that the notability of the subject was questionable; the basis was on the fact the article was written like a blog and was non-encyclopedic. The lists in question here do have encyclopedic value and meet the general notability guidelines. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 16:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It also seems you're questioning any sort of references; local or otherwise. Publications like The Seattle Times ([5]), and The New York Daily News ([6]) are reliable beyond a local aspect. However, local coverage can still be considered reliable and can still be used to establish notability. Again, the article is not hinged on just local coverage and just unreliable sources. In fact, the article cites reliable and (for the most part) independent sources. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Does not seem "indiscriminate" to me - it's restricted to the draft selections made by one team within one year, and sorted by round. The players with standalone articles have blue links, and everyone else is plaintext. I think it's a quality treatment of a notable subject, supported by sources, and a perfectly encyclopedic topic for a paperless reference work to include. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. – Apart from the core policies of WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:V all of which this article passes with flying colors, the fundamental guideline here is WP:List. This is a List and thus must meet the basic tenants of the list guideline.
1) The subject of list must in some way be notable. I think that Mariner’s Draft Choices has received sufficient independent 3rd party coverage to meet that test.
2) The list content must be verifiable. Clearly the linked articles are, and the unlinked content is properly sourced. If individual entries are not sourced properly, they can be removed.
3) To deal with the claims of indiscrimate, ie. The complete list of draft picks is indiscriminate, as most entries are not notable, one should examine the Purpose of Lists and List Content guidelines of WP:List. On the purpose side, this list as it now stands accomplishes all three of the stated purposes of lists—navigation, information and development. Clearly the linked articles are navigational. Each entry is expanded with additional information-informational and the red-linked or unlinked entries are incentive for future development of new articles—development. Thus this list, quoting the guideline, Lists are commonly used in Wikipedia to organize information is a well organized list of information serving multiple purposes. On the List Content question, the guideline is clear. If the title does not already clarify what the list includes, then the list's lead section should do so. Don't leave readers confused over the list's inclusion criteria or have editors guessing what may be added to the list. I doubt seriously whether any reader would be confused as to what the inclusion criteria for this list is. It is very well spelled out not only in the title, but the lead-in—Below is a complete list of the Seattle Mariners results from the June [2006] draft. There is nothing indiscriminate about this list or its content.--Mike Cline (talk) 19:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 00:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy continually contested by article creator. This and this are the versions I put the speedy tags on, and although it appears that the article has been expanded, if you read the article you'll discover that the rest of the information is actually taken word-for-word from various other Wikipedia articles that have nothing to do with the subject. Erpert(let's talk about it) 17:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The creator has also been indefinitely blocked for having a promotional username. Erpert(let's talk about it) 17:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article asserts no notability nor does it have any sources. And as the nominator said, the creator was indef blocked for haveing a promotional username. Big COI here.--White Shadowsyou're breaking up 17:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found zero sources. Joe Chill (talk) 20:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 00:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There was never a band called Abydos formed by Andy Kuntz. Kuntz was commissioned with the composition of an so called "Rock Opera" Abydos by the de:Pfalztheater Kaiserlautern in 2005. The music of this opera was performed by the regular cast of Vanden Plas and the Pfalztheater as well as some guest musicians. Some more informations in these German reviews [7], [8]. jergen (talk) 17:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the four in the band (Andy Kuntz, Stephan Glass, Michael Krauss and Andreas Lili) have their own Wikipage. They all have links which go nowhere, and Krauss links to a disambiguation page, of which none of the people are candidates for guitarist--TimothyJacobson (talk) 16:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was No Consensus. Interesting arguments on both side. It seems that there is sufficient divergence of opinions on hotels that a more specific notability guideline might be useful. I urge participants to begin working on one.Mike Cline (talk) 22:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is an advert for a hotel created by user "Novotelkowloon". Article was tagged as speedy delete earlier today and speedy deleted. Article was recreated. Szzuk (talk) 22:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am now also nominating the following Novotel's based upon the suggestion of MelanieN as mentioned below. Afd will need to be relisted to allow sufficient time to debate. They are all adverts. Szzuk (talk) 16:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Luxury hotels generally generate a lot of media coverage. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. From the look of the Barnstars on your user page it seems your role on wp is to rescue and recreate speedy deleted articles, some of which shouldn't have been speedy deleted. This is certainly interesting and quite commendable! I've never come across anyone who did this and I certainly don't know how to do it. However I did actually read all of the sources on the page before and after recreation. My opinion hasn't changed, I think its an advert. Szzuk (talk) 22:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In this case, I was trying to add sources to the original article at the time another editor deleted it, which is why I appear to be the creator of this article. I recognize that this hotel is a lot less famous than the Château Frontenac or Claridge's, but my first reaction was that it would probably be possible to find enough coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate notability. There is a role for an article about a hotel which explains what makes a specific hotel distinctive and what its history is without being an advertisement. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Novotel has 400 hotels worldwide. We don't need articles on every one of them. None of the cited sources is sufficient to make this one worthy of note. While we are at it, I suggest that someone (I don't have time) also nominate for deletion Novotel Plovdiv, Novotel Century Hong Kong, Novotel Clarke Quay Singapore, and Novotel Nha Trang, for the same reasons. --MelanieN (talk) 14:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will just add them to this afd. Szzuk (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The 4 additional hotels were added to this AFD 5 days after it was opened and the articles were not tagged. If the decision is to "delete" then only Novotel Nathan Road Kowloon Hong Kong should be deleted. The additional article's should be nominated separately.--Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I was working with the logic that they could all be speedy deleted as adverts so it wouldn't be a problem just adding them here. It was just less administrative effort to do this. If procedure requires they all be tagged, that's fine, but someone else can do it. Szzuk (talk) 12:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep luxury hotels are almostalways notable. The only real problem is keeping the article descriptive. Te one nominated here seems ok in this respect. DGG ( talk ) 05:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"luxury hotels are almostalways notable" what guideline says this? is this another case of inventing criteria for WP:GNG and WP:CORP to suit an AfD? LibStar (talk) 12:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete all the keep votes are very weak as they provide zero evidence of significant third party coverage as required for WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 12:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW(Talk) 16:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is plenty of third party coverage for each of these that I've looked at, e.g. [9],[10],[11],[12],[13],[14],[15],[16] although my guess is that the coverage is at least partially sourced from press releases. If the articles are deleted, it would, in my opinion, obviously be better to redirect to Novotel instead of outright deletion. Pburka (talk) 17:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I read the first 4 of those links, 3 were press releases and the other a trivial mention. I can't see why the others would be different, but could be wrong. I can't say I understand the keep votes. There are literally tens of thousands of 4 star hotels in this world. It's not even 5 star, why must every 4 or 5 star hotel in the world have a page? Nothing of note seems to have happened at the hotel at all and the article would need to be gutted to stop it looking like an advert. It will be interesting to see what happens! Szzuk (talk) 17:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - sources given not sufficient to pass WP:N.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 18:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When we don't require commercial enterprises to have significant coverage in reliable sources, we run the risk of articles that not only contain unverified material, but are susceptible to promotional content. I'm not seeing the significant coverage in reliable sources here and I can't agree with the view that all major hotels (however we define major hotel) are inherently notable. Those that are genuinely "major hotels" will have significant coverage in reliable sources. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mkativerata and Szzuk. Genuinely historical hotels are notable and easily proven so --- they'll be written about in books, or by newspapers the general public has actually heard of (e.g. not "Hotel News Resource" and "e-Travel Blackboard"). Specific locations of notable hotel chains are not inherently notable themselves, especially if the only coverage they get is from hospitality trade magazines who will pretty much publish any press release verbatim on paper and the web so that they have something to put ads alongside of ... cab (talk) 07:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are over 20 hotels in Hong Kong with wiki pages and whilst some have more info and links than others, it would be a shame to kill them as they are getting high traffic and people clearly like to know something about these hotels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanepateman (talk • contribs) 14:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC) — Shanepateman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - no more spammy than most hotel articles. . . Galloping Moses (talk) 14:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Shimeru (talk) 00:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Simple advertisement for a physician. While he has published work, he does not appear notable. - Sinneed 16:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His first paper on Google Scholar[17] ("Desensitization of children to television violence", 1973) has been cited 181 times. This, I believe, indicates that the paper was quite important. Google links it to utah.edu, which seems to match up with the subject. Note, however, that Google lists a number of other papers by VB Cline which are too old to be by this author (e.g. "Accuracy of interpersonal perception: A general trait?", 1960, when the subject was only 10). If these are all by another VB Cline I would withdraw my keep vote. Pburka (talk) 17:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - clearly a published academic. This does not seem to speak to wp:notability, or every "publish or perish" academic would rate an article.- Sinneed 01:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I said it was notable because it's been cited 181 times. In my experience that's quite an important paper. Although I must admit my experience with the social sciences is limited. Pburka (talk) 02:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Significant coverage" : We have publications spanning from 1950s, mentioned as a pioneer in 1970s[18], expert witness with US Judiciary Committee[19], and he has been cited as recently as 2007 etc.,
"Reliable" : There are plenty, around 600 hits on google books.[20]
"Sources" : Several scholarly sources and research articles cite him. Again see [21] and around 144 google scholar hits[22]
Similarly with "Independent of the subject" & remaining points.
I removed the supposed 1950 birthdate from the article. It was unsourced, and as you say it doesn't make sense in light of the publication dates of some of these papers. His Ph.D. thesis, "The assessment of good and poor judges of personality using a stress interview and sound-film technique", appears to be dated 1953. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can confirm you that the 1950 is not his Date of birth. He received his PhD in 1953[23] as testified in court cases and hearings. CryptoEd (talk) 15:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He has been widely cited, to narrow down the search I add an additional contextual term and searched google books[24]. He has been cited as an expert in this field and he also appeared before government commissions[25]. CryptoEd (talk) 14:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I didn't create the article as an "ad for a physician" but rather to show that his ideas have weight. I linked Pornography addiction to him. If he's not a notable source of ideas, then I'll have to go back to that article and change the link to a footnote ref. In general, it can be difficult to get ideas into articles, unless the source of the idea in sufficiently notable. This is especially so for ideas which run counter to the mainstream or to "Wikipedia consensus" (where the latter is less than solidly dedicated to neutrality). --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
BLP Prod challenged due to external link presence. Another editor contested that, restored the prod tag. Sending to AfD per PROD process for contested PRODs. Jclemens (talk) 15:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked and can not find any reliable sources to establish notabilty. ~~ GB fan ~~talk 19:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't find out if she's even slightly notable because I can't find out anything about her! (Oops) Moriori (talk) 21:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 00:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:Notability. Google and metacritic search did not turn up any professional reviews or sources that show notability. Sources added when prod was contested do not show notability -- consensus has long held that IMDb does not show notability, the squidflicks "review" did not seem professional (and the author admitted s/he had not even watched it), and filmval.se is just a directory listing. Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After digging through the false positives caused by the not-too-unique title, and after looking through related searches, I was unable to find out anything more that the film exists. It fails WP:NF. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 17:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 20:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"the squidflicks "review" did not seem professional" but the criteria dosn't say the sorce must be a profesional but "# "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability." I hold that squid dose meet that criteria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donhoraldo (talk • contribs) 21:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With respects Donhoraldo, the Squidpress review, as nice as it may be, is not on a site known for its editorial oversite. Squidpress is on a site powered by Wordpress... making Squidpress a "self published website, and appears to be a blog where the site owner posts reviews and anyone might make comments. Worse for its consideration, the "review" you cite was posted by Shelby Jones... the individual who is "the owner of Omega Squid Studios, and all of the Omega Squid Network websites!" So... we do not have a process of editorial oversight... but simply a posting on a self-published-site by the site's owner. Such is rarely a reliable source for Wikipedia. However, if you are able to qualify her expertise, then it might be acceptable... such as an Roger Ebert review on Ebert's personal blog is generally acceptable for film... or a film critic at New York Times may have an "offical" Times blog and be seen as acceptable. Barring being able to qualify Shelby Jones, bring us reviews The Sun or The Post or New York Times, or articles in Entertainment Weekly or Variety... and then it would whole different situation. You are however, welcome to take the issue of Jones, her website, and her review on her website over to the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard. If they determine that it's okay... then it's okay. --Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 03:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And even if we can establish some credentials for the Squidflicks posting, there's still the problem of independence. From the review: "I recently contacted my cousin, Ellen Jones, who has been working as the producer of a new Independent Film called The Chemical King."--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Shimeru (talk) 00:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm going to be frank here. The article is currently in a dreadful state and self-promotional. However, I suspect that properly referenced and written, it probably would might pass the notability criteria. I'm going to go through it, reformatting, removing spurious references (Note Wikipedia articles are never a valid reference), pruning the name dropping etc. Then other editors can judge properly whether it's worth keeping. Stvsxtn, I'm going to ask you stop editing the article until I have finished cleaning it up and referencing it. If you are the subject (or have a close connection to him), you should not be editing it all. See WP:Conflict of interest for guidance on this. Voceditenore (talk) 05:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I have now completely re-written this and referenced it. Just as well, as it was pasted in from various self-published internet profiles of the subject in violation of copyright. I have removed the name-dropping and repetition (the various artists' names whom he only "worked with" because they appeared with Anne Murray where he was the band leader). I also removed claims of awards for which I could find no independent confirmation, and accolades which rightly belonged not to him, but to other people with whom he has been associated. I also removed the extensive padding which involved importing the entire Anne Murray discography into the article. The two aspects of his career which are documented and are the most likely candidates to support his notability are his ensemble, Exchange, and his work with Anne Murray. This is not my area of expertise, so I'll leave it to others to decide from the references which now appear in the article. Voceditenore (talk) 13:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My apologize, I will cease to edit, was trying to help out with small edits, I will cease to add anything, no problem. Stvsxtn (talk) 13:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I suggested on your talk page, if you find what you think are references from reliable sources that support any further claims to notability, by all means bring them to this discussion so that other editors can evaluate them. But my advice would be to stay away from the article itself. Voceditenore (talk) 14:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. It looks as though he meets criteria 2 and 10 of WP:MUSIC, although I'm using liberal interpretations of both. He was a member of a band (Red Rider) whose albums meet criterion 2, and he was bandleader / musical director on several shows that seem to meet criterion 10. BTW, kudos to Voceditenore for your work in salvaging the article! PKT(alk) 14:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as rewritten. Great work, Voceditenore. — e. ripley\talk 14:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nice work there. Looks much better. Peridon (talk) 15:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (music) as rewritten by Voceditenore. On a side note, there are no articles that link to Steve Sexton (composer).4meter4 (talk) 05:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I added a few incoming links which were mistakenly going to Steve Sexton.4meter4 (talk) 05:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I always forget to check that. ;-) I've added some too. It now has 7 incoming links. Voceditenore (talk) 06:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. And thank you for adding additional links. On another note, I've now nominated Steve Sexton for deletion. If that article is deleted this article should be moved to Steve Sexton.4meter4 (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 00:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notable and reliable source has been cited. Please do no delete.--Alxs47 (talk) 12:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claim of notability is made in the article anywhere. Only source provided is to a restricted blog (unverifiable primary source). I'm finding zero mentions of this anywhere, news, web, books, etc.--RadioFan (talk) 13:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete (if possible) What is the "Neo-Seuss community"? (Or do I really want to know?) Not a ghit for "Neo-Seuss", apart from here and one totally irrelevant coming together of the words on the Spanish Yahoo Answers (not a reliable source even if it were applicable). I am not entirely sure of what a 'glog' is, either, but a look at it did not inspire great confidence in its reliability as a source. As to the poem itself, I would suggest that it is not even in the class of works that may become notable but which are barred from article status by WP:CRYSTAL. I feel that no crystal ball is needed to foresee the future of this effort. Peridon (talk) 14:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Found out what a Glog is.... No more reliable than a Blog. Peridon (talk) 11:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure this article doesn't currently meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion. It doesn't make a claim to notability, but it's not an individual, animal, organisation or website, so it doesn't meet A7.-- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 14:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Closest speedy deletion criteria that might work is G3, as it appears to be a hoax. It will snowball soon enough here though.--RadioFan (talk) 15:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is speediable per A7. The poem hasn't been printed and is currently web content. --Pgallert (talk) 09:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
im afraid, it does not.--Alxs47 (talk) 10:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid Alxs47 might be right on that point... Peridon (talk) 12:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As far as I can tell, there is no specific guideline for artwork notability, and this certainly fails the general notability guideline. I am completely unable to find anything relating to this poster apart from the links provided on the page itself. In addition to that, the interpretations and analysis currently in the article appear to be original research.-- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 14:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources. Joe Chill (talk) 15:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. The only thing even remotely close to notability is that it has "over 30 views on the Earth1 Glog". Considering this "glog" is the only place the poem is hosted, that means, by the author's own admitance, only 30 people have read it. Angrysockhop(talk to me) 17:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - another reason why WP:MADEUP should be a CSD option. The excuse of "it could be notable so should be debated first" is completely at odds with the WP:V requirement. Nothing notable here.The-Pope (talk) 12:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article consist only of speculations like suspected..., thought to have been..., believed..., reported.... this's against the Wikipedia's rules. Share you thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KATURQUOTE (talk • contribs) 09:48, 2 May 2010
Speedy keep - plenty of sources establishing notability. Just because we don't know who someone is/was, it doesn't mean there shouldn't be an article about the said person. See Jack the Ripper. Claritas (talk) 15:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Well referenced article. As long as the suspicions and speculation is well referenced it's fine. If we removed articles based on this criteria we'd have to delete Lee Harvey Oswald, who was suspected of assassinating John F. Kennedy. Pburka (talk) 17:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Well referenced article. The "speculation" itself is being done by WP:RS. So no harm in keeping this one.--Sodabottle (talk) 16:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I can't find any evidence that this album exists, let alone that a title and/or tracklist exist such that this would pass WP:CRYSTAL. Borderline G3 candidate, in my opinion, although my uncertainty makes me cautious about nominating it for CSD. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article appears to have been speedily-deleted and then rapidly re-created. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I saw that too... although I don't think it's a hoax... so the AfD is appropriate. Shadowjams (talk) 07:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Add to nomination, What Up Girl which is a single off of this putative album. Shadowjams (talk) 07:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom. This article was recreated after being deleted as a hoax. The single, What Up Girl is also a blatant hoax as there are NO references at all. I even nominated that for G3. The way that The Blonde Is Back... is written also indicates a hoax. ToxicWasteGrounds 08:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't feel this is sufficently obvious a hoax for a G3, but not by much. However, if an admin decides to delete them as such, it wouldn't bother me though. I've added {{hoax}} tags to both of them as I can't find any sources to verify their veracity. Even if they weren't hoaxes, they certainly don't qualify for pre-release articles (see the notability guidelines for albums)-- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 14:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete as blatant hoax (G3) — Gwalla | Talk 18:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tagged this as a {{Hoax}} a few days ago. I think the claims are somewhat implausible, and the gold records in particular would have left more of a digital footprint. ϢereSpielChequers 06:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy deleted per CSD A7: No indication that the article may meet the guidelines for inclusion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per above. No sources no article. Also, he's clearly just a kid who figured out how to use youtube. I'd've speedied it, this is definately a7 IMHO. Angrysockhop(talk to me) 06:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tim Song (talk) 04:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Promotional sounding article which includes references nearly entirely from a single source (the local paper). Claims of notability are not backed up with footnoted references to significant coverage in 3rd party sources. I'm only finding a single Google News hit on the title and that's about a sex scandal involving the director of the choir rather than covering the choir itself. RadioFan (talk) 11:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this choir is notavble for a child abuse case then it should be in the articel. If it has no other coverage (or this is not notable) then I would go with delete.Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has received significant coverage in independent and reliable sources. There is evidence that the choir has performed at prestigious national events, viz American Choral Directors Association national convention, and at prestigious venues, viz Carnegie Hall, and have performed across the United States and abroad in Europe. The Kansas Arts Commission describes the choir as "one of the top treble choirs in the nation".[26]. There is coverage from 1991 from when the choir was formed to the present day in Google News using the 'Find sources' link above[27] and using the timeline function in Google web[28].Any promotional tone can be dealt with by editing. The only child abuse coverage I see relates not to this choir founded in Kansas in 1991 but to events that took place in the 1960s at a St Lawrence Church in Indiana. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since its not very clear which choir is which and the article makes no credible claim of notbatabilty, could you improve it with this information you've found based on these references?--RadioFan (talk) 01:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW(Talk) 03:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete gnews reveals a complete lack of coverage outside its own town [29], since almost all coverage is from Lawrence Journal World. LibStar (talk) 07:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only coverage I could locate was local with a minor smattering of regional coverage, so I can find no evidence that the subject meets WP:GNG. -- Rrburke (talk) 02:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. King of♥♦♣ ♠ 06:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A plain violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY; it's largely empty anyway, but no place cited has an article or for that matter even a red link (probably because 95% are not notable). There are probably other related problem articles but this one came to my attention by being cited as justification for keeping a similarly problematic article. Mangoe (talk) 13:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Comment I am not entirely sure of this because of the atypical transliterations used, but the headers for the tables in the article apparently indicate what sort of facilities and services are offered at each mosque. Mangoe (talk) 11:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This list contains several notable mosques e.g. Shia Jama Masjid is more than 250 years mosque and central mosque for Shia community of Delhi region, same is with Hawza-e-Panja Shareef which is local learning centre and is more than 300 years old, here Shahid Rabay is buried, Shah-e-Marda'n is also more than 150 years old shrine. I created this list as starting point for these articles and to have repositiory of these notable mosques but due to my movement from Delhi to Bangalore and my recent attention to other articles I have been not able to do the job. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 14:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0(talk) 03:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article was moved in the middle of the discussion. Mangoe (talk) 11:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear example of WP:NOTDIR. Mostly empty tables, plus a whole lot of this stuff is complete gibberish to the average reader. Translation of the title to Hindi and Urdu makes no sense here, and the column title for each table, aside from Area and Mosque, have no meaning to the average reader. What the heck is Namaz-e-Jam'at? What does it mean to have a large green check or a large red X in that category? There are only two mosques with their own article, thus even as a list article it has no reason to be there.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 15:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think there is being attempt to delete this article as this discussion was closed by a person who later moved the article and then relisted article for deletion, and a comment was given that the article was moved in the middle of the discussion. The article was not moved in the middle of the discussion, here is timeline of close, move & relisting:
Discussion was closed as keep at 2010-05-01 03:34:12
Article was moved at 2010-05-01 22:38:17
Article was relisted for deletion at 2010-05-02 09:09:56
This list contains several notable mosques e.g. Shia Jama Masjid is more than 250 years mosque and central mosque for Shia community of Delhi region, same is with Hawza-e-Panja Shareef which is local learning centre and is more than 300 years old, here Shahid Rabay is buried, Shah-e-Marda'n is also more than 150 years old shrine. I created this list as starting point for these articles and to have repositiory of these notable mosques. I have already created articles for two and I'm in process of doing same for others. The headers for the tables in the article indicate what sort of facilities and services are offered at each mosque (e.g. Namaz-e-Jam'at, Namaz-e-Juma & Namaz-e-Eid'ain) and what sort of entities they hold(e.g. Karbala & Imambara). --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 09:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
May be you are right for the article you quoted above but the places listed(although, I admit that all these mosques are not very important) in the article List of Shia mosques in National Capital Region (India) have historic importance(apart from religious) due to their startigic placement at Old Delhi area and their association with movements & people of importance both historic & contemporary. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 10:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would like to point out that this is the second keep vote in this AfD by Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider, thus it should be taken into account that it is a duplicate "vote".--70.80.234.196 (talk) 11:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - with zero sources and only two mosques with articles, how does this pass WP:N?
Keep, this article lists important mosques only, there are several minor/common/non-important mosques in the region which are not listed in this list. So it should be not deleted as per WP:N. --115.108.9.141 (talk) 16:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JForget 01:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article is a dictionary-like article that simply defines the term and covers usage of the term. However, wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and is not a dictionary. This topic does not seem to be able to support an encyclopedic treatment. Encyclopedic articles are not about the term, they are about the thing. This article is about the term and its usage.
Further evidence that this is the case is that the article is very short and contains more or less the same information as the Wiktionary article, and has not been extended in the 5 years since it was started. In fact, in my opinion the Wiktionary entry is slightly better, and more accurate.
Contrary to popular belief, there isn't actually a done enough policy, but if there was, the article has not done enough, and I see no evidence that it can ever do so. - Wolfkeeper 02:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. The content is comprised of four definitions and an etymology. The three sources are the Oxford English Dictionary's blog, Etymology online, and Wikipedia. One is not reliable, and the other two are more suited to dictionary than encyclopedia content. Cnilep (talk) 14:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. But with a redirect to Wiktionary, as it does sound as if it might not be an idiom. Rothorpe (talk) 15:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because this is not a dictionary. There are a few words and phrases that are important enough so that an article can be written about their history, a notable example is the "N-word". "Gravy train" does not seem to be in the same class of importance. Borock (talk) 15:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move Gravy train (disambiguation) over this title Deleting this unsourced one-line definition would cut off any redirects to the disambig, and since that title has plenty of disambigs out, the preferred outcome should be to move the disambig over this title. Nate•(chatter) 17:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace with disambig per Mrschimpf. Article doesn't pass WP:GNG. -- Quiddity (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tim Song (talk) 04:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fairly generic series of porn films which fail WP:NOTFILM individually and collectively, with no indication that the GNG or any other specialized guideline can be met. No assertion of notability, mostly a string of unsourced one-sentence plot summaries. Deprodded by an IP editor on the rationale that it was directed by a notable porn actor, which is not a notability standard. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Fails WP:NOTFILM and being directed by a notable person is not satisfactory for establishing notability. EuroPride (talk) 00:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relax taken care of, merged all the stuff to the actress, and with some reference sources. UPCDAYZ (talk) 21:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not interrupt in ongoing AfD by moving the article under discussion to a different title while the discussion is ongoing. The proper solution is to propose such a move/merge in this discussion. bd2412T 02:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I was only tryin to help. So I would like to propose the move/merge. I added some interesting trivia. Its in both. UPCDAYZ (talk) 22:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A merge to Kascha Papillon is the best solution, if the material is trimmed back to what is relevant to the actress and properly sourced. bd2412T 22:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℳøℕø 06:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0(talk) 02:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Why is this convo being ignored? Trivia doesn't help it really, its still not notable. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 20:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So what about the merge? Article on the headline performer should have a list of the films anyway! 166.137.10.41 (talk) 11:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JForget 00:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This gentleman has performed with quite a few notable artists, but unfortunately has not been subject to a lot of independent coverage himself. Was apparently nominated for an Emmy at some point, but I can't find a source for the claim. Jafeluv (talk) 10:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- No reliable citation to support profesional or artistic status --Rirunmot 20:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rirunmot (talk • contribs)
Comment (neutral leaning to delete at the moment). I've added two sources which verify some of it, the band he started was pretty notable in LA. See the link in the references. There's more in the Palm Springs Examiner article (www.examiner.com/x-29456-Palm-Springs-Celebrity-Examiner~y2009m11d19-Great-jazz-is-alive-and-well-on-Sunday-afternoons-in-Indian-Wells?cid=exrss-Palm-Springs-Celebrity-Examiner), but it's a black-listed link for some reason, so I can't add the link to the article itself. Voceditenore (talk) 10:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, having read examiner.com, I can see why links to the local versions are blacklisted. Voceditenore (talk) 12:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (t)(c) 10:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0(talk) 02:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 01:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Poorly referenced (although I just added one), but very notable. This typeface was created by Carter, the same guy who created Georgia, Tahoma and Verdana --SPhilbrickT 20:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstood my comment, and I may have worded it poorly, so I’ll try to elaborate. My argument isn’t that since Georgia exists, which is an article about a typeface, and Skia is a typeface, therefore Skia should exist. Instead, my argument is more along the lines of – you may not have heard of Skia, but it was created by Matthew Carter, and if by some chance, you are unfamiliar with Carter, he’s the guy who created the very famous Georgia typeface.
As an analogy, if someone were debating whether to delete a article called True at First Light, someone might argue, do you realize it was written by Ernest Hemingway, and if by chance, you don’t recognize the name, he also wrote For Whom the Bell Tolls? I realize that notability isn’t inherited, so I suppose it is possible that some, minor unpublished work by Hemingway might not be notable, just like unimportant typeface created by Carter, and not used in any meaningful way would not be notable. But this typeface isn’t some minor typeface, Apple commissioned one of the giants of the field to create a typeface for a major release. Not everyone cares about type faces, but among those who do, this one is major.SPhilbrickT 20:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 02:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 01:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable real estate sales website. My speedy delete tag was removed. Woogee (talk) 19:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Weak) delete. I can find plenty of mentions on and off the internet such as [30], [31][32][33][34]. Especially the list they publish seems to have gained quite some usage across various sites, with some award-winning locations representing it on their websites. However, the only mention longer then a trivial mention is [35], which is essentially a review bundle for these kind of sites. Therefor it seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:WEB, as criteria 1 specifically states that a brief summary is not enough. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 20:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 01:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
possibly a hoax, no reliable Google hits (most are copies of this articles), another fact is why would UMG release a compilation from an artist on Sony BMG Caldorwards4 (talk) 01:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't think it's a hoax because the cover looks legitimate (if it's not a clever forgery) and some blog-style websites claim that it exists. For example, see this. But something has really gone wrong with this album if it is has completely escaped notice by the mainstream media, and not even Amazon or CDUniverse have it for sale (you can check for yourself). Since the artist is notable otherwise, this compilation is probably just a record company quickie, released with no promotion and of no interest to fans or anyone else. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 02:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources exist. Joe Chill (talk) 02:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 01:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No indication that this film exists or is notable. Google search for "Breaking News"+DSJ results in nothing relevant. Contested prod. ...discospinstertalk 01:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too soon. I can find a sourcable 2010 American film Breaking News (II) on IMDB, and another unsouracable 2010 film Breaking News (I) which is "in development. The article itself does not provide enough information to source, much less even verify. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 03:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. JForget 01:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have cleaned up and sourced the article now. But I am not sure if the film has been released. The IMDB page for the film has been deleted and the entry removed from the producer/lead's IMDB page (google cache says it was there previously with status listed as post production). The producer's webpage says "it is coming soon" and the official webpage is a deadlink. I don't know if this is enough to satisfy WP:NFF (uncertain release status etc). But i am voting keep per WP:GNG as the production has received coverage in Evening Times, the trade journal of the Scotland's National film body and the 2008 UK film guide of Edinburgh International Film Festival.--Sodabottle (talk) 18:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per meeting GNG. Even if not released, notability of a topic in Scotland is notable enough for en.Wikipedia. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 09:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The football club is not fully professional, and UEFA does not confer automatic notability. Although discussions to modify policy may be taking place, for now we must say delete. King of♥♦♣ ♠ 01:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As this footballer has never played in a fully professional league, the subject fails WP:ATHLETE, and the lack of significant coverage means it also fails WP:GNGSir Sputnik (talk) 23:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Maltese football is not fully pro.[36] Youth caps don't count for WP:ATH. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To address what has been presented below, I am wholly against UEFA Cup appearances meeting WP:ATH. The UEFA Cup qualifying rounds are far from fully professional. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not sure how anything below indicatesa he now fulfills WP:ATHLETE. If anything it seems to suggest more strongly that he doesn't. Fenix down (talk) 08:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Playing in the UEFA Cup gives notability in my opinion. GiantSnowman 02:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In what way? The qualifying rounds certainly don't receive significant enough coverage to merit keeping an article WP:GNG, and they are not fully professional, since there are always teams from semi pro leagues, and there were at least twenty-five, including Birkirkara F.C., during the season in question. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a degree of repetition creeping into this debate. Sir Sputnik is correct, according to current consensus this individual simply does not fulfill WP:FOOTYN. Although this notability criteria is not a guideline, there has been significant activity on the essays talk page and the essay itself has been edited a number of times by a number of different editors. I would suggest that that is sufficient to suggest current WP consensus on players' notability is that they have to play or have played for a fully professional club competitively. Lombardi has not, therefore whether he has played in the UEFA cup first qualifying round or not (and continental competition appearances are also covered by wp:footyn) is irrelevant. Unless new reasons for keeping the article are put forward, it would seem clear that the concensus is to delete as the two editors who wish the article to remain have not supported their arguements with citations of relevant consensus. Fenix down (talk) 10:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has played in European top-level league and in UEFA Cup (added reference to article for latter) Eldumpo (talk) 19:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any indication that Birkirkara F.C. are fully professional? I haven't been able to find any but that doesn't mean its not there. But if they are not fully pro, then Mr. Lombardi still fails WP:ATHLETE inspite of the UEFA Cup appearance. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have evidence that Birkirkara are 'fully professional' and they may not be, but I would say he is notable due to playing in the UEFA Cup. Eldumpo (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reason playing in the UEFA Cup usually makes players notable is because the vast majority teams in the UEFA Cup are fully pro, and a player would therefore be notable under WP:FOOTYN. However, if Birkirkara F.C. are only semi-pro he still fails all relevant notability guidelines. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Question of professionality appears to have been answered above, so not sure why it conitnues to be debated, though I accept that the reference is nearly 10 years old. League appears to be assumed not fully professional by WP:Football here. It is possible that he is a professional player but that does not seem relevant according to notability guideleines which state that the league must be fully professional. Could still have an article on GNG grounds if he had achieved something notable in european competition, but the appearance in the UEFA cup was a first qualifying round tie which the club lost. Fenix down (talk) 10:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - football has not played at a fully-professional level of football. Whilst I appreciate that he has made appearances in the early stages of the UEFA Cup, these are (as aforementioned) far from being fully-professional, failing WP:ATH. There is also not enough media coverage, beyond the WP:NTEMP stuff to pass WP:GNG. --Jimbo[online] 01:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. According to WP:MUSICBIO #8, a Grammy does make one notable. Searching "Zane Birdwell" as an artist on the Grammy website does bring up his name for Always Looking Up. King of♥♦♣ ♠ 01:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable sound engineer that does not pass WP:BIO or WP:CREATIVE. The article asserts the subject was awarded a Grammy, but I can find no reliable sources saying this. Coverage has Michael J. Fox winning that Grammy. None of the five references in the article mention the subject at all. Working on the sound of works or performances is trying for notability by association. Clubmarx (talk) 22:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Zane Birdwell's Grammy is real - please do not delete page I feel confident that if you go to http://www2.grammy.com/GRAMMY_Awards/Winners/Results.aspx and search Zane Birdwell as the artist, you'll find that he was indeed awarded a Grammy statuette earlier this year along with Michael J. Fox and that this wikipedia page is absolutely necessary for providing information on his career to interested parties. He is more than happy to provide photo documentation of said Grammy award: www.angelfire.com/electronic2/zanetunes/243.jpg Thanks. Ta9520 (talk) 00:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC) — Ta9520 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 23:46, April 25, 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Not sure at the moment, but leaning delete. Ta9520 is correct in that if you go to the search page you do find this guy is listed. However, I cannot find anywhere that this has been recognised. The main Grammy listing page [37] only gives Michael J Fox as the winner. Searching comes back with his linkedin profile and wikipedia [38]. Everything else out there is simply listings of work he has been involved with and does not give any sort of commentary on the extent of his work, how well received it was etc etc. Quantpole (talk) 14:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I occasionally work with Zane from time to time at various studios and I can vouch that he has a Grammy Award. He's recorded a lot of celebrity audiobooks and high-profile people. If you check out his myspace page, I believe he's got several pictures of some of the people he's worked with... I can also attest that's he's well-respected in the New York theater community.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough independent coverage, though he might have won an award, there are not enough coverage about it. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 01:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - At issue is notability. Notability is all about whether article subjects are worthy of notice. This is often established through coverage in reliable sources, buy by no means is this the only way to see if a subject is notable. The Grammy awards are the pinnacle in terms of award recognition in the American recording industry. As such, Zane Birdwell and his sound recording work has been deemed worthy of notice in as much as he has been awarded a Grammy. -- Whpq (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but that is incorrect. The general notability guidelineonly talks about coverage in reliable sources. The reason we have other subject specific notability guidelines is so it can be agreed when it might be reasonable to assume someone has been covered in reliable sources (due to sources not all being available online or in English, or knowing what to look for). On wikipedia an award does not make someone notable, rather it is the expectation that the award means the person has been covered in reliable sources makes them notable. In this case it is not clear, particularly as the individual does not appear on the Grammy listing page for the award. There is plenty of coverage regarding Michael J Fox winning this award but none of it mentions Zane Birdwell. It is therefore not clear to me that the award in this case gives any indication that reliable coverage will exist, and I must therefore say delete. Quantpole (talk) 12:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The guildeline is by no means exhaustive. A major award is prima facie evidence of notability. -- Whpq (talk) 13:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can find no signficant coverage about him to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find any reliable sources, and BLPs need them especially. •ɔʃ→ 02:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have an article (that I could find) on Color TV (TV series), let alone any indication that a puppet character on that show is notable. Shadowjams (talk) 21:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could find no proof of notability. Drmies (talk) 22:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have added more information as well as references...I hope that that helps. Thank you. Alibaster6
Keep - The article has (offline) refs, which indicate notability. Unless we think it's a hoax, or that the user who added them is lying or something. The article should probably be renamed Color TV, and put all this info in a subsection. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Except it's about the puppet, not the TV show. A better response would be to "merge" this to the main TV show article, which again, doesn't exist. The fact they're offline isn't a problem per se, but it does probably indicate you haven't actually seen them yourself, so you're just guessing like the rest of us, none of which is particularly encouraging for building a reliable encyclopedia article about this TV program. Shadowjams (talk) 04:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I said rename the article. In this case, it's the same as merging to the parent article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But there is no parent article. Shadowjams (talk) 05:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If I'm reading this correctly, this appears to be about a character on a public access television series, which tends to suggest non-notability. --Metropolitan90(talk) 05:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. I guess the SNL argument has helped push the consensus for a keep JForget 00:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP#1E. Person has no significance for inclusion beyond one event. Event itself is not probably notable enough for an article, its one contestant isn't. Sources included do not meet threshold of multiple, reliable, significant commentary on subject. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-written, well-laid-out article on person of interest. I would love to know more about non-snl parts of her life, but there are reliable sources and citations for the data included thus far. Centerone (talk) 16:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the only non-celebrity to host SNL, Miskel Spillman is, for obvious reasons, part of every history of the show that I have ever read, and SNL-ophiles recognize her name as the old lady who won the "anyone can host" contest that ran but once in the show's 35 year history. Although I recognize that a redirect to the season article would serve the purpose of keeping her as a blue link and making a note of the fact that she was one of the hosts in the 1977-78 season, the reason that anyone would consult the article would be to find more details than might be evident from a mention on a list of hosts. I suspect that if she did get a mention in the season 3, anything that didn't fit into a sentence would ultimately be edited out for the sake of neatness. Ultimately, Wikipedia is a reference, and the article serves that purpose. Mandsford (talk) 12:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That does not address whether it deserves a standalone article; merging is an editorial decision, and how much is kept or cut is easily decided. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The separate article allows more detail (Spillman's dates of birth and death, her ancestry, her much later interview in People magazine) than would be appropriate for the SNL season 3 article. Kellysor (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some additional comments: Every other SNL host has a page of their own. While a number of things relate back to the SNL hosting in relation to her notability, it was not just the case of "she hosted SNL" or "she won an SNL contest" (note: she beat out 150,000 folks in an essay contest, not just a sweepstakes..) but she also held the record of the oldest SNL host for OVER _three decades_! In addition, lots of people have their own pages for "only one event." A good example might be pretty much all the people who are simply listed because of their longevity. If you check oldest people you can find a number of people who only have pages of their own because they are, or were, old. I'm also pretty certain that you could probably find hundreds (if not more) of other examples of people who have pages only because of their participation in one event, whatever that event was. Centerone (talk) 18:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please Keep Her role on SNL that year was a cultural significance. There are many people who get their 15 minutes of fame and are forgotten but to many people this was more than significant. She still deserve to keep those 15 minutes eternally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.209.68.186 (talk) 12:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Enigmamsg 23:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Actress has played a single role in a TV show, she fails WP:ENT. Prod was removed. Several actors from the same show have had articles deleted for the same reason. AnemoneProjectors 17:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - some actor bios have been kept in the past if they are recurring supporting actors in a single TV series; Williams has been on a dozen eposodes. Bearian (talk) 20:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tracy Beaker Returns. There's not really much to say about her right now except that she appears in Tracy Beaker Returns. If she appears in a different children's programme as well, then I'd say there'd be enough for an article. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tracy Beaker Returns without prejudice toward recreation if or when her career expands and she receives coverage in reliable sources. While her 12 episodes are fine, they are she is credited with doing. The article is premature. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 09:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tracy Beaker Returns as has been suggested above. There is currently not enough material available or independent notability established to support a separate article. Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 20:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above; also her friend Amy-Leigh Hickman (who needs a separate AFD). If she proves to have a more substantial career, the article can be reverted to a substantive article. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 01:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD - Non-Notable Building Codf1977 (talk) 13:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP, This is a famous place in Milwaukee and a major building of a major university. The Google search results justifies its notibility. [39]Revws (talk) 13:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They clearly do not, if you look they are either self publiushed, WP or mirrors or incedentle mentions. Codf1977 (talk) 15:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just another building among hundreds of others at a large university. Definitely non-notable. 75.2.209.226 (talk) 14:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Have also added a Find Sources for "UWM Union Building" which may help. Codf1977 (talk) 15:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC) [reply]
Redirect and Merge - Why can't this bit of information simply be deleted as its own article and merged into the larger UWM article? Cheers, PaddyM (talk) 15:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure there is much of note to merge. Codf1977 (talk) 09:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. It seems IGN and Massively were enough to tip the balance. Shimeru (talk) 01:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe this MMORPG meets our notability criteria because I haven't been able to find significant discussion of it in reliable, third-party sources. There were a lot of near-misses (nonreliable reviews and the like) in my searches so hit me up on my talk page if you are pretty certain this has the coverage to meet WP:N. ThemFromSpace 07:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see no WP:N. Majority of hits seem to be primary and ascertain little notability. It's WP:FANCRUFT and WP:GUIDE. Besides, half of it is written against WP:CRYSTAL. — Hellknowz ▎talk 19:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I copyedited the article, removing wp:crystal. I removed wp:fancruft and replaced with feature description with primary sources. I added two marginally notable sources provided below by MrStalker. Also added reception section. Fixed error about wrong developer. I believe a little more rescue and this article deserves its space. — Hellknowz ▎talk 16:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It may not be very well covered by the mainstream gaming mediums, but I think the game still might be notable enough for inclusion. It has some coverage at MMO-focused sites ([43][44]). Although I admit much about the article can be improved, it should be so rather than deleted. --MrStalker(talk) 11:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am too lazy to search for good sources, so if you find any more, I can add properly them.— Hellknowz ▎talk 16:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sources out there are pretty bad. MMOHut is specifically excluded as a reliable source on the WikiProject Video games list of reliable sources. OnRPG looks like just about every other MMO site out there: spammy, fan ratings and voting, press releases, no list of editorial policies, no author credit, in short everything that makes a source unreliable. Wyatt Riot (talk) 18:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clicking the Google news search link at the top of the AFD, I see a very large number of hits. Many game sites are talking about it. If we bothered to read sources in Chinese, we'd probably find even more. Not every MMO gets mentioned these days, there just too many of them, so its notable if its covered everywhere. DreamFocus 14:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone translate Chinese sources? — Hellknowz ▎talk 14:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete or userfy/incubate. This game definitely exists as verified in some WikiProject Video games-approved sources like IGN and 1UP, but the amount of material is rather trivial and probably not enough to write an actual article around. I would suggest gutting the article, removing unreliable secondary sources (like MMOHut and OnRPG), and userfying (assuming someone is willing to take on that task) or move into the article incubator until reliable, non-trivial sources show up. Or if nobody wants to take on that responsibility, delete with no prejudice against recreation at a later time. Wyatt Riot (talk) 18:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)Keep as Marasmusine has found some non-trivial reliable sources, not sure how I missed them. :) Wyatt Riot (talk) 18:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The search through the reliable sources [45] has 149 results. The first thing listed is enough of a review. The rest I've bothered to click on seem to just mention it exist, and give no real information, just one press release, and a lot of screenshots. A lot of people do apparently play this game though. DreamFocus 07:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - the first thing listed isn't even remotely a review. It's a blurb. A press release at best. Just because something passes WP:RS doesn't mean its significant coverage. --Teancum (talk) 11:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We shouldn't use MMOHUT or OnRPG as sources, and the google search above is largely a collection of press releases and directory entries (sorry Dream Focus, I couldn't spot the review). However amongst the chaff there are one or two great sources such as this extensive IGN interview (invaluable for a Development section). Marasmusine (talk) 15:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good find! That is plenty of coverage. The review I was speaking of is [46] there a short summary explaining what the game was about, it not just copy paste nonsense, but an actual review, although not a long one. DreamFocus 16:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given MMOHut and OnRPG have to go, can we use primary sources for feature description? Uninterpreted, of course. — Hellknowz ▎talk 16:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From my understanding, primary sources are acceptable as long as 1. there are already non-trivial, reliable sources to establish notability, and 2. the claims are not overly self-serving. Wyatt Riot (talk) 18:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I wouldn't use the Gamezone link either; the description is completely uncritical and reads like a publisher's description (indeed, that text appears on other sites too) Marasmusine (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Blech, these MMO sites are not good as reliable sources at all, but this proper article on Massively (AOL) does exist, I've also seen a magazine feature on this game (it's in an issue of PC Gamer or something like that). Even coupled with the IGN interview it's a poor show, however. Someoneanother 15:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - The Massively (AOL) and IGN interview links may serve useful -- but my major concern is that they actually be added to the article before this thing gets a keep vote from me. Far too many articles pass AfD because sources were found, but those sources never get added, and so get lost in the mix -- which means the article might come back to AfD later. --Teancum (talk) 11:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a start, with the Massively review. I'm not quite ready to take on the Development section :> Marasmusine (talk) 16:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Little notability, no references to indicate notability, and few additional refs possible (see Google), mainly from legacy databases. ℳøℕø 05:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable ref for all of these printers available: "A look back at Apple's Printers". Benj Edwards, Macworld, Dec 10, 2009. There will also be reviews for each of them, which are also reliable refs. No attempt to follow WP:BEFORE in these or the other similar nominations. That said, the very similar printers of each group could probably be usefully merged. DGG ( talk ) 06:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 'cause there really isn't a whole lot to say about this model. It would probably be better to have an article on the whole class of Apple LaserWriter printers and give the data on each model there. Kitfoxxe (talk) 00:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Not individually notable, but the Apple printers as a product line are probably notable (see DGG's link). --Cybercobra(talk) 06:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a article listing Apple printers. 19:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Decent notability (not referenced though), no reliable (3rd party) references. ℳøℕø 05:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable ref for all of these printers available: "A look back at Apple's Printers", Benj Edwards. Macworld, Dec 10, 2009. There will also be reviews for each of them, which are also reliable refs. No attempt to follow WP:BEFORE in these or the other similar nominations. That said, the very similar printers of each group could probably be usefully merged. DGG ( talk ) 06:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Not individually notable, but the Apple printers as a product line are probably notable (see DGG's link). --Cybercobra(talk) 06:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. They all have suitable coverage. This should've been discussed on the talk pages, not brought straight to AFD. And all of the AFDs should be combined since they all have the same coverage, and are basically the same thing. Pro·1500·2200·2400·2500·4100·4500·6500DreamFocus 09:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to an article listing Apple printers. Edison (talk) 19:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Not enough evidence to conclusively show that the sources do not constitute "significant, independent coverage." King of♥♦♣ ♠ 01:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is an interesting group, however, having looked at the references I do not believe they satisfy the notability policy. The majority of the references provided are primary (The Backlash Times was this group's own publication). There is also a personal website provided as a citation and random personal websites do not satisfy the Reliable Sources policy. As far as I can tell, almost all of the other provided references are used to substantiate basic facts not necessarily related to this group, like the name of an earlier version of the Pornography Victims Compensation Act. I do not believe any of the reliable, third-party references provided here cover this group specifically and if they do it is only as a trivial passing mention rather than "substantial coverage". It is difficult to substantiate those refs in any case as I don't have a proquest account. Additionally, there has been some concern that the primary authors of this article MAY possibly have a Conflict of Interest. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 05:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article needs more cleanup for sure. It is only a few months old and has already been improved somewhat. I think that if it had a good edit, and a few citations added and a few not meeting wp:rs that it could stand on its own. Deleting without giving editors a chance to fix it, when the organization seems legitimate and likely notable, does not seem proper. Atom (talk) 05:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's really not about cleanup or writing a better article but in regards to what I mentioned above. The article has been live for 3 months, plenty of time to include reliable third-party news articles, journal articles, books, etc. that cover this group specifically or at least discuss them in detail. WP:N and WP:V. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 06:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care either way. But, in the timeframe of Wikipedia, three months is nothing. We had talk page discussions about finding consensus that last longer than that. If the article is in the same state a year from now, then deleting would be okay. Atom (talk) 14:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I support delete at this point, I am having to weigh the difference between the opinions of editors who have apparently read the only real source cited, and people who were there and say this information is wrong. As such I would say we do not have enough independent sources to satisfy core policies on verification and neutrality. Guy (Help!) 08:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the group is particularly notable, best known for an arrest for showing pornography in central station is not a especially strong claim to fame, content has imo been fluffed up and the groups importance enlarged. Content either needs stubbing right back or better still merging back to where it came from, Women_Against_Pornography. Off2riorob (talk) 11:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the content needs to be pared back. Or citations from sources from the mainstream media could be added. Atom (talk) 14:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Answering the charges in order of their appearance:
An organization's self-publication is a valid source about the organization itself. See WP:SELFPUB. If there's a particular self-statement you wish to dispute, please point it out.
The organization's publication is cited 16 times. That's not a majority of citations. The Village Voice article alone is cited 17 times. Boston Globe, off our backs, USA Today, Wall St. Journal, American Bar Ass'n Journal, N.Y. Times, and Women's Studies Quarterly are cited at least once each, which comes to 17 plus at least 7 or a total of 24 or more times, and that doesn't include a law journal disputed against an unpublished and disputed email.
The personal website is not "random" but is a self-statement and therefore meets the very criterion you cited against it: the Reliable Sources content guideline, which is not a policy as you called it but agrees with the policy.
Notability does not require that every published source also be substantial. Some in the article are. The others add reliable information useful to the article and that is permissible for notability. "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." You charge, "I do not believe any of the reliable, third-party references provided here cover this group specifically and if they do it is only as a trivial passing mention rather than 'substantial coverage'." Did you read any of them? How did you conclude that they are not reliable, are not third-party, did not cover FFP, or are trivial without reading them? Please be specific in your charge so I can answer it.
You don't need your own ProQuest account. Ask public libraries, academic libraries, specialized libraries, or corporate libraries. I have a free public library card that lets me have free access to many ProQuest and EbscoHost databases. The Village Voice is on microfilm and please ask libraries about that, too.
And there's a general statement above that "this information is wrong" as support for deletion: As far as I know, "this information" applies to only one point: the address of the tabling that led to legal action and which law office defended the tabling. That is new and is being handled as an OTRS matter. If the non-OTRS policies control, then the original information is well-supported by a law journal article. Except for OTRS and the response to it, neither the facts nor their relevance are in dispute, and I can't access the OTRS source.
Most organizations' notability is not to be judged by what they are arrested for. The arrest's relevance is that their tabling was typical and for that, and for the position they espoused at their tabling and in their newsletter, they had been well known in the city, as the third-party sources support.
Work is not fluff. Goals are not fluff. The article isn't about fabulousness or dedication. It's about their work. If you see fluff, please edit that or point to it.
Merging it, given the added information, would overload the article merged into. Women Against Pornography was a separate group and the two groups disagreed on legislative goals and outreach tactics and different people were in them. The public often confused them. The FFP article is already categorized, as is the article on Women Against Pornography.
I favor retention.
Nick Levinson (talk) 19:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC) Corrected for an erroneous attribution, one indent, and "load" to "overload" per original intent: Nick Levinson (talk) 19:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC) Corrected category link to appear inline, not elsewhere: Nick Levinson (talk) 00:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- or merge back to Women_Against_Pornography as per my comments and support for the nominators comments. As Nick says, The organization's publication is cited 16 times .Off2riorob (talk) 19:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Each of the 16 is in support of a point. None is gratuitous. The alternative of organizing the main text to minimize the number of notes would make for harder reading. Exactly two thirds of all the references are from other sources. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Better to use independent sources but that's an awful lot of google news hits. Seems to pass WP:ORGMorbidthoughts (talk) 01:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the group would have to meet "significant coverage" to establish notability. There was some coverage of the group, however it doesn't seem to rise above trivial. The bulk of the ghits are in reference to the one quote by FFPs former president. Current article is heavily POV due to the excessive use of the groups newsletter, and it seems highly improbable that a NPOV article of any substance can be written using reliable sources.Horrorshowj (talk) 16:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sources cited are not trivial. It doesn't matter if there are also trivial publications that weren't cited.
That lots of search-engine hits are useless has nothing to do with whether there are some that fit WP's needs. I selected sources for exactly that reason.
Citing the group's newsletter was appropriate. If there's any citation to it that's not, please point it out.
The group itself had a point of view; most do; Playboy has a point of view ("[t]he magazine throughout its history has expressed a libertarian outlook on political and social issues") and so does the Flat Earth Society; stating it in the article doesn't make the article POV. The FFP article already refers to controversies about its work.
What matters is if the organization is notable, and it is that. If you'd like to write a better article, please do.
Every organization may have a point of view, however it is not the place of a wikipedia article to propagandize for them. That is very much the case on this article. Independent of their self-published sources there isn't any evidence of their having been given significant coverage. That is the requirement for GNG, not merely evidence that they existed. Horrorshowj (talk) 06:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is the place of Wikipedia to tell readers what the group is about. The belief that what they say is propaganda is irrelevant. The reader certainly may have a point of view and disagree with the group that is the subject of an article in WP. Many do. A group is no less notable because it has a point of view. As examples, see the WP articles on the U.S. Democratic party and its ideology, the U.S. Republican party and its ideology and positions, and al-Qaeda (including the Ideology section and the lead's 4th paragraph). All three groups are notable even though they have ideologies, have ideologies that are intensely and widely disagreed with, and have ideologies described in WP articles about the respective groups themselves.
If the requirement for stating a group's position were that it could only be stated by a third party, the high risk is that it would be misstated. For example, a minority religion could be described by a third party as the worst body of evil ever to walk the Earth. This would not serve WP well except as a criticism that complements a fair statement of the religious group's own theology, and for that the group's own publications may be the most reliable source, which are therefore permitted for citing in WP, including for notability.
You write, "there isn't any evidence of their [FFP's] having been given significant coverage". Eight reliable third-party published sources of coverage were cited. The only one disputed for its veracity is a ninth, it is a law journal, and the countersource for that is, so far, anonymous and unpublished. Eight or nine stand. Thus, all five criteria of WP:GNG are met.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No notability, no reliable (3rd party) references. ℳøℕø 05:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable ref for all of these printers available: "A look back at Apple's Printers", Benj Edwards. Macworld, Dec 10, 2009. There will also be reviews for each of them, which are also reliable refs. No attempt to follow WP:BEFORE in these or the other similar nominations. That said, the very similar printers of each group could probably be usefully merged. DGG ( talk ) 06:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Not individually notable, but the Apple printers as a product line are probably notable (see DGG's link). --Cybercobra(talk) 06:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. They all have suitable coverage. This should've been discussed on the talk pages, not brought straight to AFD. And all of the AFDs should be combined since they all have the same coverage, and are basically the same thing. Pro·1500·2200·2400·2500·4100·4500·6500DreamFocus 09:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to an article listing Apple's printers. Collectively but not individually notable, like Pokemons. Edison (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Edison says it nicely. The situation here is somewhat analogous to episodes of a B-grade TV show - List of Bouncing Betty's B-Grade Extravaganza episodes is a fine candidate for an article, but there is so little coverage of individual episodes outside of TV listings and the like that individual articles would denigrate into nothing but an in-universe plot summary. With these printers, the same basically applies. The 6500 is an upgrade to the 4500 is an upgrade to the 4100 is an upgrade to the 2500. A single article would be a much better presentation of the incremental differences between these various printers. Badger Drink (talk) 20:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No notability, no reliable (3rd party) references.ℳøℕø 05:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable ref for all of these printers available: "A look back at Apple's Printers", Benj Edwards. Macworld, Dec 10, 2009. There will also be reviews for each of them, which are also reliable refs. No attempt to follow WP:BEFORE in these or the other similar nominations. That said, the very similar printers of each group could probably be usefully merged. DGG ( talk ) 06:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Not individually notable, but the Apple printers as a product line are probably notable (see DGG's link). --Cybercobra(talk) 06:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. They all have suitable coverage. This should've been discussed on the talk pages, not brought straight to AFD. And all of the AFDs should be combined since they all have the same coverage, and are basically the same thing. Pro·1500·2200·2400·2500·4100·4500·6500DreamFocus 09:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to an article listing Apple's printers. Collectively but not individually notable. Edison (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No notability, no reliable (3rd party) references.ℳøℕø 05:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable ref for all of these printers available: "A look back at Apple's Printers", Benj Edwards. Macworld, Dec 10, 2009. There will also be reviews for each of them, which are also reliable refs. No attempt to follow WP:BEFORE in these or the other similar nominations. That said, the very similar printers of each group could probably be usefully merged. DGG ( talk ) 06:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Not individually notable, but the Apple printers as a product line are probably notable (see DGG's link). --Cybercobra(talk) 06:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. They all have suitable coverage. This should've been discussed on the talk pages, not brought straight to AFD. And all of the AFDs should be combined since they all have the same coverage, and are basically the same thing. Pro·1500·2200·2400·2500·4100·4500·6500DreamFocus 09:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to an article listing Apple's printers. Collectively notable, but not individually. Edison (talk) 19:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Limited notability (no refs to back notability up), no reliable (3rd party) references.ℳøℕø 05:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable ref for all of these printers available: "A look back at Apple's Printers", Benj Edwards. Macworld, Dec 10, 2009. There will also be reviews for each of them, which are also reliable refs. No attempt to follow WP:BEFORE in these or the other similar nominations. That said, the very similar printers of each group could probably be usefully merged. DGG ( talk ) 06:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Not individually notable, but the Apple printers as a product line are probably notable (see DGG's link). --Cybercobra(talk) 06:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. They all have suitable coverage. This should've been discussed on the talk pages, not brought straight to AFD. And all of the AFDs should be combined since they all have the same coverage, and are basically the same thing. Pro·1500·2200·2400·2500·4100·4500·6500DreamFocus 09:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge To one article listing Apple's printers. Collectively but not individually notable. Edison (talk) 19:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Limited notability (no refs to prove notability), no reliable (3rd party) references. In addition, article violates WP:IINFO. ℳøℕø 05:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable ref for all of these printers available: "A look back at Apple's Printers", Benj Edwards. Macworld, Dec 10, 2009. There will also be reviews for each of them, which are also reliable refs. No attempt to follow WP:BEFORE in these or the other similar nominations. That said, the very similar printers of each group could probably be usefully merged. DGG ( talk ) 06:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Not individually notable, but the Apple printers as a product line are probably notable (see DGG's link). --Cybercobra(talk) 06:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. They all have suitable coverage. This should've been discussed on the talk pages, not brought straight to AFD. And all of the AFDs should be combined since they all have the same coverage, and are basically the same thing. Pro·1500·2200·2400·2500·4100·4500·6500DreamFocus 09:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to an article with a list of Apple printers. Notable collectively but not individually . Edison (talk) 19:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No notability, no reliable (3rd party) references. ℳøℕø 05:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable ref for all of these printers available: "A look back at Apple's Printers", Benj Edwards. Macworld, Dec 10, 2009. There will also be reviews for each of them, which are also reliable refs. No attempt to follow WP:BEFORE in these or the other similar nominations. That said, the very similar printers of each group could probably be usefully merged. DGG ( talk ) 06:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Not individually notable, but the Apple printers as a product line are probably notable (see DGG's link). --Cybercobra(talk) 06:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. They all have suitable coverage. This should've been discussed on the talk pages, not brought straight to AFD. And all of the AFDs should be combined since they all have the same coverage, and are basically the same thing. Pro·1500·2200·2400·2500·4100·4500·6500DreamFocus 09:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a single list of Apple's printers. Collectively but not individually notable. Edison (talk) 19:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No notability, no reliable (3rd party) references. ℳøℕø 05:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable ref for all of these printers available: "A look back at Apple's Printers" Benj Edwards. Macworld, Dec 10, 2009. There will also be reviews for each of them, which are also reliable refs. No attempt to follow WP:BEFORE in these or the other similar nominations. That said, the very similar printers of each group could probably be usefully merged. DGG ( talk ) 06:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[[reply]
Merge Not individually notable, but the Apple printers as a product line are probably notable (see DGG's link). --Cybercobra(talk) 06:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. They all have suitable coverage. This should've been discussed on the talk pages, not brought straight to AFD. And all of the AFDs should be combined since they all have the same coverage, and are basically the same thing. Pro·1500·2200·2400·2500·4100·4500·6500DreamFocus 09:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to an article listing Apple's printers. Individual articles do not meet the notability standard. Edison (talk) 19:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - this takes me back to the 90's and my useless overpriced iMac! But the whole series of printers produced by apple would be better separated into sections in one article detailing the differences in one place. --Pumpmeup 14:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A fork of shareware without any source. It's definition looks almost similar to the shareware. Compare its definition:
Demoware (also known as trialware) is commercial software released for free (shareware) in a version which is limited in one or more ways. Some of the most common limitations are [...]
... with that of shareware:
The term shareware {...} refers to proprietary software that is provided to users without payment on a trial basis and is often limited by any combination of functionality, availability or convenience.
Recommended action: Delete, then redirect to Shareware. Fleet Command (talk) 04:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC) Fleet Command (talk) 04:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect — No significant (sourced) difference between the two articles. ℳøℕø 04:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite The article seems to have drifted away from an accurate description of demoware, and that is where the problem arises. I haven't (yet) found an explicit source explaining the difference (after an entire 90 seconds of searching), but I can see that far more websites list demoware and shareware as separate models (along with freeware etc.) than use a slash to indicate a synonymbic (is that a word?) relationship. As the early versions of the article stated, the distinction is one of scale. Adobe Creative Suite is commonly (several hundred refs) described as demoware. I don't think you'd find anyone who would call it shareware. If there is a redirection, it should be to crippleware, although the industry regards crippleware as a derogatory term, so the redirection should be reversed. dramatic (talk) 04:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Interesting comment. I agree with you, however, crippleware redirects to Damaged good, which is not the intended meaning. Crippleware is software without full features or an expiration date. I believe this article has potential; a plan would be nice. See if you can find reliable references distinguishing the difference. ℳøℕø 05:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Any progress? Judging by the article history, it seems that after three days you have not been successful in finding anything bigger than some microscopic differences, have you? If the case remains as is within the next three days, I think the closing administrator may safely disregard your comments. The likely verdict, at best, would be Merge rather than Keep. Fleet Command (talk) 19:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely unsourced. Feel free to rewrite when and if you find sources. Pcapping 05:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pcap. Demoware is a subset of shareware, as is beerware, crippleware, donationware, and postcardware. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. enough consensus JForget 01:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LIBEL: This article is libelous; it accuses a living person of a serious social misconduct/crime based on speculations of the media while no legal authority has even charged the said person of that said crime. Wikipedia is not publisher of libelous speculations. Fleet Command (talk) 04:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep- with a possible re-write. I'm basing this mostly on the effect that it had on the society, up to and including the legislation in reaction to it. That seems to me to be an indicator of lasting notability. That said, if there is anything in there that is libelous, it should be immediately edited out. But as long as its sourced in reliable sources, I don't know if I see a problem. Umbralcorax (talk) 04:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, I can't possibly get your idea of a possible rewrite – perhaps you can kindly explain a bit details – but three thing is certain: (1) This article accuses someone who is not even charged! That's surely libel. Everyone is not guilty unless proven otherwise. (2) When it comes to scandals, media is not considered WP:RS: We all know that media has a reputation for sailing near the winding and bending the laws as much they could if it means money. Media would do it to us too, if a financially successful opportunity show itself. (3) WP:LIBEL says defamatory contents must be erased from Wikipedia and it does not make well-sourced libel an exception. Fleet Command (talk) 10:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (Full disclosure, I am the creator of the article.) I'm not sure what article you read, but it clearly does not accuse anyone of anything, certainly not libelously, and it clearly states that Ebrahimi has said that the girl in the tape is not her. The article does not even remotely take an editorial stance about whether or not it is her, and is appropriately sourced for such a delicate subject. The point here is that the Iranian government seemed, for a while, to be pretty sure it was her, and dispatched the equivalent of the country's attorney general to find out, which could have led to some extremely unpleasant consequences. This is a little like the U.S. sending Eric Holder to investigate the circumstances of the Pamela Anderson sex tapes.
It was a pretty major Iranian (and to a perhaps greater extent) British international news event that year, and I think the sources bear this out. In American papers it wasn't covered so closely, but it was for writers on both sides of the Atlantic a touchstone for the differences between popular culture under eastern and western regimes. Sex tape: make one in America and become famous (Paris Hilton), make one in Iran and suffer corporal punishment up to but not including the death penalty (although it was erroneously reported that she was liable to be stoned if it ever went to a trial). (If I could read Farsi, I'd tell you what their version of the article says (fa:رسوایی انتشار فیلمهای جنسی در ایران.) It was not a minor thing. I was actually banned by Wikipedia's counsel and then reinstated by Jimbo Wales over this article because apparently the foundation received communication from people worried that media attention to the case was a direct threat to Ebrahimi's life. The article is factual, not prurient. It is not tabloid gossip.
News media is not WP:RS for accusations, that is absolutely correct. But nowhere does it state anything other than that Ebrahimi was at the heart of this scandal, whether it was her or not, and that is not equivocal, it is verifiable fact. Ford MF (talk) 20:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Objection: You uttered the condemning word: Seem. Verifiable or not, factually accurate or not, when it comes to accusations against a living person, writing things that seem so and so – regardless of how factually accurate they seem so and so – is an atrocity known as libel. Hence, either the article should go, or the name of Ebrahimi from the article.
Besides, let's not make things political by mentioning differences in laws between two political regions in a manner that is analogous to comparison of good and evil. That's politician's field of work, not Wikipedia. Indeed, we needn't have heard anything about puritans and their methods, or had studied The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne: All of us know that events similar to what occurred in Disclosure (by Michael Crichton) actually do happen in the same country that Paris Hilton lives and all have the same potential for devastation. If Wikipedia covers such things with excuses such as verifiability or factual accuracy, it had only fanned the fire and augmented the magnitude of harm.
Let's delete this article and make sure no one else accuses any other living person in Wikipedia, no matter in what political region that living person reside.
Sorry, but when a person's involvement in scandal--and whether or not it was Ebrahimi, she was factually, indisputably, inextricably involved--leads to the passage of a law mandating capital punishment by the national legislative body of a country, that is noteworthy, newsworthy, and encyclopedic. 64.115.160.242 (talk) 15:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article is talking about a person who seems involved; there is no concrete evidence. Legal authorities hasn't even announced suspect, let alone a verdict! Therefore, this article is committing defamation. Fleet Command (talk) 11:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
She doesn't seem involved. When the attorney general of your nation interrogates you regarding your involvement, you are involved. Ford MF (talk) 19:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, I've added some more recent articles. Ever since the scandal broke--four years ago--Ebrahimi has been banned from appearing in films or on television in Iran. As recently as February 2010, Iran's minister of culture reviewed some films she appeared in--that are prohibited from being released because of that--and declared that they could only be released if the scenes in which she appeared were re-shot with a different actress. Ford MF (talk) 20:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Checked you new addition. That's why media should be prevented from writing libelous things like this: Innocent people getting banned from their jobs subsequent to an unfounded allegation of an unscrupulous reporter. Anyway, that addition of yours explicitly states that she's now unbanned. Let's terminated this libelous article and start an end to this chain of libel-mongering. Fleet Command (talk) 07:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As with the suggestion that the media was threatening Ebrahimi's life and well-being by publicizing her case, this is false. The media did not interrogate her because of a private sexual encounter she may or may not have had, and the media did not ban her from appearing in films. The policies of the government of Iran did that, and bear the full responsibility here. If anything the media bears a double-responsibility to report on the case, as Iran is so clearly attempting to make it, and Ebrahimi, disappear from public life. Ford MF (talk) 11:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? Did you even read my response correctly? Fleet Command (talk) 04:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also at this point I can only assume you are arguing about what you believe this article to be, rather than what it actually states. Nowhere does it say that Ebrahimi has been unbanned. She is still persona non grata with the gov't of Iran, prohibited from working in the film industry, and films in which she appears may not be released at all unless she is edited out of the film. Please actually read the article before commenting. Ford MF (talk) 11:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really? The article title from which you cited reads: “Regime decides to un-ban 13 films it had forbidden”. So, I assumed it is talking about a person who is unbanned. Strange...
I'm a little taken aback that you think reading article titles is the same thing as reading articles, but if you actually look at that reference it's about the Iranian ministry of culture reviewing a bunch of banned movies, unbanning a bunch, and reaffirming the ban on films featuring Zahra Amir Ebrahimi. Again, you appear to be arguing just to argue, not about anything that is actually contained in the text we are discussing. Ford MF (talk) 15:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be taken aback. I did read the whole article. It explained the whole conduct at lenght! That was what made me assume think she is unbanned. It is a foolish thing to do to write an article with such a title and then talk about a still-banned person at such length!
You are simply being disingenuous or not telling the truth. Reading that article, it is not even remotely ambiguous that Ebrahimi continues to be banned from appearing in films or on television. The entire second half of the article is about how the Iranian government will not permit the release of any film featuring that actress. You are clearly not reading any of this, unless someone tries to call you out on not actually looking at the text. Ford MF (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now, now! You are being impertinent. Pace yourself, dear sir. It is natural to defend to your own contribution – that I understand. But please do not start accusing others. I gave you my reason: If the article title is talking about unbanning and then almost half of the article length is talking about a certain banned person, it is only logical to assume that the person in question is now unbanned. Now, our discussion here is being watched by a whole world. Please remain civil and mind the words you use. Taking a short break before answering really helps. Fleet Command (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, let's not get diverted from the main discussion: The subject of this AfD is accusing a living person of a crime/misconduct while no legal authority has even charged that living person, let alone having issued a verdict. Sources of this article, as you confessed, fail as reliable source due to their reputation for publishing questionable material. Hence, this article must be deleted per WP:LIBEL. Do you have any reason for not deleting this article? Fleet Command (talk) 04:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Iranian ministry of culture under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has explicitly affirmed a ban on the actress' works. I don't understand how this does not qualify as action taken against her by the legal authority of the state of Iran. Also I have nowhere confessed that the sources used are not WP:RS. I am trying to assume good faith, but at this point, seeing as how you are not even carefully reading this discussion, I'm not sure what ground can be gained arguing with you. Ford MF (talk) 15:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
People acted on by state power without legitimate state charges filed are perfectly notable and un-prurient for the purposes of WP:BLP, see also the number of people on the list of Guantanamo Bay detainees, not one of whom has been charged with any crime. Blindly using "charges filed" as the only yardstick prohibits us from talking about extrajudicial punishment by states in any way. Ford MF (talk) 15:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the Iranian ministry of culture also commited the crime of defamation. We in Wikipedia should not copy him. As for the notability, it is not the only criteria for inclusion: Libelous material do not merit inclusion; notable or not. If you want to talk about extrajudicial punishment, do it in a neutral manner not in a defamatory manner. Fleet Command (talk) 16:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So it is libelous for us to state the Guantanamo detainees have been detained for suspicion of terrorist activities, when they are just that, suspicions? It is libelous for us to state that Felix Anthony or Asma Jahangir were imprisoned? Because they were refused due process? In what way is that more fair to the subject? Ford MF (talk) 17:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not play with words and stay on topic: It is libelous to spread words of unbiased accusation of someone in a manner that defames that person. That's what this article is doing. I'm sure you wouldn't like to be in that actress's shoes and burden being the object of such an article on the pretext that "such an event is notable". Fleet Command (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And your repeated assertion that the article is based on "speculation" is simply and plainly untrue. No one is speculating that one of the participants was sent to prison and the other was banned (apparently for life) from working in their chosen field. Or that the legislative body of a national government responded to the event. That is reported fact. Ford MF (talk) 17:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am repeatedly asserting that this article is libelous because it is giving a living person an undeservedly bad face, regardless of her nationality. It is libel and libel is not allowed in Wikipedia. I think I and you have said all we have had to say on this matter. I will say no more. Fleet Command (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Alleged...denies that she was the woman in the tape...rumored to have attempted suicide because of all the negative media attention. We are some borg like-entity relentlessly compiling everything ever said about any notable person ever, and who does not care about anybody who is hurt by this. Delete this please. Ceoil (talk) 19:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite a little. The core of this article should be about the incontrovertibly notable event: the passing of an unprecedented law in the aftermath of a shady sex scandal. Some of the speculation surrounding the scandal may need to be removed, but I don't think deleting the entire article is a productive proposition. There's no other article on wiki about these matters, as far as I can tell. Pcapping 20:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well said! But can you do that? This degree of neutrality can only be accomplished by an experienced Wikipedian; one that is level-headed and can write so that only facts are read without giving a bad face to a living person. Can you do it? Fleet Command (talk) 02:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an article about the most notorious such scandal ever in Iran. Would we consider for a moment deleting an article on the most notorious sex scandal ever in a smaller country such as France, Italy or the United Kingdom? Of course not. Editors claiming that the article is libellous clearly haven't read it, or haven't understood it, because it nowhere says that the actress in question was the person filmed. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Objection Direct accusation is not required for defamation. To defame a person, all you need to do is make that person the sole target of a notoriety that previously had no target of blame. Just mentioning that "it is rumored", or citing real rumors, is defamation. This method of defamation is so famous that you can even find it in literature. For instance, you can see it in Rising Sun by Michael Crichton, The Body in the Library by Agatha Christie or in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix by J.K.Rowling. In fact, if you visit the article Defamation and read the definition of libel, you'll see that I'm not making this up.
No, my dear sir, there is no doubt that this article is defamatory and libelous.
Weak Keep but not with the focus on the actress and the tape. The article's title and focus should be on the law and with background on the scandal. --Sodabottle (talk) 03:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Out of date ({{update}} is on article) and a violation of WP:IINFO. Contested prod. ℳøℕø 01:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if it's out of date, update it. Significant information about widely used information sources is appropriate content. DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, since the entries that do not duplicate Google's own spreadsheet appear to depend on original research. We're not in the business either of duplicating (and having to update by hand) information that is better presented elsewhere or of doing our own research to discover and report on the limitations of various mapping services. I also find the WP:IINFO argument persuasive in this case. A link to Google's spreadsheet would be appropriate in the Google Maps article, however, if one isn't there already. Deor (talk) 20:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as indiscriminate. I couldn't give a damn if this was updated or not! Please, don't waste your time and our time. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 20:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JForget 01:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Youngest sibling to two more famous sisters (Michelle and Dedee). Article written like a fan page. Tailcoating is not a valid reason for a biographical article. She is not notable herself. Tovojolo (talk) 00:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this actress. Joe Chill (talk) 14:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Not notable in any way, shape, or form. Evalpor (talk) 14:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Three articles rolled into one: bios of the producer "Caducus", the band "Slave Corps" and the company "Caducus Record's" (sic). None of these is notable. The only reference requires registration so cannot be checked but is nettby.no - a social networking site and therefore not a WP:RS; searches for the individual subjects bring up other entities nearly exclusively, and a search for "Caducus" "slave corps" brings 6 results: this Wikipedia page, two of Slave Corps' own pages, two further pages on nettby.no and one to biip.no (not responding at present, but it's another social networking site). Delete. I42 (talk) 07:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - none of the three entities in the article (individual, band, record company) have achieved notability via notice in reliable third-party sources. Too early in career for a WP article, so the article is now operating as self-promotion only. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. Nothing indicates the subject of the article is notable in their own right.--Savonneux (talk) 01:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. King of♥♦♣ ♠ 01:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't meet any of the three criteria at WP:WEB. All results related to Carzone talk about different organizations/websites. Aditya Ex Machina 08:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet either WP:WEB nor WP:CORP. No reliable sources provided, and I was unable to find any independent of the organization. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 08:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CommentKeep per WP general notability guidelines, described in depth by multiple, independent, reliable sources. It's the subject of 2 articles in The Sunday Business Post: "Carzone.ie now more popular than Facebook" [47], "Guardian Media Group drives €5m takeover of Carzone motor website" [48]. Some 2008 statistics published here [49]. Here's the start of a pay-to-view article about it in The Irish Times: [50]. Its 2005 acquisition needed approval by the Competition Authority (Ireland)[51]. Novickas (talk) 15:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. King of♥♦♣ ♠ 01:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I assume this article was created because of the company relationship with The Pirate Bay. But it seems to lack independent coverage otherwise. The 1st AfD seems to have happened before Wikipedia had any notability standards. Pcapping 14:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- When I saw this AfD I expected to find sources quite easily, but surprisingly there doesn't seem to be very much at all. ReykYO! 05:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep I do not know why the article was created, but the subject seems notable.Ref 1 is sufficient . DGG ( talk ) 21:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep subject is noteable and the article can be properly sourced (even if parts of the article would need to go). --hroest 00:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable student newspaper. Only 3 issues published. No sources, apart from note in Lenin's collected works. --DonaldDuck (talk) 15:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Have corrected the section heading from "PageName" -- Boing!said Zebedee 15:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP should not have one fact articles. Was Lenin the publisher? Then merge to his article, one sentence should do. If not then merge somewhere else, maybe an article on the Russian Revolution. Kitfoxxe (talk) 00:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JForget 00:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO and GNG. Epbr123 (talk) 19:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO, no evidence the subject can satisfy the GNG or any other specialized guideline. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment. I'm certainly no expert in popular music from any time after the 1970s, but younger editors may wish to evaluate these potential sources, which at least have the appearance of conferring notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Yes, a number of sources mention the song. Which specific sources do you feel meet the need for substantial coverage in independent reliable sources? - SummerPhD (talk) 01:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 01:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 15:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... I guess you might as well check out the articles on Steven Fabian and Justin Finch. I just assumed she deserved an article because two other Channel One anchors have articles, with about the same amount of information. - JLegacy (talk) 21:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Not individually notable, but the Apple printers as a product line are probably notable (see DGG's link). --Cybercobra(talk) 06:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of references provided to show it satisfies WP:N. It could also be merged into one article listing Apple printers. Edison (talk) 19:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to meet WP:BIO. Lack of third party sources referencing her directly. The links merely reference a substance manufactured by a company she's involved with. A PROD tag remained in place for a week before being removed by a block-evading sockpuppet. Enigmamsg 23:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: rather than outright deletion, perhaps there should be an article on apple's relationship with open source, that this can be a part of. That strikes me as the actually notable topic that this article is getting at. If not that, there seems like there should be somewhere in the many existing articles about Apple where this can go. Arturus (talk) 08:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to apparent lack of demonstrated notability via independent and reliable references with significant coverage. Edison (talk) 19:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - individual chapters should meet WP:ORG and there are no sources to support such compliance. This search produces nothing of significance. Bridgeplayer (talk) 16:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definitely not a notable organization on the university chapter level. None of the other chapters have their own article (see List of Sigma Phi Epsilon chapters). EMBaero (talk) 01:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Redirect — No significant (sourced) difference between the two articles. ℳøℕø 04:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]