Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 April 18

< 17 April	19 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 04:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maha el-Samnah[edit]

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

Borderline notability that i think does not fulfill WP:BIO, not much information that isn't already in Khadr family or would belong there. IQinn (talk) 09:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article needs a great deal of pruning because it has clearly been written either by the individual or a close associate. The value of a portrait photograph of an individual wearing a veil is also questionable. However, I think that there was enough of a furore in the Canadian media for this individual to meet WP:GNG. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 15:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Khadr family. Some other individual members of the Khadr family are known in their own right because of press they've gotten and deserve their own articles. In this category I would include namely Ahmed Said Khadr, Abdurahman Khadr, and Omar Khadr. However, this doesn't apply to lesser-known members of the entire family. I appreciate that Maha el-Samnah is well-known for that CBC interview, but I don't think most people who know that video know her by name: she is simply considered as the family matriarch. In my opinion, Maha el-Samnah, Abdulkareem Khadr, and Zaynab Khadr should all be merged into Khadr family. --Saforrest (talk) 16:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- IMO it would be best to structure Khadr family so it talked about what all the family members had in common, and then devoted limited coverage to each of the family members who are notable in and of themselves -- just enough to set the context. Most of the material specific to the notable individuals should be in their articles. Which of the family members aren't notable? IMO Maha Elsamnah's parents, her younger daughter, the son who died when a toddler and her grandchild aren't notable. Geo Swan (talk) 16:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I don't know why it wasn't in the article, but Maha el-Samnah, with her young children in tow, buttonholed Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien when he was on an official visit to Pakistan, in January 1996. She appealed to Chretien on behalf of her husband, who the Pakistanis had held, for months, in extrajudicial detention. Maha made the evening news here in Canada for several days in a row. Geo Swan (talk) 08:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Her actions get her in the news on multiple occasions over the years. She was featured in a documentary which got reviewed/commented on throughout the news media it seems, which by current Wikipedia standards makes it notable. Does being the head of a family like that count as royalty or something? How important is this? Dream Focus 08:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per significant coverage over several years. Seems notable to me. Failing that, a merge per Saforrest would make sense as well. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Sophia Lin[edit]

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

Contested PROD, but nothing has been done for about 2 weeks. A search revealed no significant coverage of this person at independent reliable sources, and I do not see that she meets the criteria for inclusion in general, let alone those for musicians. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks like the whole article is a copyvio of her website at [1]. Angryapathy (talk) 15:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed a copyvio (and has been since it was created), and so I am deleting it as such. I am also closing this AfD now, as it is moot PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 04:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Holland[edit]

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

Can't find reliable secondary sources which provide in-depth coverage of this singer-songwriter and music producer, he appears to have slightly less coverage than the Arizona songwriter of the same name [2]. However, it's a common name, additional sources are as always, welcomed. A member of the 5-year-unreferenced-BLP club. joe decker ^{talk to me} 22:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 23:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are multiple people in the music industry named "Eric Holland" making the search difficult. This compounded by the lack of specifics about his work. The assertion in the article is that his main claim to notability is as a producer. However, there is no indication that he has been noted for his production work, and it is unclear from the article in what capacity he actually did the work. The one specific item of writing and producing a hit single "Your Love Is Slippin' Away" is one that I cannot verify. I cannot verify that it was a bona fide charting single, and I cannot verify that he is the writer and producer of the song. -- Whpq (talk) 13:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Almost certain that "Your Love is Slippin' Away" was not a charting single, at least not in a sense that Wikipedia recognizes. There appear to have been releases on two record labels. However, a cursory search online reveals little, if any, chance that the band (The Flames), or either record label (Thrust or Masquerade) could meet notability guidelines. The odds that the single could have charted despite these circumstances are grim. Additionally, I find nothing to indicate that this individual attracted any media attention for whatever specific work he performed. Even fairly permissive searches in connection with the studios named in the article[3][4][5] come up with nothing. I don't have any reason to doubt that he was involved in album production in some technical capacity, but there's just nothing I can find to satisfy WP:N. Serpent's Choice (talk) 19:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Regardless of the somewhat subjective "prominent representatives" criterion, the band satisfies the Has released two or more albums on a major label or on one of the more important indie labels" requirement. (non-admin closure) MacMed^talk _stalk 04:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nokturnal Mortum[edit]

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

Non-notable band; information is sourced to obscure websites and online fanzines. Orange Mike | Talk 22:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. But actually: 1, 2, 3. Don't nominate an article just because its sourcing is crappy. Take the few seconds required to actually run a few searches. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- reply - on examination, most of those Google results, etc. are passing mentions of this band as one of the neo-nazi/pagan/satanic bands arising in modern post-Soviet Europe. They do not constitute the requisite substantial coverage. I don't consider the existence of an allmusic.com listing sufficient to meet WP:BAND. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Would "Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city" or "Has released two or more albums on a major label or on one of the more important indie labels" be applicable here? --Львівське (talk) 02:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - From Unheilige Allianzen, a German book used extensively as a source for the National Socialist black metal article: "Nokturnal Mortum sind sicherlich das prominenteste Beispiel des neonazistischen Underground in der Ukraine": Nokturnal Mortum are surely the most prominent example of the neo-Nazi underground in Ukraine. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 12:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - At some point, "most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene" can be taken too far. If this qualifies as "the most prominent example of the neo-Nazi underground in Ukraine", then the next step is "best-known 1970s proto-punk band in metropolitan Jackson, Tennessee" or "most prominent unsigned student band at CVR College of Engineering". --Orange Mike | Talk 13:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson, Tennessee is a city. Ukraine is a country. (Also, they have a Rockabilly Hall of Fame in Jackson). (Also also I have no opinion on this AfD as I don't know much about this topic).Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marek has an excellent point. Your own POV of the worthiness of the Ukrainian music scene aside, the quote I provided pretty much satisfies "Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city" from WP:NMUSIC. Furthermore, NM put out 4 albums (including re-releases) while signed to The End Records, a fairly prominent indie label, thus satisfying the NMUSIC "Has released two or more albums on a major label or on one of the more important indie labels" criterion. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep on the basis that their fairly comprehensive Allmusic biography is a reliable source that describes the band as "one of the first significant heavy metal bands to emerge out of the Ukraine following the fracture of the Soviet Union". Further reliable sources would, of course, strengthen the arguments for keeping, but I feel they just about scrape over the bar set at WP:BAND. --sparkl_!sm ^hey! 08:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:MUSIC with multiple releases on notable labels, including The End Records and Nuclear Blast. The sourcing is appalling, but that is no reason to delete. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 07:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majority consensus is to Keep. The Helpful One 23:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anglicans for Life[edit]

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

Appears to lack significant coverage in reliable sources. I get one book, An Episcopal Dictionary of the Church, that may have significant coverage (Google Preview won't let me see the whole thing), but everything else is the president of the group being quoted on a social issue, or the group's name appearing in a list of groups that took part in some event, or otherwise trivial/not actually coverage of the group. Not notable. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Over 61,000 Google hits for the exact phrase "Anglicans for Life" indicates to me that adequate third-party independent non-trivial coverage is out there somewhere. I'm in favor of a very low bar for political organizations at Wikipedia because this is the sort of material that SHOULD be in an encyclopedia. Tag for additional sources, let it stand. And, for what it's worth, I'm militantly pro-choice myself. That shouldn't have anything to do with anything, and it doesn't. Carrite (talk) 04:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a WP:GOOGLEHITS argument. I looked for reliable sources before I nominated and couldn't find what I would consider sufficient; it would be courteous to put in the same amount of effort. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Google Hits method is actually a pretty good predictor of whether independent sourcing exists. If one gets up to this sort of a count, Las Vegas stops taking action that there's nothing out there. There's something out there, all right — the problem being the top of the Google finds list is saturated with a group's own material. Carrite (talk) 16:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I looked for sources. Can you point out things I might have missed? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here we go... Here is AN INDICATION that the group is treated in a serious way in the book Catholics against the Church: Anti-Abortion Protest in Toronto, 1969-1985 by Michael Cuneo, published by the University of Toronto Press. Carrite (talk) 16:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's A LINK indicating that the "Silent No More Awareness" campaign is a joint project of Anglicans for Life and Priests for Life. A search for third party coverage may be reasonably expanded to include this search term. Realizing full well how much the nominator hates using Google as an estimating tool, I will nevertheless point out that the exact phrase "Silent No More Awareness" returns 209,000 hits. The haystack just got a lot bigger... Carrite (talk) 17:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's COVERAGE of the "Silent No More Awareness Campaign" including mention of Anglicans for life in the book Mommy Let Me Live: How Can You Miss What You Never Had? by Lakisha Chapman. Carrite (talk) 17:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For those of you who love yer corporate media, here's A USA TODAY ARTICLE quoting Anglicans for Life founder Georgette Forney extensively. She is a leading anti-abortion activist, quite clearly. If one wants a bigger haystack, a google search for the exact phrase "Georgette Forney" adds another 17,600 search possibilities... Carrite (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's MORE MAINSTREAM MEDIA COVERAGE of a protest conducted by Silent No More Awareness Campaign. See the last couple paragraphs... You get the point... This is just aimless flipping around the haystack and there are lots of needles there. Again: I'm pro-choice, but I favor a low bar for political organizations OF ALL STRIPES in Wikipedia and this group is miles and miles over it, as far as I'm concerned. Carrite (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PublishAmerica is not a reliable source, "this group's president was quoted on a social issue" is not coverage, and "this group was one of half a dozen that participated in an event" is not significant. If these are the best sources you could find, that confirms the lack of notability rather than anything else. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: SILive.com, appearing directly above this comment, is the internet edition of the newspaper the Staten Island Advance. Carrite (talk) 17:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Comment - They're NOT the "best" sources I can find, they're the result of 20 or so minutes flipping rather randomly through something like 200,000 possible pages mentioning either the group, the group's founder, or the group's main public face. Of these, the book, the USA Today article, and the Staten Island Live-dot-com piece should be sufficient to settle the matter. It's a shitty article but it's also a bad challenge. Keep and improve. Carrite (talk) 17:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've already said that you favor a very low bar for inclusion because you want to include this content, so I'm not hoping to convince you. I'm just hoping that other users will realize that pay-to-publish companies and go-to quotes do not confer notability. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hmmmm, are you seriously using the old ILIKEIT canard for an article about an anti-abortion group — for me? That would amuse my friends to no end... Fighting about this obvious bad challenge further is a waste of all of our time. There are more than enough links already showing above to demonstrate that this organization meets Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion-worthiness of organizations. If anyone else spent half an hour at the task, working Google hits outside the top 10 pages, they could find as many more. Indeed, if five people spent half an hour each, they'd find five times as many possible sources. It's not difficult, the haystack is massive. Carrite (talk) 18:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I went through the entire stack of Google Books and Google News hits for their former name and their current name and did not find anything I considered significant coverage. You talk about what needs to be done - I've done it, and I don't think this passes the notability bar. "We might find something" and "we could find something" are pretty meaningless. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that would be 301 hits, not 61000. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And 474 hits, not 209,000. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Definitly needs good references, but has enough mentions online to survive.--Dmol (talk) 10:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also a WP:GOOGLEHITS argument. Could you help provide some significant third-party coverage if the article is to be kept? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If there are entries National or Diocesan directories, then these form reliable sources. An Episcopal Dictionary is not a Directory of the Church listing approved ministries, approved associations or groups. The article has the heading "Anglicans" for ... ... If it is going to proceed as an entry here, then it needs to be verified that it is an auspiced activity of the Episcopal Church. Pro life, Pro Choice, Pro Roe v. Wade has nothing to do with it. Either it has ecclesial auspice or it merits deletion as we cannot go listing something which names a Communion and is not auspiced by that communion.--Whiteguru (talk) 10:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't work that way. If it is notable, it can have an article whether or not it is approved, and if it is not notable, official approval won't save it. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - organization has been for nearly 50 years and has had a large impact on Anglican discourse. Article could do with better sourcing but it has been around uncontested since 2007. - Haymaker (talk) 22:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide evidence that it has "had a large impact on Anglican discourse"? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am no fan, but it is a notable group within religious circles, as attested by many possible sources, per Carrite. Bearian (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you respond to my criticism of Carrite's links, which include, but are not limited to, a) that they are go-to quotes from the president rather than actual coverage of the organization and b) that mention in a list of groups that attended an event is not significant coverage? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually your first statement proves the point; the media have decided that this is a "go-to" organization for anti-choice Episcopalians and their ilk, and thus naturally want a quote from the group's leadership. As to your actual request, I'm an inclusionist. I've argued at many AfDs that frequent and repeated listings or mentions in secondary sources qualifies as sufficient sourcing. You won't find any quarter from me. Bearian (talk) 17:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. As for my POV, see my user page. I am gay, feminist, pro-choice, and Episcopalian. Bearian (talk) 17:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we'll have to disagree about the go-to quotes - in my view, they simply don't constitute coverage of the organization that would satisfy WP:ORG. (Re: the JLI argument, I wasn't suggesting that Carrite wants to keep the article because of hir political views, and I don't think you do either. I linked to that policy because Carrite referred to hir own personal standard for notability, rather than a Wikipedia standard, saying that zie thinks that political organizations "should" be in an encyclopedia.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I saw this minutes after it was nom'ed. Initially I didn't find much on AFL, but did find coverage on "Silent No More." I was leaning to Merge to Silent, but decided to wait a couple days to see what developed. Based partly on Carrite's persuasive argument, I think we should Keep AFL and expand content about Silent. That would push the article securely over the WP:N bar. What the heck is Anglicanism anyway? "Catholic Lite – same rituals, half the guilt." Lionel (talk) 01:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that SNM has enough coverage to be notable, but it is a joint project of AFL and PFL (as well, unlike AFL, it's explicitly non-denominational and claims to be apolitical as well); one can't claim its notability for AFL. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep IDONTLIKEIT AfD pretending to be RS failure. As established above, it has enough coverage in reliable sources and passes WP:N --Reference Desker (talk) 13:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you respond to my criticism of Carrite's links, which include, but are not limited to, a) that they are go-to quotes from the president rather than actual coverage of the organization and b) that mention in a list of groups that attended an event is not significant coverage? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Insufficient sources for a keep. Large number of spokesperson quotes, no real coverage. Insufficient to show notability. How is this not a prod? BelloWello (talk) 08:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment seems like a notable subject however if better sourcing is not found it should be deleted.Thisbites (talk) 00:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 15:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sean McLaughlin (media activist & educator)[edit]

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

Nomination on behalf of Ellin Beltz (talk · contribs) in response to a request for assistance on my talk page. Rationale is as follows:

I find two deletion criteria (1) Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed & (2) Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth). For #1 all I can find about him is a series of interlocking webpages, for #2, I don't see anything in his biography which makes him a notable subject. The page reads like a LinkedIn or FaceBook profile, rather than an encyclopedia entry. Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For my part, I am neutral. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since there are no reliable sources cited it's hard to decide which notability criterion he fails, but it's clear he doesn't meet the "Professor test" Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Criteria. Its also fairly clear that the article does not assert notability - the closest to doing this is the statement that he has served as an expert witness. That doesn't do it for me. We might wait awhile to see if any reliable sources show up, but a week's wait would be long enough for me. Smallbones (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was going to !vote "weak delete" because I know a WRPI DJ, news media personality, and activist with this same name from Troy, New York, and I was afraid he made his own article. But no, this Sean Mclaughlin is even less notable than the one I know, and at least some of the Google hits you might find are for that other guy in Upstate New York. So I'm going to say delete this one as spam. Bearian (talk) 00:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of independent sourcing. Maybe it's because his impact has been in small markets like Maui and Humboldt County, but Google News finds half a dozen other people named Sean McLaughlin who appear to be more notable than he is. Limiting the search by adding "Maui" or "Humboldt" finds only passing mentions of him in local media.--MelanieN (talk) 21:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) MacMed^talk _stalk 04:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rinkeby Swedish[edit]

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

Seriously, this is not a notable subject. Do we really need an article about how 15 year old immigrants in a small suburb in Sweden talk? KzKrann (talk) 21:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is, quite seriously, a notable subject. Ask Google Scholar about "Rinkeby Swedish" and you get just under 100 hits; "Rinkebysvenska" yields about 150 hits, and it's unlikely that most scholarly publications about Swedish linguistics would be found through G Scholar. This is a linguistic phenomenon that researchers in Scandinavian languages are pretty interested in; please note that the fact that the variety is named after a suburb of Stockholm does not mean that it's only spoken there. The unsourced list of terms which is not particularly interesting to English-speakers, and some other poorly sourced information, should be removed from the article but it should not be deleted. --bonadea contributions talk 17:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Is this a joke nomination or is it a way to express contempt for this language of low social status? From the Google translation of the first source (on the website of the Swedish Language Council): "Many Swedish young people who do not have Swedish as their mother tongue and have grown up in immigrant populations can speak a particular form of Swedish, which is characterized by many loan words from various immigrant languages and also by a special intonation. It is known Rinkeby Swedish, Swedish Gårdsten, Rosengard Swedish or something else associated with specific locations. It is now so popular that even people with monolingual Swedish background sometimes try it." Then they recommend "[Swedish] multiethnic youth language" for scholarly use and "Shobresvenska" for common use. It's probably too early in the week to tell, but I have a feeling there might be snow in the air. Hans Adler 07:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - assume joke nomination.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found several sources just on a first sweep of Google Scholar, and added a couple. The article was badly under-referenced and still needs more refs., but it's obvious that there is substantial scholarly discussion, including work that is entirely about Rinkeby Swedish, and some of the sources refer to newspaper articles. So it is a demonstrably notable topic. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 04:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iota Beta Chapter of Alpha Epsilon Pi[edit]

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

Chapter of a fraternity. Has 15 members and was founded last year. No outside sources, not sufficiently notable. Shadowjams (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, chapters of a national fraternity do not have inherited notability, and there is no evidence from WP:RS of standalone notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:ORG, this chapter of a larger organisation has no significant coverage about it that would indicate why this particular chapter should have a separate article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or Redirect to Alpha Epsilon Pi per usual practice for local chapters without individual notability. Probably no redirect justified in this case. --MelanieN (talk) 21:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's not even a full-fledged chapter yet. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 23:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual project management[edit]

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

This seems to be a WP:NEO, or at best some company's attempt at legitiziming its catchphrase. I do not see any true, independant sources. Angryapathy (talk) 20:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete almost any sizable project involves off site personnel. I've been involved in PM for 25 years and have never heard of VPM. Greglocock (talk) 03:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essay of original research as well as someone's newly coined TLA. The prose seems to be mostly dieseling: VPM has unique challenges. Since team members are often scattered in different locations around the world, they have different schedules, cultures and expectations. Managing a virtual team makes it difficult to micro manage which is a traditional concept in project management. Project Managers often need to manage people for whom they have no first-hand or personal experience with. Project members have to become acutely aware of their team member’s differences and somehow align them to work together. The entire team is dependent on technology to do its job in order for the project to be successful. Project Managers need tools tailored to the challenges of virtual project management. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 04:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Toyo Family[edit]

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

No reliable sources are given and I'm unable to find any. Physics is all gnomes (talk) 20:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Me neither. There are no references in the article or on google. The article is bad written with unecylopedic language (we, us, and things like 'Till date, no one has ascended TOYO’s throne….who is next??'). In fact, I can't even figure out if this is fiction or real. The two contributors 147.197.174.70 and MORG-T have only created and edited this article. They seem awfully like the same person. Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 11:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unreferenced genealogy with no indication as to why this family is notable. -- Whpq (talk) 13:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above arguments. Wickedjacob (talk) 01:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to British_Parachute_Association#BPA_Drop_Zones. and delete history per consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Skydive London[edit]

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

Company without any claim to notability. No refs, only link to company site selling skydiving jumps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmol (talk • contribs)

"Merge" - the information may be worth preserving in a related article or list of such places Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! ^(Whisper...) 11:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Why would we merge this anywhere? What exactly do you believe is worth preserving and where would you suggest it be preserved? -- Whpq (talk) 13:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable source to meet notability. -- Whpq (talk) 13:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP; I can't see the need for a list of skydiving centres either, that would be akin to having a list of paintball venues or karting centres. YSSYguy (talk) 21:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to British_Parachute_Association#BPA_Drop_Zones. The title may get used by some people as a search term, but this article doesn't saying anything apart from it being a drop zone. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep skydiving centers are as rare as amusement parks and common as schools both are considered of note and I think this place should be too as long as its sourced, which I say it is.Thisbites (talk) 00:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 04:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ypsilanti resale shop[edit]

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

A local charity that's an adjunct of a school district. Only reference is local press releases from the organization. Not a notable organization. Shadowjams (talk) 20:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not appear to meet WP:ORG, all coverage appears to be local and incidental. Sourced content might be worth a few sentences at Ypsilanti Public School District. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but mention at the school district website. No redirect needed. --MelanieN (talk) 21:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 04:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lynwood avenue elementry school[edit]

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

Article about an elementary school; barely a stub. No evidence of standalone notability from WP:RS. Originally redirected to district; reverted by original editor, but assuming good faith so brought here for consensus. Would recommend redirect per WP:OUTCOMES, but casing is incorrect and "elementary" isn't even spelled correctly, so deletion seems warranted. Kinu ^t/_c 20:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - restore redirect to district. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Charles (talk) 21:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redirect to Sachem School District#Schools per common consensus that primary schools lacking in exceptional characteristics (such as a Blue Ribbon) aren't encyclopedic. tedder (talk) 01:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the redirect is effectively useless because of the misspelled term in the title. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. tedder (talk) 19:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 23:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BSI Management Systems[edit]

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

This article has been tagged as reading like an advertisement since 2007 and it remains unreferenced/unsourced. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 20:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, yet another consulting business, and unambiguous advertising. I would have speedily deleted this: ....a division of the BSI Group which works with organizations to assess the implementation and administration of their management systems and business processes. In order to ensure they have derived the most benefit from their management system an organization often decides to publicly prove that it meets the requirements by inviting a certification body like BSI Management Systems to assess and evaluate their implementation of the management system. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable self-promotion. Wickedjacob (talk) 01:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 04:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Lazar[edit]

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

Article on a high school student who has won several minor writing awards but has not been the subject of coverage by even one reliable published source, much less multiple ones. Article clearly does not meet the thresholds of Wikipedia:Verifiability or Wikipedia:Notability (people). Prodded, but Prod tag removed because “author does not appear to have been informed.”[6] — Satori Son 19:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable enough for Wikipedia. Lots of people have won high school writing awards (including me), but that doesn't make them article-worthy. Creating and subsequent work on this article (in 2009) were the sole contributions of Mcsweeneytodd (talk · contribs), a username which also suggests a possible conflict of interest since one of the contests Lazar won was the "McSweeney's Column Contest." (It might also be that the username incorporates the character Sweeney Todd, but that's not really important to this discussion.) --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 07:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The mere fact that she is 16 does not in itself satisfy WP:AUTHOR, WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 07:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find anything that meets any form of notability. Wickedjacob (talk) 01:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 19:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Le petit bonheur[edit]

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

To us French Canadians, "Le petit bonheur" is a song by Félix Leclerc and there should be an article on that song. However, this article is no more than a dicdef centered on a short discussion by Hannah Arendt, nothing that warrants an article. Most of the article is a quote. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 19:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm seeing millions of hits/uses, and it appears to be a 'life philosophy' of sorts like Simple living. Not sure it fits here exactly as written, but there may be a place for it. Withholding my !vote for now, have to ponder the idea if a section in Simple living and redirect is better, or leaving it alone. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, I say a merge/redirect to Simple living would be the sensible thing to do. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 20:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect Then with that, I would agree. If at a later time, enough citation and content would warrant breaking it off into a separate article, then it could be reviewed at that time. But there is enough to the expression to warrant, say, one or two paragraphs in the main article. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As as been noted, the article is hung on the quotation(s) from Arendt. However even there, it is such a passing discussion that it desn't even merit an entry in the book's Index. Not enough for an article. AllyD (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not knowing French, it is hard for me to tell the exact importance of this phrase. However, the google news results suggest there was an early 20th century play by this name, a book, hotels, and even a yacht. None of this proves notability, but as a whole it suggests that it is a well-established concept/phrase in the French language. Even if this article is not correct as it stands, it seems that there is *something* notable about this phrase. Wickedjacob (talk) 01:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is why the nom and I independently !voted to change from AFD to merge, which would allow time to develop the concept, and perhaps over time when appropriate sources could be found, then a separate article could be created. There is something to it, but not enough verification to justify a completely separate article now. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing more than a dicdef. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 12:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 04:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Rivera[edit]

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

Really not much to say about this one, except that he is a non-notable, retired minor league baseball player. He last played in 2007, he spent only two years playing professionally, and though he reached AAA, he spent only 15 games there and performed poorly (overall he hit only .231). References are lacking. Alex (talk) 19:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet any of the critera of WP:BASEBALL/N, as it appears he has only played in the minors. Outside of that, no WP:RS to indicate notability per WP:GNG. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kinu. Does not meet any of the critera of WP:BASEBALL/N and no references available.--Whiteguru (talk) 09:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Non-notable baseball player. Does not pass WP:BASEBALL/N Overdrawn Invader (talk) 21:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass WP:BASEBALL/N Wickedjacob (talk) 01:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Trending towards keep on the basis of the references to extensive third party coverage now linked to in the article. Sandstein 19:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clevo x7200[edit]

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

Contested PROD, no rationale for removal of PROD nomination. Non-notable laptop, mostly promotional, no credible referenced assertion of notability. Wikipedia is not a Web host for customer support. Wtshymanski (talk) 19:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: PROD deletion is x7200&action=historysubmit&diff=424695698&oldid=424695039 here.

Delete There are a lot of laptops in the world. What makes this one stand out? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Granted, this is a consumer product. But how is it notable? Wikipedia is not a directory of every model of every consumer product ever sold. Wikipedia is not a mirror of every manufacturer's website. Edison (talk) 19:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Edison. Hm, one might almost say "Wikipedia is not a parts catalog." Jeh (talk) 20:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, but if you did, you'd touch off three solid weeks of drama. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JClausius.
- This article started from research for a new laptop purchase. Having thoroughly researched other laptops on the market, I came to understand the unique characteristics of the x7200 laptop. It is not merely just another mobile computing device, but more of a "mobile desktop", and I could not find any other computers with similar characteristics. The goal is not to provide a "support site", "fan site", or other trivial data, but rather to inform and provide detailed information about this unique device. See my recent edits for unique characteristics.
- In regards to the notability argument, hopefully I've been able to capture "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent" of the x7200 in the article. One can find a multitude of information in PC Gaming sites, Technology Review sites, Laptop enthusiast forums and the like. AnandTech, PC Magazine, Tom's Hardware, Computer Shopper, You Tube, etc. -Jclausius (talk) 00:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi, you seem like a new editor. Welcome. Just so you know, Youtube is generally not considered as a 'notability provider'. The argument is that anyone can upload videos onto Youtube so notability (and reliability) is not guaranteed. See WP:SPS for more information. As for review sites, see my comment below. Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 11:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Update - I added some more research regarding why no one knows about Clevo, the history of the x7200 predecessor (D900), as well as sources regarding the x7200 itself. It was a good excersise as I uncovered some cool facts (which I may have inferred in this discussion rather than referenced) in addition to shocking things like spending more than £10,000 on the x7200! In any case, it is in the discussion section of the main page. It's late here, so I'm off to bed. If you take a quick look, let me know if any thing there is on the right track and should be added to the main article for references, notability, etc. Thanks. Jclausius (talk) 05:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yeah, from the specs, it's just a really good laptop. It's not groundbreaking-ly innovative or something, nor is it the best-selling/most well known product. As for RS, I don't think review sites and things like that can provide notability (sure, they can provide the correct specs, but not notability). Review sites contain a lot of products, they don't all deserve an article. If that is the case, then everything on, say, Amazon, can have their own article. Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 11:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree about innovation. Perhaps, I'm not making a strong enough case, and I'll update the article later today. How many laptops exist on the globe that allow the end user to use desktop CPUs inside a laptop? How many laptops are there which allow multiple graphics cards inside a laptop or up to four hard disk bays? What laptop vendor allows you to overclock the CPU and Video cards of their systems? Finally, what laptop manufacturer has designed a system in which the video cards, CPUs, and disk drives are end-user upgradeable? The Clevo based system is unique in this regard, and that is what I believe is notable about the system. - Jclausius (talk) 12:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know a bit about desktops but little about laptops. I will take your word for it. So it is a laptop with desktop features and I also take your word for the fact that it's new. But it is not notable. As I said, review sites-only does not usually provide notability. Because almost every big review site will review most if not every new laptop/desktop release by the big companies. Not all are notable. You saying that it is notable because it is amazing and stuff counts as WP:OR. You need some source other than review sites to say that it is notable. For example, say, when i7 was released, it was reported by many non-review-RS. e.g. The Guardian[7]. Find a similar RS and I (and likely the other Wikipedians) will change my mind. Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 12:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look later today when I have some free time. I don't think it will necessarily be a review, but rather an article from a tech site, which should meet the RS criterion. For the most part, laptops have traditionally soldered graphics cards or CPUs directly on the laptop's system board. Clevo's innovation was to use normal desktop components which can be exchanged/upgraded without changing the system board. While the x7200 is not Clevo's first model to do this, it is the latest. Once I find the links, I'll update the page, and you can let me know what you think. Thx. 72.251.164.101 (talk) 14:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added some links / references to the general discussion of the page. I didn't necessarily want to add it to the page as I'm a tad uncertain if it is up to snuff as RSs. If anyone wants to give them a look over, let me know if you feel this is on track, or still not viable RS citations. Thanks. - Jclausius (talk) 17:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that, although it might contain some RS regarding the 'desktop components in laptop' (need expert to check the websites), there are no RS to provide notability for this specific product. Linking 'desktop components in laptop is innovative' and 'this product does it' and say that it's notable is, I think, original research. Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 22:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I did find references to "Sager laptops", but not necessarily to this model. There is so much crust around generic search results, that it was difficult to come up with anything in an hours time. I'm going to think about this, and refine some of my search queries to see if I can find anything related to Sager's innovation and continuing that within the x7200. Sounds like that is the RS you are looking for. Jclausius (talk) 22:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously sources talking about Sager laptops does not qualify. Also note that it has to have a significant role in whatever source you find (as opposed to just mentioning it briefly). Good luck. Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 23:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Use of pluggable standard desktop-format expansion cards in a laptop goes back over twenty years, right back to ISA bus. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the pluggable cards for the Clevo, but rather upgradeable CPU/GPU. These used to be all part of one laptop system board. The advent of socket for CPU/GPU is what is new. Still haven't looked up a RS on this. Jclausius (talk) 15:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the Web site which makes fewer of these claims; looking at the picture, if you can fit two standard desktop video boards, a standard desktop CPU board, and four hard drives into that box, a better model name would have been Tardis. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But for a laptop a police box is not the most comfortable thing to lug around -> although size is one of the knocks against the x7200. Jclausius (talk) 15:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not new. Several different series of Dell laptops (to my personal knowledge) have had sockets for the CPU and/or the GPU, and I doubt they were the only other ones. This beast is just the first one in your experience. And even if it was the first, that would just make it the first to have used one particular combination of selections out of the various options that face any designer. That in iteself doesn't make it notable, as there are a very large number of such combinations. Jeh (talk) 02:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The criterion for notability of products is not what the people here think of them, but whether they have reviews or other references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources. This does. There are cited in the article full reviews from PCMag and other good sources. I do not see that any of the delete !votes have discussed the fact that there is full sourcing for notability--except for Zlqq2144, who has the absurdly incorrect opinion that reviews are not sufficient sources for WP:N. We have used them for articles on products of all sorts, as well as media --What RSs can be better than the major review journals? It would be notable even if it were only the specialized journals, and there's at least one very well known general journal. I don't know what sort of sources he has been mind, but I don't see that an article in a newspaper would be of any more value. (I would do some rewriting--the detailed specs, after all, are in the reviews and the website & are in any case subject to change & customization) I hope JClausius doesn't kill the article with his praise of the high specs, which are relevant as an argument only as reflected by the reviews. We don't have to discuss why the review sources found it important enough for a full review, just that they did so find it. DGG ( talk ) 05:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not use terms like "absurdly incorrect opinion." The process only works properly if everyone is civil. Calmly discuss the facts - what sources you have found and how well they meet the policy at WP:RS. Don't make personal comments about other editors. This is a search for evidence of notability, not a chatroom flamewar. Guy Macon (talk) 06:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please. Just about every laptop model or model series gets reviews, even the vast majority of the "me too" types... if only because, if a given magazine or site doesn't put up a review after receiving a review sample, they'll eventually stop getting review samples, and no one wants that! If you follow that criterion then every one of them becomes "notable" - which is plainly absurd. The standard for notability in such a prolific product category must be higher than that. For example, did the model set a prcedent that was followed by many others? (As opposed to being an idea in which no one else saw merit?) Otherwise we're just echoing manufacturers' catalogs. Is there some reason this model deserves an article of its own, and not just a section on the manufacturer's page? This page could remain as a redirect thereto. Jeh (talk) 08:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, I think you are on the border of WP:PA there.

I do not frequently edit PC/Laptop related articles on Wikipedia, so please, give examples of articles where the product only appears in reviews. Reviews (from reliable sources) are great for providing detailed specs and I am fine with that. The problem is, as Jeh said above, that reviewers from specialised magazines/website review tens if not hundreds of new products everyday, ranging from specific models, to specific components. Not all of them deserve individual articles. This is not a catalog. Per WP:NOTCATALOG.

I will use my own graphics card 9600gt as an example. There are over 7 million results on google, including reviews from almost every reliable source and many more from unreliable sources. Look on Wikipedia, it is under the article GeForce 9 Series. No individual article. NP7280 (page moved to Clevo x7200), on the other hand, returns with under 200,000 results. Sure, google results does not mean everything, but I think you will agree that 9600gt (and many other PC/laptop models and components) are more notable than NP7280 (page moved to Clevo x7200). They do not have their individual articles.

Therefore, delete this article and merge it with Clevo or something. Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 09:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- But what you searched on is important. Being a rebranded, vanilla laptop searching for "x7200" (368K results on Google) doesn't cover the other possible data hits from other vendor models (NP7280 (page moved to Clevo x7200) yields 183K results, Malibal NINE (less x7200) 13.6K, etc.). Although, those won't total 7M unique hits. Being a first time editor, I thought I would place this on a "Clevo" page, but there is no article for Clevo in Wikipedia. So, I chose the next familiar (at least to me) article... Sager. It was because of this I created the article NP7280 (page moved to Clevo x7200), which I now think is misnamed as it focuses more on the x7200 and little on NP7280 (page moved to Clevo x7200).

- Another issue regrading embedding the data is duplicated text. Being a rebranded laptop, including the same data points in every Wikipedia vendor's article would create a maintenance issue trying to keep all these in sync. To me there is enough data / notoriety that a stand-alone article is warranted. In this way, the article can be referenced in from different vendors for those interested in the laptop itself, but not necessarily Clevo. Jclausius (talk) 14:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clevo seems to be notable enough (6 million on google with many RS), consider creating that article instead? Maintenance should not be an issue since the laptop is unlikely to change. Also, there is no need to list out every single specification as it is doing now, IMO, just describe it in a few words/sentences in a main article (e.g. Sager and Clevo) and link it to a reliable review site which has all the specs. Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 14:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if this bullet is out of place, as I'm a new editor, and do not yet know proper protocol. I added an Update commment above in my "Keep" comment. Just placing this one here in case anyone w/ previous comments scrolled down and missed it. Thanks for your understanding.Jclausius (talk) 05:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Easily meets the WP:GNG based on significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Most of the delete arguments here are just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Thparkth (talk) 20:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Closing admin, please take a look at the article talk page. There appear to be arguments for and against deletion that are not duplicated here. Guy Macon (talk) 01:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Right now I am undecided. Here is what it would take to get me to vote "keep": In a comment above Jclausius says "How many laptops exist on the globe that allow the end user to use desktop CPUs inside a laptop? How many laptops are there which allow multiple graphics cards inside a laptop or up to four hard disk bays? What laptop vendor allows you to overclock the CPU and Video cards of their systems? Finally, what laptop manufacturer has designed a system in which the video cards, CPUs, and disk drives are end-user upgradeable? The Clevo based system is unique in this regard, and that is what I believe is notable about the system." If the above claims can be established as being true, the article should be edited to contain statements such as "...the only laptop that..." or "one of only two brands of laptop that..." with citations to reliable sources (see WP:RS) establishing that the claims are accurate. Reviews that do not establish notability might very well establish feature rarity and certainly can be used to establish feature existence. If someone establishes that this laptop has significant unique features, I would support keeping it based upon it being notable, and would expect at least some of the delete voters to reevaluate and possibly change their votes based upon new evidence. Guy Macon (talk) 08:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- - I've found some RS specifically regarding these questions. Being a first time editor, I've asked Guy to help with this data, and he's graciously agreed to integrate this information into the article. Jclausius (talk) 13:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Just saw Guy cannot help. (See the article's discussion page.) He included the RS I had talked about. If anyone would like to help whip them into shape, please feel free. However, I may not be able get to it for a couple of days. Thanks. Jclausius (talk) 14:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry about not being able to help more, but I am stuck at a job site. I can snatch a few minutes here and there while waiting for the technicians to set up another test, but not enough time to do a proper job of it :( Guy Macon (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - NP. I have some early stuff that I'll be putting in my personal talk page in the next night or so. If you could give it a peer review once done, I'd be much obliged. Thanks. Jclausius (talk) 15:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment if you look at early laptops, every one of them used a desktop CPU, since laptop CPUs did not exist yet. Several of them had multiple graphics card, one to drive the onboard screen, and second to output to an external screen. Some transportable units (lunchbox or luggable) hence not laptops, allowed many harddrives (more than two). CPUs, HDDs, and videocards are upgradable on several laptops and other portables in the past. If you look at early mobile Radeons (not early laptop material, but "recent" stuff) several of them were user upgradable. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 10:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - All good points, but those early models were not "upgradeable" by the end user as all pieces were soldered onto the system board. If you needed to change something, mostly this was handled by the vendor and parts were not necessarily "swappable" if an end user wanted to upgrade. Regardless, you are correct, as there wasn't a such thing as a "mobile" processor back in the early 1990s, and for the GPUs, this needs to highlight GPUs working in tandem using CrossFire or SLI architectures. Agreed, the wording of the article needs to be careful enough to highlight socket based CPU and tandem GPU architectures for these separate components.Jclausius (talk) 13:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to the Hardware Wikia. The article in its current state is a product information page, and not an encyclopedia article. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 10:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't know it existed. Now I do, yeah, it's a good idea. Zlqq2144 (Talk Contribs) 14:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - http://computer.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page might be worth looking at. Guy Macon (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since ALL arguments for deletion so far amount to Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill, which is an essay and thus not policy. WP:NOTCATALOG would apply if the only available information was a dull list of technical specifications and drivers; but this is not the case here. Per user:DGG the bar for inclusion is wp:notability, not wp:MILL. It requires significant coverage from third party reliable sources; if the only information was copies of press releases that wouldn't be enough as those are WP:SELFPUBLISHed. But as long as the laptop has been subject to critical review, that's enough to establish notability. Compare with Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria. This article already has several sources including more than raw data, which include opinions by the reviewer.

So per WP:NOTPAPER, yes, every laptop that complies with these requirements can have its own article with the only precondition that someone is willing to write it (and that there's no consensus to merge its contents into a more encompassing article for a class of similar devices).

My suggestion is to trim to the minimum the technical tables (drivers, BIOS, utilities...) and create a Reception section with the most juicy bits of the professional reviews; taking both actions would achieve an encyclopedic article. Diego Moya (talk) 13:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The data in there is valuable information for whitebox system builders or those just now learning about the x7200. Is there perhaps some wiki markup to repackage this information (at least the more important parts) in a way that is less cumbersome? Jclausius (talk) 15:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a guide, so that's not enough reason to keep the lists. That said, I think that information could stay if compiled to less cumbersome tables. Try to remove the Date and Link columns, turn the links into references with <ref></ref> tags and place them outside the table, and group by Component type and Vendor. Diego Moya (talk) 16:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Diego Moya makes a compelling argument. So compelling, in fact, that anyone trying to determine consensus on this should pay careful attention not only to keep/delete comments, but the reasoning behind them. Guy Macon (talk) 13:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm currently trying to compile this argument into my first essay, since I think the run-of-the-mill argument for deletion is used more times that it should in AfDs. Does anybody around here have experience in writing essays? I'd appreciate feedback at my talk page. Diego Moya (talk) 15:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very good idea for an essay. Sometime in the next few days (busy with work right now) I will review it in detail and possibly make suggestions. Guy Macon (talk) 16:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Diego and DGG, I think that this clearly meets the GNG. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Several editors describe why this particular laptop is more powerful than the norm, but the real reason to keep it is that the article is well documented and meets wp:GNG.--DThomsen8 (talk) 00:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that it meets WP:GNG, but I would also note that it isn't just more powerful than the norm, but appears to actually have multiple features not available on any other laptop - which is why reliable sources have noted it. Guy Macon (talk) 14:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Sure the laptop is latest and greatest, and the article is referenced. But product reviews alone don't establish notability. Is it notable for high sales numbers? Is it notable for a lasting accomplishment or legacy? Within a month, the next latest and greatest computer will make this one just obsolete. See also: Notability is not temporary. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 12:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it that 'product reviews alone don't establish notability'? Nothing in wp:V nor wp:N support that opinion. A reliable, independent review site is as good source as any. The only guideline I've found against product reviews is at WP:DIRECTORY, but that's against sales catalogs (i.e. including product prices), not critical commentary. Also, Notability is not temporary works against your argument - if this item is notable per its significant coverage in reliable sources, it doesn't matter that it becomes obsolete later. Diego Moya (talk) 13:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) MacMed^talk _stalk 04:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Louie Caporusso[edit]

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

College hockey player who does not make the current notability standard per WP:NHOCKEY. Has not played in a fully professional league. Geofth (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets #4 at WP:NHOCKEY. He "achieved preeminent honors ... in a major collegiate hockey league" by being "named first-team AHCA/Reebok Division I Ice Hockey All-American." Makeemlighter (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Makeemlighter--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —DJSasso (talk) 11:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Makeemlighter. Rlendog (talk) 21:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets NHOCKEY. Patken4 (talk) 22:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Notable hockey player. All-Star in a major collegiate hockey league. Overdrawn Invader (talk) 21:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Any user who disagrees with this decision feel free to revert this NAC. As I see it however, there is a very clear consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) MacMed^talk _stalk 02:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mihalis Safras[edit]

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

First Afd had no clear consensus. But this is still a poorly sourced WP:BLP that does not meet WP:NMG. bender235 (talk) 16:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. From where I am sitting the first AfD has a very clear keep consensus (despite the Admin's call). There are a number of references for this techno musician/DJ on both English and Greek Google. He certainly is notable in his field. Article needs more work and more references. Moreover, I think it is bad form to relist this for AfD after the admin's poor call. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 17:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Putting an AFD up on an article that passed one less than a month ago says it all. No deletion here.... Are in need of some work but that can be fixed ofcourse.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It did not pass. It was no consensus. Shadowjams (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stifle's "no consensus" call seems quite accurate to me, and there is nothing to stop a "no consensus" AfD being renominated in early course. There is no bad faith here. But having said that, I'm persuaded by this source, so I'd go with keep for this one.—S Marshall T/C 21:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~Keep ~~My opinion is still the same. I feel the sources are weak and don't establish notability.~~ I'll admit to being borderline though and there might be a bit of personal bias since I just dont care for tech music ;)--v/r - TP 00:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it possible to weak delete somebody responsible for the music for Apple Inc.'s iPhone marketing campaign? Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 09:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is there something notable about the marketing campaign or the genre of music the artist is apparently known for?--v/r - TP 13:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Apparently notable enough to be selected for use by Apple Inc. for an iPhone marketing campaign which is in itself notable. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 14:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's my question, is and how is the apple campaign notable? Is every artist picked to do a tune for an advertisement notable? Is there something unique about this campaign or tune that makes it notable?--v/r - T P 19:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, the Apple iPhone is one of the most popular hardware products ever invented by man. Isn't that notable enough. Being asked to provide the music for the advertisement of the product is a big deal. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 19:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        You keep avoiding answering my question. You did this in the last AFD on this topic too. I am not asking about the IPod or anything else. I asked if there is anything notable about the advertising campaign and specifically that is attributed to the song? Anything else is WP:INHERITED. It is a huge stretch to say that the IPod is notable and therefore Mahalis Safras is notable. You're saying the IPad is notable, therefore the campaign is notable, therefore the music is notable, therefore the artist is notable. That is a lot of inheritance.--v/r - T P 18:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        An artist can be notable since his discography has been listed as one of the most impressive ones in the specific style. Therefore some companies like Apple and so on used some for their campaigns. Press and Mags have been listed that as well.
        Safras is easily notable without the advertising campaign. But the ad campaign does not detract. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 08:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        In agree with previous comment. Keep and notable offcourse.. Lenapapalenapapa ^(Talk) 08:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. On the DJ pages of residentadvisor.net, the online music magazine, it is stated that there is:

"Not much to say about the Athenian DJ/producer and mastermind behind the Material Series. Mihalis Safras is considered to be one of the most high-profiled artists and the most productive techno producer on the planet.^[1]" Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 08:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

--LP- T P 15:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So it's generally accepted community consensus that an artist whose work is used in a major marketing campaign is considered notable?--v/r - TP 17:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Refer to my last comment above. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 08:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - It would have been a lot easier to follow if you had replied chronologically. Alright, I'm convinced with this quote. I've adjusted my !vote.--v/r - TP 13:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I appreciate that. Thank you. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 13:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - All sources are valid and clear — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenapapa (talk • contribs) 12:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Lenapapa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Avvasi. Article has already been redirected so let's close it that way. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Q-VUE[edit]

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

Unremarkable software, new to market, no news or significant coverage by independent sources. Article has only primary references, no others found after searching. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See below. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep

sources have been improved
coverage from independent sources is out there, this has been reflected in sources
software is certainly remarkable, level of detail to which it is addressed is another story. Though the company only divulges limited info, why shouldn't it be available to the public?
neutrality of tone is a difficult point to argue considering the limited length of the article. The words used are not descriptive in nature and there are no statements (implied or otherwise) of superiority or advantage. RaphaelCapon (talk) 19:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The [8] reference amounts to little more than a compilation of press releases. It isn't an article on them. The other cite is a broken link to a video, which wouldn't matter as tmcnet.com isn't a reliable source, they just host videos for any business. The third is their own website. The article is still unreferenced by reliable sources. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—Neither remarkableness nor market age is relevant to the notability status.—RJH (talk) 20:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually 'remarkable' is the same as 'notable' in the context of article deletion. That is why it is even used in the automated tools for CSD articles. Unremarkable is just another way of saying not notable, per accepted (and current) use in the English Wikipedia. Market age matters only in that you likely won't be finding sources in books or scholar, and perhaps none older than a week, which makes searching much easier. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

links have been updated
As I continue sifting through more and more links and sources to validate this article, it is becoming increasingly clear that the product has indeed received enough attention to be considered notable/remarkableRaphaelCapon (talk) 13:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge with Avvasi As of the version I'm seeing [9] there are three references. Apparantly the same three Dennis Brown was talking about. One is company's own website. Two's WP:SPS. Three isn' abot Q-VUE specifically so notability is next to nil. Also, hasn't anyone noticed that this article contains four sentences? Merge it with Avvasi, for god's sake. Avvasi is not particularly long that it needs a split. Then redirect Q-VUE or something. Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 14:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zlqq2144 makes a point, will redirect to Avvasi — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaphaelCapon (talk • contribs) 15:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Admin Original creator of article has changed to a redirect to the main company. This is probably the best solution. That article needs some work but has a better chance of demonstrating notability. May close as moot, redirected by article creator. As nominator: Dennis Brown (talk) 15:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 04:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Easton Cowboys FC[edit]

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

non-notable amateur/parks league football team ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - team has not played at a high-enough level. Giant Snowman 17:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, appears to be an amateur-level team that does not have standalone notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable team. The league they play in isn't even a part of the English football league system. Argyle 4 Life^talk 06:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A team in the Same league 'Sneyd Park AFC' have a wiki page so to delete it would not be fair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Braddaz88 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That page has already been deleted (well, turned into a redirect to the league's article, which kinda amounts to the same thing) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ They are a higher standalone level than the lowest team in the Englsih Football League system — Preceding unsigned comment added by Braddaz88 (talk • contribs) 13:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't attempt to !vote more than once, if you wish to add further comments you may do so, but do not keep re-stating "keep" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable team. Kante4 (talk) 20:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Yantoultra Ngui Yichen[edit]

The result of this discussion was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was redirect to Maksim Mrvica. (non-admin closure) MacMed^talk _stalk 02:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pure II (Maksim Mrvica album)[edit]

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

This was recently PRODded by someone else due to notability concerns, but the person who created the article simply removed the PROD notice without improvement or discussion. A different editor suggested AfD so I'm doing it. Upon investigation I can find no mentions of this album beyond anemic blogs and download sites. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this and others (Would say merge into Maksim Mrvica, but nothing referenced to merge). I see a lot of his albums that haven't charted and don't have wp:rs otherwise, should be put into this AFD as well. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Procedurally we'll have to just talk about this album for now, but I think merging all of this guy's several album articles to his main biography article would be a pretty good idea. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to artist "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting." WPALBUMS. Wickedjacob (talk) 02:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. With salt: Some support for salting, no opposition. Creation protection can be removed if an admin feels going forward that reliable sourcing has been found. joe decker ^{talk to me} 15:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Tourettes Guy (internet video series)[edit]

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

Previously deleted by AFD in 2006... long enough that CSD-G4 might not be appropriate. Of dubious notability, lack of third party references. IMDB establishes it exists, but little more than that. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 15:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete repeatedly recreated article that does not meet any of the notability criteria outlined at WP:WEB. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 15:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lots o' ghits. Too bad none of them closely resemble reliable sources. Lots of chatter, but it is all blogs, forums, facebook and youtube users. Delete. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing. The notabillity hasn`t changed. Marking with CSD-G4.Speedy delete.--Müdigkeit (talk) 20:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt per all above. It is too different to the last version of the salted 'The Tourettes Guy' title for G4, in my opinion. I won't raise objections if another admin disagrees with me on this... It's no improvement. Peridon (talk) 21:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the article is too different for a G4 to apply. I am surprised there are not better references around for a topic so famous, however if the references are not improved I would support a delete. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article has an IMDB page and so do both actors related to it. The show has an official website and one of the youtube videos has almost 20, 000, 000 views. The producer of the show also has an official website. IMO, these four points make it notable enough for a Wikipedia page. 30casesofpickles (talk) 21:48, 19th April 2011 (UTC)

30casesofpickles, could you clarify which of the WP:WEB criteria the web series meets? IMDB pages and "official websites" are user submitted and unrelated to notability. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 20:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT. Non notable web-series that doesn't meet WP:WEB. Dragquennom (talk) 18:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I second the comments of Graeme Bartlett. Seems very strange there has been no coverage of The Tourettes Guy anywhere. I wonder if there is anything in his local newspaper?--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I can't believe I can't find coverage of this guy, he's been around for a long time and I remember discussing him years ago. The article is also getting decent page views so far [10] (300+ page views daily). Well, if it gets deleted, I'm definitely reposting the content on my blog.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 11:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 04:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile / Cellular Phone Insurance in India[edit]

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

Spammy article possibly intended to promote some of the companies in the reflist. Much of the material is already adequately covered in Insurance and the rest is rather chaotic original research. Little or nothing of encyclopaedic value. Fails WP:RS, WP:OR andy (talk) 14:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject matter itself doesn't appear to be notable. One cite actually talking about the subject matter had more google ads than text, likely would fail wp:rs, the other is not independent of the subject matter. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - definitely promotional article lacking notability. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cellular Phone Insurance itself appears to be interesting innovation. Keep in case if all company names will be removed from the article. – George Serdechny 20:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying it is useful? Dennis Brown (talk) 20:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And you bet it's not? – George Serdechny 20:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Err, no... I think you should read the useful link. It's ironic. And on a more mundane note there's nothing innovative about mobile phone insurance. Since pretty much anything can be insured nowadays we truly do not need a spammy, OR article about how one particular product is insured in one particular country, even if it's a good article - which it isn't. andy (talk) 22:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No such article is available and it is indeed useful. It is an encyclopedia. 120 crores is the population of India. One of the fastest growing general insurance market.Ashbinakaaks (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - May want to add a para on the topic in Insurance in India, an article on the same is not justified in my opinion. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 10:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. --CarTick (talk) 04:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Whilst there are some arguments for merging, the concensus seems to be that this should be done as reliable sources are located. Marasmusine (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of DJMax track listings[edit]

(Find video game sources: "List of DJMax track listings" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Fails WP:GNG and somewhat redundant, as it's a list of lists.Bread Ninja (talk) 14:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the tracklists to its respected articles i believe is the best choice.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per same reasoning that we wouldn't list cars from racing games, monsters from shooters, etc. No notability (no significant coverage of the track appearance in these video games). There are some VG RS, like [11], but those are just bare lists for fans. I'm not sure if these should be kept/merged with the main articles; I'd leave that decision to individual article editors. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 07:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are only two active individual editors working with DJMAX articles and they are Mikitei (myself) and Bread Ninja. I've been hoping that we would get third editor with us to work with DJMAX articles so that these conflicts wouldn't have to happen all the time... (sigh)... There are sources for track lists, artists and composers and designers but mostly they are in Korean magazines and such. It takes time to do research and find sources for them. Time Bread Ninja doesn't want to give. Besides Bread Ninja doesn't work with these articles apart from doing bad copyediting. Please note that DJMAX tracks aren't just popular music with generic 3d graphics on a background like in Guitar Hero... Music (style being mostly experimental class) is composed only for these games and music videos for them are various forms of drawn visual art (which is also mostly experimental). It is notable article but also starter class type. It needs commentary and additions. --Mikitei (talk) 11:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a reflection on comments above and below, I am unfamiliar with editing history related to the article, what were the reasons for merging/splitting, or any editor disagreements. I don't know whether this is the right venue/bad faith nomination or otherwise. My !vote was based on the article as it is. The point being, is WP:Notability guideline of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" satisfied? The article sources and search results suggest that it is not. (And I don't speak Korean to search local language sources.) So, as long as sources are not presented, my argument is "delete, because article fails WP:GNG." — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am satisfied with your answer. But I still hope people would start improving it. There are much more worthless articles in Wikipedia than this one. Also two editors improving this on occasional basis is not going to lead anywhere. --Mikitei (talk) 16:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - I strongly disagree cutting "Track lists" article into small shards of information. At beginning there was in every DJMAX articles a single list of the audiovisual tracks they had. Some had even the same unmaintained lists. Then some people merged it into a list of DJMAX Tracks lists. It was a clear improvement because now one page told information once and accurately rather than having 15 different copies of the same content. Non-updated lists where cleaned and everything started to look much better. But time went by and it was forgotten for two years. Then it was improved upon myself and others. Bread Ninja did some disruptive editing and I had to do a edit war with her to keep it together. After that Bread Ninja went silent for a few months. Now she came back here and started arguing about the same issues again and this time by wanting to merge everything back to articles. When I told her that I'll strongly disagree with her she obviously got angry and started this deletion request. I hope you guys can look for the personal issues involved and put this deletion on hold or at least make a good argument for it. I am not going to accept a result where Bread Ninja and her buddy agrees to delete it on a background in a silent deal. However I have no problems if there's a good majority supporting the deletion and they have at least some kind of arguments about why they think it should be deleted... I think that this is a bad move because it will not help these stub DJMAX articles to rise into a better class and would be lying to oneself about the quality of the DJMAX articles. Filling articles with long lists doesn't make them less stub than they are. What would make DJMAX articles less stub is that you, I and other editors write more actual content into those articles. Besides there's no need to have long lists on the article pages and that's the reason all the track lists where collected into a one single article which supports all of the DJMAX articles. If this page is now deleted, Bread Ninja will surely add all the track lists from that page into the articles. It will cause other people to merge them into a one single article and after that we will again be in this same situation. "Track lists" article has its meaning and purpose. All those lists are not needed in DJMAX articles because they are mostly supporting information (Just like the other lists in Wikipedia). Almost all other music games have a list article like this and I think that's enough of precedent to keep them together. If you start arguing this is not a significant list then what makes the other lists more significant than this one? For example why we have articles such as Complete list of downloadable songs for the Rock Band series, List of songs in Rock Band, List of songs in Rock Band 2, List of songs in Guitar Hero, List of songs in Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock, List of songs in Guitar Hero World Tour and it's perfectly fine that they exist if this list of DJMAX Tracks isn't allowed to exist? I demand that song lists of eg. Rock Band and Guitar Hero are also deleted if DJMAX track lists articles is voted to be deleted. It would be fair... --Mikitei (talk) 11:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure if "Bread Ninja and her buddy" is in reference to me, but, if so, I'll ask you to refrain from making any personal comments. I came her from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#List of DJMax track listings AfD, and my !vote is based on list's merits. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a general talk about the matter. It's also a scenario I've faced once with another person... I apologise if you felt it was somehow a personal comment. I didn't mean it that way... I've been trying to improve DJMAX articles lately and Bread Ninja is doing more harm than good. It has lead to big tiring debates about even the simplest matters. I've done more than enough trying to cooperate with her on these matters. For example read DJMAX matters from my talk page or User Talk:Jinnai's talk page. Also it's worth reading the talk pages from DJMAX articles. Main thing here is that Bread Ninja came to ask me about considering the splitting the article. I considered few minutes and replied "No + reason" and then I tried to prevent it becoming one of those big fights by writing "my decision is final". So she then started this deletion process as a answer to that. While I am OK if the article is deleted. I still don't want unreferenced material into articles just for the sake of filling them. Why do they even need the track lists? --Mikitei (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I have no idea why they would need to be included unless there is some significance; same way its kind of pointless to non-fans to list cars from racing games, monsters fr... etc. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 19:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add that shouldn't this be debate about merging the article into other DJMAX articles rather than conversation about deleting it? Bread Ninja obviously wants to merge it and not delete it. I am pretty sure Bread Ninja didn't know about the proper merging policy ( Wikipedia:Merging ) and has made a mistake. I wouldn't be surprised about that. Also please take a look at the article in question before stating your opinion. Thank you! --Mikitei (talk) 11:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, delete or keep, which ever one is the best choice. For me, it's merge. for everyone else, let them decide. Bread Ninja (talk) 12:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To me it seems that Bread Ninja is extorting editors of the list so that she can add the song lists into those articles against their wishes. Otherwise I'm going to stay out of this debate. --193.166.71.86 (talk) 15:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In this discussion, we can state whatever we want is best for the article, merge, redirect, delete, or keep. but back on topic:

Out of all the music games i have yet to see a list of lists. lists shouldn't be redundant. for example, even though this article is in danger of getting nominated for deletion as well, List of Dance Dance Revolution songs doesn't repeat the songs because it's a list of all the songs that were introduced in dance dance revolution series (this however doesn't have any sources and could be deleted). However do not list the track listing that each game has. Another example is List of songs in Guitar Hero that reached notability but not only that but it is far too much information as the article is featured and getting around 60 KB of info. However, none of the DJMax articles are even close to get to that. Not only that but there's a collapse template to hide it so that can always save visual space. Problem is, we can't just make articles like this despite not being notable.Bread Ninja (talk) 13:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We should improve this track list article to be like that List of Dance Dance Revolution songs. I already had something like that in my mind and wrote about that to you already. --Mikitei (talk) 17:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. here's the thing. the list isn't an independent list-article. It's dependent on the main articles about the video games. So, if the main articles are not notable than the article can't stay regardless of notability. Why would we do this? because the list article is supporting material for the main article. IF the main article isn't notable, than the information could be merged so it would gain some-notability if not to a significant degree to not delete it (not saying I will delete it).

As for list of Dance Dance Revolution songs. i'm not even sure that one "could" be notable, as it just compiles all the songs that were released. Seems like original research supported by information that doesn't exactly reflect the article if it were to assume notability.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So practically this leads to only one thing. I don't want these lists into those DJMAX articles. You, Bread Ninja, don't want this list of lists article (which I can understand to some degree). We have two options. Either we make separate article pages (one for each list) or remove all these lists. First option still doesn't solve the problem that we don't have reliable way to source all this material using English language sources. Any kind of merge operation isn't going to solve that one. Consider that if decision to delete this article is made based on missing sources. --Mikitei (talk) 10:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason we have song lists for GH, RB, and the other music games is that these are notable and widely recognized songs by recognized artists; there have been references that show songs featured in such games get additional sales boosts from inclusion, so its more than just useful. In this specific list, I'm not seeing many blue links and suspect there can't be many made. This doesn't invalidate the list of tracks, but judging by the size of the individual game articles, there's no need for a separate list. --MASEM (t) 15:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From this point on, let's not use WP:OTHERCRAP. It always backfires because the comparisons are never exact.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or delete (either way, not keep). Simply does not have a strong assertion of notability to have an article like the Rock Band or Guitar Hero lists. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong strong (heh, I went there!): No, either delete or merge to individual articles. I could not find independent reliable sources that would satisfy the general notability criteria – leaning towards delete since the game articles also look pretty obscure and non-notable. Prime Blue (talk) 15:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment yes I've also been looking for a while and couldn't find much that could be considered reliable sources. I hope the accusation of me not attempting to find sources is dropped with this. For the most part, i think it depends on how much potential the article has. If there's no sign of ever gaining any citation, than delete, if it has "some" citation and somehow notable on its own (depending if the main articles have enough support to stand on its own) than merge due to the main articles not having much. But the only way to keep this article is if somehow the main articles were notable up to at least start and over 60 KB (per WP:SPLIT) which i highly doubt will happen anytime soon.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You can find sources to these tracks on Japanese and Korean websites if you know where to look. Problem with those is that they are mostly improper blogs and wiki-like sites for gamers. To my knowledge Pentavision who develops DJMAX series has never released "officially" a list of all included songs when they have released new title. However they have websites about these games and some list more or less songs from the game. For example Black Square website lists 35 tracks from the game and gives audio and visual art samples on each song too. Just for the sake of example the website for first DJMAX Portable lists all 54 songs from the game (with audio and visual art samples on all of them). Just because Bread Ninja doesn't find sources it doesn't mean these lists cannot be sourced. The main problem is that finding proper English language sources is probably impossible due the fact that none of these games have never been released outside Korea/Japan/China-axis apart from Fever and Portable 3 which PlayMaker Studios published in Northern America... One way to source these lists is using game manuals. Some of the DJMAX games have a manual which lists all the tracks the game has. But those aren't probably proper sources... Most of these lists can be sourced properly, probably. I don't know if everything can be sourced. That would require a team effort from everybody in this thread to find out if it is possible. --Mikitei (talk) 10:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're not really helping yourself in this situation. And like i said before, if the article does sustain notability, there's still the problem of the main video game articles not being notable. the main video games would have to be notable (and over 60 KB at least) in order to keep this as a support list article.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I think you're wrong about that. That comment was merely a additional remark to your comment which stated that you couldn't find reliable sources. I refuted that by writing that there are sources in non-English websites. You're also forgetting that these articles are still in development stages. And this is notable game series in Korea among music games. I think I wrote about this before but I think you're not constructive enought. :) --Mikitei (talk) 20:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Somewhat per Hippie but I think that the article should instead be deleted since the information would seem to be unnecessary for the articles it would be part of. GamerPro64 (talk) 01:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards delete: The list is in pretty bad shape sourcing-wise, and the duplication of the content is discouraged per Wikipedia:Content forking. The fact that other such lists exist only mean that a model is available to follow, not that other such lists can exist without proper sourcing. I understand that there is a reason that the lists shouldn't be in the separate game articles, but a separate list still needs to follow our notability and sourcing guidelines.
I didn't do a search of sources, so I'll gladly change my tune if proper sourcing is found. But right now, I did not see enough sources presented in the article or this AfD. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Comment Seems there is a consensus for delete. Should we close this argument or wait a couple more days?Bread Ninja (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Let's wait few more days to get full two weeks on this. I wish that because DJMAX articles are slow to get updates. Only I and you, Bread Ninja, have been active on them lately. It would be fair to give slower article a longer time. --Mikitei (talk) 20:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I can't think of an appropriate Borat joke, sadly. Sandstein 19:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kazakhstan Student Society in the United Kingdom[edit]

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

This reads like an advertisement and does not appear to meet the guidelines of WP:ORG. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a lack of reliable sources on the subject matter in English, that is for sure. I searched, including removing "in the United Kingdom" (all the results still had that in the body) but only found facebook, forums, etc. Might need input from some people who speak Kazakh before making a final determination, however. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here is the Facebook link for the society http://www.facebook.com/kazsociety?sk=wall&filter=2

there is more information on the Companies house website about the society. its a non-profit organisation uniting kazakhs in the UK. Will include this link in the reference.

News and photo report from events:

http://www.khabar.kz/rus/culture/Prazdnik_Nauriz_otmechajut_v_Velikobritanii.html http://astana.nightout.ru/photoreportlight/8523 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ereke (talk • contribs) 14:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC) — Ereke (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - Lacks coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Note that I have had to remove almost the entire article as a copyvio as it just replicated material from the organisation's copyrighted web site. Wikipedia is not a WP:WEBHOST. -- Whpq (talk) 16:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The material used upon authorization of the organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ereke (talk • contribs) 19:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You can't just say it is used with permission, there is a process, otherwise it is deleted. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CommentWhat is the process? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.56.65 (talk) 14:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete blatantly fails WP:ORG. Facebook page hardly advances notability (in fact it doesn't). conflict of issue concerns with article creator. LibStar (talk) 07:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 12:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 15:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Hernandez (composer)[edit]

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

Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability of this unsourced BLP. The commonness of this name makes it difficult but searched combing the name with composer and orchestra without success, likely a vanity piece. J04n(talk page) 13:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC) J04n(talk page) 13:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tried searching "Angel Hernandez" composer in Gbooks/news/web. Nothing that relates to him in reliable sources, and not much in unreliable sources. Might be because he is so young and hasn't done anything notable yet. Delete would be the best option here. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yep, not notable at least for now. Per above. Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 14:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 15:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

33 (game)[edit]

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

Howto for a game with no indication of notability. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 13:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day and (due to the unlikely name – what does this game have to do with the number 33???) as a likely hoax. The link to pagat.com makes no sense, as that site does not discuss a game of that name. Nor could I find any related there on the pages that mention the number. Same thing on the web: nothing.
Games are a problem in that they should have some form of inherent notability once they are sufficiently widespread, but unlike dialects and unwritten languages, which not too many decades ago had the same problem, are still severely under-researched. I would be more inclined to give this game the benefit of the doubt if the rules were explained comprehensibly and these rules were plausible as something played by lots of people. That's not the case here. Hans Adler 06:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the pagat link has been removed. I am fairly confident that this was WP:MADEUP the complexity of the game combined with the luck factor does not seem natural. The hand order seems artificial and doesn't reflect the probabilities. I doubt that this has ever been a notable card game and without sources should be deleted.Tetron76 (talk) 17:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete assuming good faith, the article doesn't do anything more than explain the rules. There is no assertion of notability, just rules to the game.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 18:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HWIOS[edit]

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

A software project that is under development. No indication of the software being in active use; no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.

Delete. Yet more "customer relations management" software (aiming to make CMS software behave more like regular networking applications.). This one contains a "vision" heading containg promotional language that discusses what they eventually hope to achieve: The mid-term focus of HWIOS is to refactor the software to stable production-quality, and to allow a module ecosystem to thrive. HWIOS aspires to be a next-generation CMS for e-learning and e-work, by allowing presence-aware web-applications to be developed in a flexible and clean web-framework. E-learning and e-work include sharing of knowledge based on documents, drawings, voice and video, as well as experience-based learning methods found in virtual environments. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When the article BEGINS by telling you who is financing it, it makes it difficult to read the rest....but it is still not notable. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the above. The creator of the article is only involved in this article. Seems to be promoting a product. Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 14:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Public interest, but insignificant (yet). This was my first wikipedia article ever, so please forgive me the initial pitfalls. I removed/replaced all text that could be interpreted as promotional/sponsor orientated. The R&D project itself is BSD-licensed on Contributors copyright and open source for the public, so it could be of potential interest to the public, and is not driven solely by personal/commercial interests. Instead of narrowing or deleting the already exotic subject, i could make a 'Websocket CMS' article, describing the technique of applying websockets to CMS design. The HWIOS article could then be used as reference material, because it's the first and only known websocket CMS atm afaik. — Preceding unsignedcomment added by Phrearch (talk • contribs) 09:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's look at the references.
- 1st one [12] does not talk about HWIOS.
- 2nd one [13] not RS. Seems to be a website with updates from the creator of jinfinote, which is not notable itself.
- 3rd one [14] seems to be created by Phrearch, that's SPS. Ignoring that, it's not RS.
- 4th one [15] does not mention HWIOS
- Since, apparantly, Phrearch is involved in this project, this may be considered as promotional? Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 10:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, you said yourself that it's 'insignificant'. The 'yet' part does not matter, since wikipedia is not a crystalball. Similarly, 'potential interest' does not grant notability. Also, I advise you to read the general notability guidelines. Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 10:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too much of this promotional stuff coming in - bin it Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! ^(Whisper...) 10:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed. I'll stick to the usual blogs instead :) I haven't read anything about the websocket CMS suggestion though. This is imo notable enough, since it changes basically every aspect of today's cms software(from http-based to persistant websocket connections). I'll be happy to start an article about that, or does that need to be mainstream info as well? Currently there are no references on the websocket cms subject on the net, except from this particular project. I know it has somewhat of a crystalball feel to it because of that, but this is what the article about websocket CMS would be useful for; to describe the benefits from moving from http to websockets in general. The HWIOS project is just the first example of applying this html5 technique to CMS software, and therefor has at least some significance in that perspective imo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phrearch (talk • contribs) 11:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That needs 'mainstream' info as well. All wikipedia articles do. 'Currently there are no references on the websocket cms subject on the net, except from this particular project.' There you go. If it's true (I haven't checked), then it fails WP:N. Saying it will be notable in the future is the exact definition of WP:CRYSTALBALL. Come back when it is notable. However, we do seem to have a CMS article, though I am not knowledgable in that subject so I don't know if it is what you want. Content management system. Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 12:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Zlqq2144 - I fear you would be wasting your time creating a Wikipedia article about websocket CMS, because that too would not be notable. One slight caveat with Zlqq2144's comments is that just because there are no references on the net doesn't mean something's not notable - if there are reliable published sources that are dead trees then that's just fine for notability. However, of course for software under development, lack of net coverage means there's probably no offline coverage either. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 18:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Finch Effect[edit]

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

I can find no relevant GHits for "Finch effect" or "Steven J Finch", and no hits at all when I add "nutmeg" to the search terms, so it appears to be at best non-notable and possibly a hoax -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nutmeg toxicity is a real thing, and it's adequately covered in Nutmeg. Kate (talk) 12:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed, nutmeg toxicity is real, but the "Finch" stuff doesn't appear to be -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, agreed. Kate (talk) 19:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot confirm that the term finds any use. The only news hit for "Finch effect" applied the term to the sale of Irish harps! Google Books finds only split sentences, as in "CA Finch: Effect of...." --MelanieN (talk) 22:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 15:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spouses of the Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom[edit]

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

Article about a non-position that carries no weight or officiality at all, which is even admitted to in the article. Has been tagged for notability since August 2010. role^player 11:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I honestly can't tell if this is a joke article or not. The topic has no notability asserted, as the nom said.Jaque Hammer (talk) 12:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unofficial title of an unofficial position that has no official role? While the person holding this "position" may well satisfy WP:GNG, the "position" itself is inherently non-notable as it doesn't really exist. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 12:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 16:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article makes a good job of justifying its deletion, but I would go further. 'Spouse' is not a title or position in the sense that it would usually be understood in Wikipedia. It is merely a relationship, as is mother, father, son, daughter, etc, and of course the holder of the political position may be in a legal partnership, live with somebody with whom they have no legal relationship, be sexually promiscuous, etc. Notability is not inherited and in some cases the person concerned may warrant a mention in the entry for the politician in question - see eg the entry for Ed Milliband, the current Leader of the Opposition. --AJHingston (talk) 17:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the above. No reference. Not notable. Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 14:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a title or a position, unofficial or otherwise, as stated in the article, but simply a description. So what? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:RS --Reference Desker (talk) 03:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 15:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elukanah Nkugwa[edit]

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

Just removed a BLP PROD tag, as it does have a reference. That being said, does not meet WP:NFOOTBALL as the league he plays in, the Ugandan Super League, is not fully professional and he hasn't played a match for the senior national team. Therefore the question becomes does he meet WP:GNG? I had a hunt for sources and couldn't find any significant coverage in independent reliable sources, so he doesn't meet the GNG in my opinion. At 16 years of age, he may very well be notable in the future, but I don't think he is at the moment. Jenks24 (talk) 10:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 10:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 10:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 10:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: For anyone looking for sources, he also seems to be know under the name "Elukana Nkugwa". Jenks24 (talk) 10:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 23:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 23:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:NFOOTBALL or WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 06:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Without significant coverage, he fails WP:GNG, and he has not played in a fully pro league or internationally, meaning he fails WP:NSPORT as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. It's quite obvious that no consensus on what to do is going to be reached here. I would encourage all participants to continue discussing this matter with a view to coming up with a mutually agreeable solution on what to do with articles like this one. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Colchester[edit]

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

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

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

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

Non-Notable subject fails General Notability Guideline, Notability of Standalone Lists guideline, Wikipedia is not a Directory, Wikipedia is not a Travel Guide, Wikipedia Stand Alone List Guideline, Wikipedia is not a list of indiscriminate information amongst others. A recent RFC on the subject did not close but had a majority of users requiring that these subjects meet the General Notability Guidelines, Wikiproject Busses has over the years had several guidelines on this subject - The Bus route List guide - suggested lists of routes should only exist where "the bus routes in an area descended from streetcars, a list is appropriate, and if the system did not exist at all until the 1990s, it is probably not. In between those extremes, use your own judgment." The sources provided do not establish any history let alone a notable one reaching back to Tram Cars. Geographic clear-up guidelines from the project as part of the UK bus route quality drive suggest that routes are notable when they have Significant History or are Major arterial routes. If these routes exist then there may be notability grounds for having a list of routes that are notable in their own right, but not one of indiscriminate non-notable routes. None of the sources in the article are independent and certainly don't establish any of the routes as notable through history or importance. If the bus operators are notable then route information could be merged into those articles where it would be relevant but it does not support listing independent of that. Whilst other articles still currently exist covering similar material Other stuff exists is not grounds for keeping this particular article. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 10:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The page is not finished yet. I took a break for a couple days, but will continue. How about you wait until I finished and make it more notable, huh? The system was definetly set up before the 1990s, but unfortunately there are no sources of its history. Please wait with the deletion. '''Adam mugliston''' (talk) 10:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You sum it up when you say "there are no sources of its history" there are no sources about the routes other than bus timetables thus it fails every yardstick of notability that we use. As for the reasoning that you were on "a break" none of your other bus route list articles meet our notability guidelines so I see no past history that suggests you will get this one up to any standard where it would be acceptable to keep. Not only that if this AfD were to close on Delete I would recommend a bulk nomination of all your other non-notable route lists. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 10:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least I tried to polite, unlike your fairly rude reply. I am still trying to make the page good. Some of my other pages were nominated for deletion and survived. It is unfair to delete pages that are not completed. '''Adam mugliston''' (talk) 11:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel I am impolite then there are forums where you can discuss my behaviour such as WP:WQA, However I see my response as blunt but not in anyway offensive. The saving of your previous pages was on the basis that closing Admin was unsure of the weight of the argument that Bus Routes were automatically notable and did not have to comply with the General notability Guideline - On at least one close it was suggested that a central discussion needed to take place to discuss the matter. That central discussion took place at the policy village pump and the majority agreed that notability was a requirement for keeping. If those articles go to AfD again, I do not see them surviving in the basis of of that discussion. The completeness of the argument is irrelevant if the subject is not in any way notable - it is not going to become notable no matter how much work any editor puts into it. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 11:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'm leaning towards weak keep.~~ Keep. If Wikipedia was just an encyclopaedia I think I would agree with Stuart.Jamieson. But we're more than just an encyclopaedia. Per WP:5P we're also a gazetteer, and this is information of the kind that belongs in a gazetteer.
I've always understood that the way this "gazetteer" function interacts with the GNG is that for a gazetteer-type article (e.g. lists of bus stops or rail stations, articles on local villages, etc.), something like a local map would be considered a secondary source if it was prepared by someone other than the service provider.
I'm a bit taken aback by the apparent degree of hostility expressed in Stuart.Jamieson's most recent contribution to this debate, and I wonder whether that was strictly necessary.
Finally, whatever the verdict here, Adam mugliston's good faith request for more time to work on the article should be respected and therefore, even if there's a consensus to delete at this discussion, the material should be incubated so that the work can continue.—S Marshall T/C 11:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your support, S Marshall. Really appreciated, and I am pleased somebody understands that the page should be finished first. '''Adam mugliston''' (talk) 11:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

S Marshal, I don't have an issue with gazetteer information such as Bus Stations or Park and Ride systems or even actually notable bus routes, but many non main/non historic Bus routes are transient. One of Adam's proposed future articles (based on his user pages) is Bus routes in Edinburgh - From personal experience I know that the route information for Edinburgh has changed completely at least twice in the past 13 years and is due to change substantially again once the Tram routes are complete. This is the similar for the majority of Central Scotland - some bus enthusiasts will argue that they are static but we really need reliable secondary sources to ensure that these routes are actually notable and not changing every couple of weeks (as the Edinburgh ones have during substantial tramwork/Gas main renewal works over the past 5 years. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 11:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart.Jamieson, you seem to be saying that the fact that the details change frequently detracts from the notability of the subject. Is that right?—S Marshall T/C 12:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary, We regularly have articles on things that change frequently but we use reliable secondary sources to discuss the changes in a historical context within the article. I think that because these routes are not notable, they are not covered by reliable secondary sources - Without those sources these articles are constructed with primary sources which are often in themselves transient and the article because of this these articles slide to original research, recentism, or both. If these routes are notable as a collection, they should be discussed in a prose article where changes should be documented by reliable sources in a historical context - An article should not have entries (or the whole article) re-written just because those routes no longer exist in the latest version of the operators timetable. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but then a History section could be made using the previous resources, while the new routes placed into the current section.'''Adam mugliston''' (talk) 14:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which simply adds to the list of indiscriminate information rather than contextualising it, and does nothing to help the notability problems. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the substantive issue at this AfD so far is whether, in a gazetteer-type article such as this, a map is a secondary source. Stuart.Jamieson's position appears to be that a map is not a secondary source, whereas my position is that it may be, if the map is published by someone independent of the bus service provider and has editorial oversight. So if you agree with the S Marshall view, then (for example) something like an Ordnance Survey map would be a reliable source.
The S Marshall view doesn't mean that every individual bus stop deserves its own article, because there isn't enough to say and the OS Map doesn't give each stop "significant coverage". It does imply that the more important routes would merit a mention in a list article.—S Marshall T/C 14:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A map is a primary source, and even if it was to be considered a secondary source a bus route mention on it is purely trivial - it establishes no notability about the route or route system. Taking such a stance means that I could in theory create a list of every footpath running through my local golf course because they are mapped as routes and some are even listed in independent walking guides - of course this argument is obviously false because both the map and the walking guide make only trivial mentions of those footpaths. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 15:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

S Marshall, do you think a map made by Colchester Borough Council would be a good secondary source? '''Adam mugliston''' (talk) 16:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to Stuart.Jamieson's position, my position is that a map is a primary source if prepared by the service provider, but can be used as a secondary source if prepared by someone independent. This means that in my opinion a map made by CBC would be a good secondary source, but the italicised phrase is important: you can use a map as a source in your article for the moment, but a consensus might arise in this discussion preventing it.
I'd respond to the other limb of Stuart.Jamieson's post by saying the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy (specifically a kind of informal fallacy). I'm not advocating creating a list of footpaths on a local golf course, I'm advocating allowing a list of bus routes in the city of Colchester.—S Marshall T/C 16:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the RFC on the subject Mick MacNee stated the following " In the rest of the UK, the design of the route is fixed for the term of the registration - penalties are imposed for not sticking to it in full, or simply withdrawing it" If true then CBC is not independent as it works with the providers in designing the routes, making changes to the design where required due to road closures, and ensuring the provider sticks to the routes. As such it is not independent of that process and materials it produces in relation to the route system are not either. That aside either as a primary or secondary source a Map does not assert any notability; it's only assertion is that of existence which is the point I raise with footpaths - Just because something (anything) appears on a map does not make it notable though it can be used to supplement other reliable sources which do assert notability. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many (most) routes are operated independently from the Council. Why don't you suggest (not a link to a guide, please) a reference will would be good in your opinion. '''Adam mugliston''' (talk) 17:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I already have; please see my most recent post at Talk:List of bus routes in Colchester#Overcoloured. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Operation of the route is different from Design of the route, and it's essential that the council has a say in route design to avoid inconveniencing local residents or risking damage to local services, as such it can't be independent when it discusses the design of the route (or creates a map). To be honest I don't see any sources that would save this article in it's current form - Local history groups are often good for instance if you can combine the material of something like this with other local history sources (preferably not ending in 1997 like that one but coming up to the present day) then you could create a new prose article something like Buses in Colchester but I don't see pure lists of just the current routes as encyclopaedic. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some new references from the local newspaper. I have a quote from the Council: Once buses have left the bus station it's up to the operators how they run their routes." To prove this see: ^[2]

If you're choosing to argue that the operator can change the route any way they want, then you're arguing that the routes are even more transient and notability of those routes is even less convincing. However, I think you're misreading the source; running the route is different from designing the route as I have said several times now. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not arguing that the operator can change the route, what I am saying is that your opinion that a map by the council is not a valid secondary source is incorrect. Although you may think that several changes in routes make the article less notable, I think it gives the article potential for being even better and more notable, as then it is possible to provide a detailed history, which is always a good thing, which makes an article more notable. Also, although (theoretically) operators, or at least commercial ones, are allowed to change routes they do not unless very necessary. '''Adam mugliston''' (talk) 19:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how you think it proves me wrong unless you don't appreciate the difference between how the route is planned (with the involvement of the CBC) which is the geographical element that you are citing maps to claim notability, and how the route is run (which is decided solely by the operator) which is the scheduling element and can be sourced to timetables. When you talk about history here you are suggesting what wikipedia terms original research as you are suggesting assembling a history from old timetables and maps rather than reporting a history already recorded in a reliable source. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 21:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CBC does not design the routes, select the contractors, or provide the subsidy for those routes that are subsidised. These functions will be performed by Essex County Council's Passenger Transport Unit. Colchester Borough Council's publications are secondary sources accordingly.—S Marshall T/C 20:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is correct. If you look for timetables on the CBC page, you get redirected to Essex County Council.'''Adam mugliston''' (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Documents such as [16] suggest that such decisions are made jointly with CBC and ECC and other organisations/bodies so without further information the map cannot be considered independent. What's worse is the maps are produced by FWT and could be produced for ECC, CBC, UK Gov or for one of the operators and simply reused by CBC with no means of us knowing. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 21:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The way local authority passenger transport units work is that they are administered at County level, and decisions are made at County level. Obviously the County needs to work closely with the Borough in many things, so as a matter of routine courtesy the County will consult the Borough and relevant usergroups before its decision is finalised. But the fact that the Borough is consulted doesn't mean it makes the decision. That's a County matter. My position remains that Borough is a secondary source.
With the map, even if I accepted that CBC would use someone else's copyright without acknowledgement—which for the avoidance of doubt I do not—surely what's relevant is not who drew it, but who publishes it.—S Marshall T/C 21:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

I am very experienced with public transport, as it has been my hobby for at least 9 years now. I know that the ECC decides everything about the routes. The Borough Council is only informed about them, they do not set the routes. The map is independent of anyone/thing, although its looks are based on the map by First, which do not have anything to do with the CBC's map. '''Adam mugliston''' (talk) 22:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

^ Mihalis Safras residentadvisor.net
^ http://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/local/colchester/768100.Colchester__Bus_users_face_route_woe/

Keep - It's a perfectly valid list of routes of a major bus system in a major city. Bus routes are integral parts of the workings of a city and that is very encyclopedic. I see "WP is not a directory" and "Wikipedia is not a list of indiscriminate information" quotes frequently in bus route nominations but there is actually nothing in WP:NOT or its WP:IINFO and WP:DIRECTORY that bans list articles, nor list articles of bus routes. This list is discriminate and isn't a " repositories of loosely associated topics " or anything of the like. I also notice the nom and the pack of delete voters are simply stating lists of bus routes are unencyclopedic in general and not making a case to delete this list article of this specific city's bus routes, yet they haven't touched the List of bus routes in London List of bus routes in Manhattan or the like which one would imagine are much more colossal violations of encyclopedic content to those who don't like bust list articles. Like with the Peterborough bus routes AfD (it was kept), this looks like some kind of WP:POINT test case on a small market.--Oakshade (talk) 00:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both the London and Manhattan lists are built around reliable sources; London around articles in the Guardian as well as bus histories of the system, and Manhattan around articles in the New York Times as well as bus histories of the system. They do not excuse the existence of this or any other list soley sourced to primary documents and trivial mentions. Peterborough closed as No Consensus along with other routes where the closing admin asked for a central discussion on whether lists of bus routes were automatically notable (as was the main keep point at the AfD) or whether it had to be established via the general notability guidelines - That request for comment took place and is linked above and found that route lists had to have notability established by reliable secondary sources. This is the first Afd since then and occurs on an article where notability and OR tags have been previously removed without the issues being resolved - but since AfD does require a test case before a bulk nomination it can be seen as that if you wish. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 05:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yet still, Lists of bus routes should not be historical,they are lists of what is running now not 20 years ago. That could be a seperate article or the list with its name changed to 'Buses in ...' with a current and history section. Colchester is as notable as London, after all they do claim do be the oldest recorded town in Britain. And your agrument of no secondary sources in invalid currently, as I provided valid secondary source for some things and am still searching. '''Adam mugliston''' (talk) 06:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You added a source which trivially mentions 6 routes it doesn't even identify those routes as notable let alone the 40-50 other routes it doesn't mention. Wikipedia is not a Bus Timetable, or Travel guide - it does not simply list the current state of a subject but has to put that state into an encyclopaedic context. These lists can have a place within a prose article (or a keep argument could be made as a spinout from a prose article) but they are not notable enough to stand alone. Finally your claim that Colchester (a town probably not known outside the UK) is as notable as London (a city which can be identified worldwide) is as flawed as it is irrelevant. What matters for this article is the depth and breadth of coverage of each place's bus routes in reliable secondary sources - London has a wealth of these; Colchester will have at most 1 perhaps 2. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 07:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you actually even read the article! There is no timetale there, all there is is the frequency and in one case first and last bus times. That is not a timetable. The definition of that is - A public transport timetable is a listing of the times that public transport services arrive and depart specified locations. It isn't a travel guide either, as it does not have sufficient infromation to be one. See the links you posted in your first message on this page. Try and pinpoint one particular thing somewhere in those guides that I have on the article, that are not suppose to be there. You won't find any. How about you try finding some secondary sources (that in your opinion are good). See how hard it is. What does it matter if the article would stay, if you don't want to read it, fine don't, no one is going to make you, but leave it for the other people who would want to read it. Stuart.Jamieson, what is YOUR personal experience with buses, because if you don't have any, perhaps it would be better to stick with pages (even for deletion) that contains information you know about, rather than trying to delete things, you may not even understand properly. To Oakshade, thank you so much for your support. Needed a lot here. '''Adam mugliston''' (talk) 07:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be a timetable or travel guide, but it's a lot closer to either of those than it is to an encyclopaedia article. I don't need to find "Secondary Sources" because I don't believe there are any, but they are they requirement we set if we can't find them then the article does not deserve to be on Wikipedia; and yes it can be hard for some subjects but putting in the hard work is worthwhile when it reveals better sources and makes a better article if they aren't available at all; the article should not be on wikipedia because an encyclopaedia is a high quality work and articles should at least have potential for becoming high quality. A list of Bus routes only does that in rare cases - for the rest, a prose article discussing bus transport in the particular region is capable of becoming much higher quality and being better sourced. My personal experience of buses (not that it's relevant) - Aside from using them over the past 30 years (though I prefer using trains); I have numerous friends who work for Alexander Dennis and I could tell you lots about the construction and design of the buses on the routes you seek to list. Personally I work in a service industry with connections to the Bus industry and regularly carry out operations that affect and are affected by service bus (and other transport) operators - Both logistically redirecting bus routes on behalf of a local authority and our private clients, managing vehicles at particular stops/venues, managing queues of patrons at stops, I've worked directly for Brian Souter as a client managing a large private bus system on behalf of the Stagecoach Group so yes this is an area I have experience in and I see the advantage in private sites maintaining this information - but it is not something of encyclopaedic value except in exceptional cases such as London. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 08:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is actually quite good experience. With that we could make a good article together. Why not? How about I'll tak ecare of the route and frequency part and you write about the bus type (I have a source for that). That could give this page great potential. Two experienced users who work together could make great things!'''Adam mugliston''' (talk) 08:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but it's not a subject that I would enjoy writing about, if I did it would be bringing work into my hobby which I only ever do on a small basis (correcting some facts on my employer's article, adding some detail to the article of a film I worked on) - If you wrote such an article I might do copy-editing on it but that would be my limit. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 09:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to include that on the list (with the name changed). If you could only tell me of some source that could help, and then copy-edit that would be great! I could then make the pagew survive, if you please give me some time to add the things to it. '''Adam mugliston''' (talk) 09:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Many urban-suburban railway operators with articles here have route maps and some have route lists with photographs of stations, areas served, station opening and closing. Focus is on the service the operator provides over established routes. I note this article lists the operators at the top. From a public transport point of view, the routes might be listed by operator, and linked to operator articles, as it is done for rail transport. It is entirely possible that operators would change over time due allocation of contract to operators by way of bid and selection and proven capacity to provide the level of customer service the Essex County Council's Passenger Transport Unit specifies. If the article were to be redesigned by Operator listing for routes, then I would advocate Keep. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whiteguru, the detailed sections lower down are, because routes 1,2,5,6,8,8A are operated by one operator, while routes 61-68 are operated by another, these are the only routes that will have a detailed section. They are listed by operator, although it is not specified on the article. '''Adam mugliston''' (talk) 10:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I totally agree with everything Stuart Jamieson has said, and it would be tedious to repeat it, but there is another important aspect that has not yet been addressed. If this type of aticle including detailed information on bus frequencies, start/finish times, weekend services etc. exist they can and will be used as a source of information by bus users who will find it easier than tracking down the bus operators' own sites. If the articles are not rigourously updated there will a serious risk that Wikipedia will be carrying misinformation. I have no doubt that Adam has the enthusiasm to do this now, but in seven or eight years time he may be at college, have a girlfriend or whatever and move on leaving these lists as a forgotten cobwebby corner of Wikipedia. If this was a list of sweet shops in Colchester someone taking their children to a shop found on WP, which had since closed, they would have dissapointed children but no real harm done. A single mother with a hungry baby waiting by a country lane in ten years time for a bus service which no longer operates at weekends, although it is shown on the WP page she has googled on her mobile, might be in a more serious situation. Do we want to risk some young person being abducted, raped, and murdered because they have followed out of date information on WP? Given the number of people who now use WP as their primary source of information this is not such an improbable scenario.--Charles (talk) 13:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charles, that was a highly improbable, extremely negative scenario. There is a reason for which there is a date at the top. It says on what day the routes are valid. If the date is from 2 years ago, then someone will proably think about it, that things may have changed and it would be good to double check. I do go over my pages around every 1-2 months to check they're up to date, like I have recently done with Ipswich. As you may have seen, I know have found many secondary sources, that I have been adding for the last couple of hours. Also, route 6 has now got a History sections (which has appropriate references) and I am searching for more information. '''Adam mugliston''' (talk) 13:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's certainly the potential for harm to people who rely on Wikipedia articles, although I'd suggest Charles' enthusiasm might be better directed towards Home wiring or First aid. The consensus is that the Wikipedia:Risk disclaimer is sufficient, and we need not worry about the risk of harm from people following Wikipedia's advice (although I'm personally a long-term advocate of giving a great deal more prominence to the disclaimer links that appear on every page).
The argument Charles makes doesn't traditionally carry much weight at AfD except in as far as it refers to biographies of living people (although in that case any risk of harm to a living person trumps almost everything).—S Marshall T/C 14:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charles, see the WP:Disclaimer. Your fear mongering is frankly utterly irrelevant to this Afd. If that's your only (stated) objection, I think its going to be completely ignored. MickMacNee (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly stated that I share all of the objections raised by Stuart and it is not "fear mongering" to point out the real possibility of public harm and damage to WP's reputation from this type of unencyclopedic article. Wikipedia is not a travel guide.--Charles (talk) 16:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added 20 secondary sources. They are from the local newspaper and from an independent bus enthusiast who had his own page.Almost everything is now covered by a primary and a secondary source. I am still searching for more. '''Adam mugliston''' (talk) 14:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't intend to vote per my general stance in the Rfc. But if Stuart wants to start citing the Rfc in Afds he needs to get it closed with an independent summary. Second, if he wants to quote people's comments in it, he should inform them, as in my case he's got my meaning wrong - I was simply demonstrating their fixed nature, not their non-independence from authorities (and as said in the Rfc, there's not much point obsessing about that, as in all areas of the UK except London, subsidised networks mostly overlay commercial ones, the only difference is usually time of day). While subsidised services are designed by authorities, commercial ones aren't - but they have to registered and therefore cannot be changed willy nilly. Diversions, even long term ones, are irrelevant on that score. Whether these all appear on one map or several is generally pot luck and not indicative of anything. But I would tend to agree, maps are only usefull for verification, not asserting notability. I would finally note that Stuart has clearly stated he has no intention of looking for secondary sources - and as such, his comments should be weighted acordingly per WP:BEFORE. And per BEFORE, all this talk of converting this to a general article about buses in Colchester tells me that it would be rather pointless deleting the list of routes until then, as it would form a large, verifiable, section of that article. And as an article section, it would have no need to demonstrate notability at all. MickMacNee (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC

I am intending to change the article to Bus routes in Colchester, in which all of what is there now would be included, plus some things I have found about about the 1950s and 1960s transport. Stuart, I have found that the Colchester bus network does come from a tram system. If you would like to see the source, reply here.'''Adam mugliston''' (talk) 15:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mick I'm quite happy to do so but wasn't sure of the procedure for un-archiving it preserving any relevant history and without breaking the archive. I intended to do so when User:Rcsprinter123 was discussed at administrator noticeboard incidents as he also primarily creates/edits these articles and it seemed pertinent when one user suggested he should concentrate on these; however I can find nothing in Wikipedia:Archiving that tells me how to reverse the process - If you know/are able to do so I'd appreciate it; However I do not cite as a reason for deletion, I cite it as an important debate on the subject which contains many similar arguments against these articles but clearly it is neither a policy or guideline even if closed by an independent admin - For the same reason previous AfD's even when closed independently do not become policy though they can be cited when making changes to policy. Secondly I don't see any policy that requires me to inform you that I'm quoting you unless I'm directly accusing you of something, If you feel I am accusing you of something I'd like to know what it is or like Adam I suggest you discuss me at Wikiquette alerts not here. Thirdly if you say they are fixed by *someone* (which I draw from your quote) then that someone is not independent when discussing the route - as you agree that the map is only good for verification rather than establishing notability I don't see any need to discuss my argument further other than to say I was not expressly drawing my conclusion from your quote but also from personal experience. If you quote WP:BEFORE in relation to my comment "I don't need to look for sources", please note my previous comment "I don't see any sources that would save this article in it's current form" I had already searched for reliable sources that discuss the subject as a whole and found none, Adam's continual asking me to provide him with a source that I could not find and did not believe existed prompted the reply that I had no need to search (beyond everything I had already done) for a source that would save the article as I did not believe one existed - that does not mean I had not searched at all and in a reply where you accuse me of misquoting you, it would appear prudent for you not to do the same to me. Finally if such an article were to be created this should be the place to discuss such a change and the article should be incubated pending such a change - again this is the place to discuss incubation. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally have asked at Administrator Noticeboard Incidents how to get closure of the RFC, but not had response yet. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart, I am not asking you to find sources for my areas of expertise. What I would like is maybe a website you know of, that contains some of the information you say you know about buses, as this could help me make the page better. As you said: "I could tell you lots about the construction and design of the buses on the routes you seek to list.", I would assume you know of a place/thing that contains the information that you could tell me about. Particularly, if you know about the buses in Colchester, it would be a great help. '''Adam mugliston''' (talk) 17:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adam, You have already been given information: Redrose64 told you to look for "write-ups in Buses Magazine", I suggested "Colchester 1904-2004 Trams to Arriva" by Collins and Mills at the link above, There are other sources such as "Eastern National and its Predecessors - 60 Years of Service to Essex 1930 - 1990;" by Dodson as well as the "Busmopolitan" one you found yourself; but these do not help the notability of this article in order to help save it - they do build further notability for a Buses in Colchester or Buses in Essex article. Why not start a userspace draft of a prose article and when it meets our policies of Notability and verifiability based on sources such as these then move it into article space (if you're not sure if it meets them you can add it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Buses#Review, or Wikipedia:WikiProject Essex#Assessment and get feedback from those wikiprojects) articles such as Buses in London are a good template, but the list here should be contracted and inserted into the article in the way that something like First Edinburgh does it, not spun out into a separate article. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 19:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm intrigued. Why would Adam jump through all these hoops when he has a perfectly acceptable list to work on right now?—S Marshall T/C 19:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to change the name of the article to what you suggested, Stuart, so that the "Busmopolitan" builds the notability. I found a source for the bus system in the 50s and 60s, as I mentioned before, and I will go to my local library to try and get the books you mentioned (I assumed they're books, tell me if I'm wrong). Could we just please vote for keep, just for know at least, as 4 days won't really be enough to transform the article. '''Adam mugliston''' (talk) 20:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I would be willing to consider accepting userfication of the material until it met the general notification guidelines, but the question would then remain over similar articles you have created that remain unsourced (or sourced only to primary sources). If this AfD closes on that basis, would you consent to having them also moved into your userspace until you had similarly improved them as well? Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 20:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have managed to get hold of Eastern National..., it will arrive in a couple of days. Unfortunately, Suffolk Libraries do not have Colchester 1904-2004... and I can't find archive issues of Buses Magazine. I do have some sort of old magazine behind my sofa, and I'll look through them for info, they're from 1978. I'll see if I can get to a WHSMith or something similar to see the latest Buses Magazine. Yes, I suppose they could get moved, but if someone would be willing to help out with finding sources for the rest. It's pretty hard work and I have some very important exams coming up (though I still have loads of time). '''Adam mugliston''' (talk) 20:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my mind, and I think I would prefer the Winchester and Andover (at least) pages to stay. It will be very hard to find sources from there, as I'm not from that area and Suffolk Libraries, don't tend to get books on local history of other counties (except London). As for the Suffolk ones, they can be moved to my userspace.'''Adam mugliston''' (talk) 21:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - I despair if this is what Wikipedia is coming to. Stuff like this doesn't belong here, it belongs on Wikia where all the Duane Dibbleys of this world can work together on a new version of FantasyBusWorld™. Wikipedia is not a directory, not a place for hobbyists, not a place for bus spotters. Stuart Jamieson speaks a huge amount of common sense and I applaud him for bringing this to AfD. --Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 23:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal dislike of the topic has absolutely no relevance to this Afd. And admin who even thinks about giving your opinion any weight is on a fast track to desysopping tbh. MickMacNee (talk) 09:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~, per Simple Bob. It's not a matter of whether the sources may or not may be sufficient and reliable, or whether they change or not. The matter is that the content is meant for an area that WP doesn't dwell that much into. The work done is very solid, and a very good source of information for the proper channel, it is just too fine grained to belong here. Anything on the history of the lines and any impact of them is more than welcome, just verify, don't research, and be neutral - frankie^MR (talk) 02:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and reformat as Buses in Colchester, as suggested below by Adam and S Marshall. The only thing I see a problem with is the timetables, the lines themselves are encyclopaedic - frankieMR (talk) 19:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I hope you noticed, the whole timetable is not in the article. I include the frequency and first and last bus times, but no the whole thing. Adam mugliston Talk 19:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

frankie, I am beginning to include Hisory sections, but you must understand it is very hard to find appropriate sources, when you are not from the same county, as local resources are hard to obtain from other places.
I understand, and i do support userfication of that material so you may work on it properly - frankie^MR (talk) 16:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are pretty clear personal attacks being traded here between both editors, which is unacceptable.
Stick to commenting on the content, or not at all. MickMacNee (talk) 10:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Simple Bob, You're saying that hobbyists (like me) and bus spotters are not allowed on WIkipedia. What next? Black people are not allowed on the English Wikipedia? You are almost being racist. If you have read the whole of the talk, you would have understood, what is going to happen. The article will be transformed, with lots more history. If you don't understand buses and everything that goes with them, please don't get involved with this discussion. '''Adam mugliston''' (talk) 07:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Racism? Really? That sort of response is exactly why children make such problematic Wikipedia editors. Such editors think they own their articles and seem to take personally any criticism of those articles, resorting to increasingly desperate responses and feeling the need to respond to each and every point made on a talk page. Your time would be much better spent putting your Pokemon cards in alphabetical order. Leave Wikipedia to people who are mature enough to understand what is needed to write an encyclopaedia. --Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 07:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For your information I do not have stupid hobbies like Pokemon cards (what are they?). I am mature for my age and not a little child any more. I do not take crticism personally, but want to protect the page from people who don't have a very good reason for deleting. Your time would be better spent minding your own business. I do reply to every post, because people don't understand that the page is getting a makeover. I will not leave Wikipedia.If you don't like me being here, you can leave. I'm staying '''Adam mugliston''' (talk) 07:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simple Bob, I suggest that the reason your comments are sometimes "taken personally" is that you have a tendency to comment on contributors, rather than content. Try approaching this differently, and things might work a whole lot better. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Simple Bob~~frankie quotes WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, but I don't see which of these is a reason for deletion. It's verifiable that there are bus routes in Colchester. It's not original research to list them. And the list certainly maintains a neutral point of view.—S Marshall T/C 14:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I quoted those three policies and not Simple Bob (AFAIK), and not as the reason for deletion of this article. I've modified it for clarity - frankie^MR (talk) 16:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for that error!—S Marshall T/C 11:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep bus routes for a large (pop: 100,000+) city in the UK. Useful and informative. The Steve 09:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a directory, not a travel guide. There are better places to look for this type of information.--Charles (talk) 12:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What limits do you then draw on usefulness and informativeness for a large city - A List of Public Toilets is useful and informative and verifiable does it deserve a place? Of course today these are becoming rarer so what about more common things, I've already discussed footpaths above; but what about a list of all the Pizza Shops in a large city it's useful, informative, verifiable and if local papers have discussed the cities pizza shops from a common angle (comparison of them, walking tour of them, council regulations that affect them all) it may even be a notable subject? Surely Useful and informative is no better than saying "I like it so it should stay" we need a bar for inclusion as we cannot contain every indiscriminate list of things within a city that people think are "Perfectly acceptable" for inclusion here - For every other article we set that bar at a measure of how writers and scholars have noted the subject by discussing it in their work - no-one has done that here. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 13:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The pizza shop one is a good idea, I could help with that. I quite like the idea of bars too. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on a low carb diet, any suggestions of lists for me? Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Useful" and "informative" are listed on WP:ATA and not generally given much weight at AfD discussions; but the rebuttals seem equally weak to me, in that as I've said above, the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy. Nobody's suggesting Wikipedia should publish a list of pizza shops in Colchester.
As a "keep" !voter, I could make a similar argument. I could say, "if we delete this then we ought to delete all the lists of buses on the encyclopaedia!" But that would be a slippery slope argument too, and contrary to usual AfD practice, so I have avoided making any such statement. I do urge that the "delete" camp refrain from such arguments as well.—S Marshall T/C 14:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a slippery slope, I'm not saying "if we allow this article to exist; other articles will come to exist as well" which is the slippery slope - I'm saying we set a bar for the existence of other lists and asked TheSteve where he considered that bar should be placed - currently yourself and others are arguing for a bar that is easier to cross than the bar set by any notability guideline currently on wikipedia. Even gazetteers hav a level of notability above which they record things and below which they ignore it. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do think it's a higher bar than, say, WP:PORNSTAR.—S Marshall T/C 15:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that case you'll be able to find reliable secondary sources that will show that these routes have:

Has won a well-known award such as the UK Bus Awards or UK coach Awards.
Has received nominations for well-known awards in multiple years.
Has a unique history or is a uniquely important route such as The Witch Way
Has been discussed multiple times in notable mainstream media (such as a nationwide TV news report, or nationwide newspaper)

If not then then the bar isn't even as high as a Pornstar, much as you may think the subject is more useful than lists of those working in the Adult Entertainment business. I can't find sources that meet any of these requirements. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 21:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, hardly. Pornstars get articles when we're missing basic biographical facts (e.g. their names, nationalities, ages) and those AVN "awards" are issued by the bucketload. There are better targets for deletionist zeal than bus routes!—S Marshall T/C 22:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If they don't meet the bar that has been set for pornstars then they are eligible for deletion - feel free to go right ahead to prod or AFD them you appear to have the knowledge to make such a call - I do not and have no interest in gaining that knowledge. For buses there is currently no bar set other than GNG and the article fails it, it also fails hypothetical notability guidelines for buses such as the one above, unless of course you are proposing the creation of a guideline that all lists of routes are automatically notable despite a lack of reliable secondary sources analysing the subject (something that is nearly always disputed by everyone except it appear by bus enthusiasts) in which case go ahead and try writing and getting consensus for such a guideline before trying to use it in AfD. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I realise that it's your position that this article fails the GNG. Mine is that it passes, because as I've already explained—and with all due respect for your many protestations to the contrary—a map is a source and a map from an independent publisher with editorial oversight is a reliable source. I thought your arguments based on WP:NOTTRAVEL were stronger than the notability one, although still mistaken.
I've never liked subject-specific notability guidelines and I generally prefer to apply the GNG in all cases, it's much simpler and more consistent that way.—S Marshall T/C 23:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we were to consider a map secondary for the purposes of General Notability Guidelines (it's not) it still doesnt "Discuss the subject in detail" (it just gives a general overview) and GNG says "'mutiple' sources are generally expected" to establish notability so the article would still fail GNG. This material would have a better home on the UK transport wiki on wikia where notability is not any requirement for inclusion. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 04:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but, all that means is that we need two different maps by two different publishers: hardly an insurmountable obstacle. I agree that a transwiki to the UK transport wiki would be appropriate, but it's not necessary to delete this list in the process, since this list consists of appropriate content for Wikipedia's gazetteer function.
The GNG evolved in order to deal with marketing spam, Stuart.Jamieson. Its primary purpose is still as an advertisement-removal tool, as well as to require sources to prevent false claims. The GNG was not intended to prevent good faith users writing uncontroversially true material that end-users might actually want to look up.—S Marshall T/C 08:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Preicsely, two maps are not a problem. But the UK Transport Wikia? Think about it, how many people know of Wikipedia? 100 million? more? And how many people know of the UK Transport Wikia? 5 thousand? 10 thousand? Maybe 50 thousand. No more. There's no point putting it anywhere else, as on here it is far FAR more likely to be read. Adam mugliston Talk 08:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If one map fails to discuss the subject in detail, then two are still going to fail that. That said No Original research found that while maps could be any type of source, they could not be used to confer notability of the subject - just for verifying other facts. Having multiple trivial mentions is never a reason for creation of an article. Also on your other point WP:GNG was adapted from WP:NMG which came into being because articles were being created for artists/songs that were not of enough notability to be of use to our readers outside of a minority of specialist users who would be better off at a site like wikia. - Early versions of GNG do focus on marketing issues but these have largely been taken up by specific guidelines such as WP:CORP and WP:SPAM whilst GNG still remains. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 10:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion you link was about roads, and it's important to consider its context and intended scope. To quote User:COGDEN from that discussion: We are not omnicient or smart enough here to codify, in a vacuum, when you should and should not use maps in all circumstances.

In parallel with that discussion on roads, I've already said that I don't believe a map is sufficient to confer notability on an individual bus stop or a single route. That would be too narrow in focus for a useful gazetteer. (This parallels the previous discussion's conclusion that a map can't confer notability on an individual road.) But I think it's reasonable to extrapolate that a map can confer notability on the public transport network of a city.

A corollary of this view is that a map could confer notability on the road network of a city, by the way, although it's not necessary for us to decide that issue here.—S Marshall T/C 10:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart, I thought we agreed on temporary userfication, isn't that right? '''Adam mugliston''' (talk) 14:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adam, while I'm open to the idea of userfication it is the decision of the closing admin not me that decides whether it will be userfied or not. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, right. Who is the closing admin, then? I thought it was you as you started the AfD. Adam mugliston Talk 15:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:AFD#How an AfD discussion is closed, where it says "an uninvolved (i.e. one who has not participated in the deletion discussion) admin ... will assess the discussion". So, it can't be the nominator, who is very much involved (even if he had made no posts other than the original rationale). --Redrose64 (talk) 19:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Thesteve. Rcsprinter^{Gimme a message} 19:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stuart, after reading your reply to S Marshall, one questio comes to mind. How come no one nominates coach routes, with their own articles, for deletion. What's so notable about them? Adam mugliston Talk 21:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are regularly look here at least 334 (also including route lists) have been taken to AfD with 145 being deleted and further 55 failing to reach consensus. And that's just ones that actually use the term "Bus Route" there may be others that use more specific terms. There are also many more that I can't list that have been redirected to operator or "buses in foo" style articles or have been Proposed for deletion and not contested or even simply Speedily deleted. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart, these were examples of extremely notable pages. They have large hisotry sections, Do not give the whole timetable, summarize the route, everything's perfect! Adam mugliston Talk 07:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is no argument that if this were a tram, subway or even trolley bus network then it would be seen as an inherently notable topic, being of significant importance and relevance to our encyclopaedic coverage of the settlement and a network of bus routes are equally important to a city. There was a comment a long way upthread regarding systems that had descended from streetcars. In the UK we call them trams, and Colchester had them between July 1904 and December 1926 (source: [17]), so it would seem that this system meets that suggested criterion for notability. Indeed were a tramway decommisioned today, it would not be encyclopaedic to ignore the bus network that succeeded it, WP:RECENCY would suggest that ignoring it because it happened 80 years ago would be equally unencyclopaedic. Stopping our coverage of the system at any arbitrary point between then and now would be equally unprofessional (unless it's just to split it over more than one article for length issues, c.f. History of rail accidents (1950-1999)). Thryduulf (talk) 08:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The other systems you mention are all permant features of the landscape, part of the fixed infrastructure. It is disingenuous to pretend that the modern bus routes have any real relationship to a tram system that ceased as long ago as 1926. A feeble excuse for trying to keep a stinking pile of original research.--Charles (talk) 09:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And Adam, your signature is very bright and distracting. Would you mind toning it down a bit?--Charles (talk) 09:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not original research. It is all referenced,a lot with secondary references. My signature is suppose to be bright. Adam mugliston Talk 09:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The bus routes will have a real relationship with the tram system - the current generation of routes are descended from the previous generation which are descended from the previous and so on. Unless there has been a radical shakeup of bus routes in the interim (I don't know, but it's not a common event in most British towns and cities) then you'll probably find that the system is not that different to how it was in 1930. There will have been expansions and contractions of the network, some numbers will have changed, and there will be minor changes here and there as road layouts change and business moves, etc. but these are all incremental things and if Colchester is like most cities you'll find that the core routes change very little, because people still need and want to get from A to B. Once you actually start to look at the facts rather than assumptions, you'll see that far from being transient entities public transport networks of all sorts have long histories of evolution - which is why people write books on them, such as the ones being used to reference this article. Thryduulf (talk) 09:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thryduulf, I agree. I have a source, where there is a list of the bus routes from 1933 and 1959. The numbers have all changed but the routes are very similar. Adam mugliston Talk 09:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The other systems you mention are all permant features of the landscape, part of the fixed infrastructure". Three things on that point. First, they are clearly not permanent features of the landscape, since they aren't there any more. Second, bus systems do also have infrastructure in place to support them - in this instance, the location of Colchester's main bus station is apparently some sort of controversy that attracts endless mind-numbing commentary and reporting in local and some regional newspapers (Adam, you should be able to find something on that if you look hard enough). Third, bus routes do also have infrastructure in place to support them along their lengths; things like specific kerb improvements installed at particular points, bus lanes ranging in length from a dozen yards to half a mile or so (some of which are not just repurposed sections of existing road; they have separate newly built sections of road, their own independently run sets of traffic lights, etc) and the electronic bus expected-arrival information boards which are now not just in the town centre but also increasingly present along the suburban lengths of the routes. These minor infrastructure improvements also garner some limited coverage in printed references. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thryduulf,There are no sources that are books and simply list bus routes - There are historical books that discuss the history of public transportation system in Colchester and I have no problems with an article like that being written similar to Buses in Bristol or Buses in London and including some detail about the route numbers and how the routes have changed (and I would similarly look for List of bus routes in Bristol to be merged into the Buses in Bristol article). Generally Physical Tram systems are major civil engineering works and raise a lot of secondary sourcing in their construction and dismantling - as bus routes are simply constructs with no physicality they don't create as many of these sources which is why this subject is sourced in a way than shows no notability for the existence of a pure list. Instead sources discuss all related subjects type/model of bus used in colchester over the years, key planning issues about route changes over the years and so on - Ideal material for a non list article but this article isn't it. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 11:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart, this is going to be Buses in Colchester. I'm afraid it can't be done yet, because I don't think I can change the name during and AfD process, but that is what will happen. Adam mugliston Talk 11:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adam, you don't own the article so ideally consensus on this AfD should tend towards the goal that you are suggesting - that is the userfication of the material. Arguments for Keep rather than for Move/Userfy could lead to a consensus where if you wanted to userfy/move later it could be seen as against the consensus to keep it in the current format at the current location. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 11:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adam's recommendation is probably best summarised as "keep and rename", I think. The "userfy" position was based on his earlier misapprehension that the AfD nominator controls how the discussion is closed.—S Marshall T/C 12:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely what I meant to say, might have not worded it properly. Stuart, I know I don't own the article. As S Marshall just said above this, I vote for Keep but Change Name/Format, as I think it's best to make it Buses in Colchester. With this were all in agreement, because you said yourself that would be notable. Adam mugliston Talk 12:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename/reformat to Buses in Colchester, which is where the real notability and encyclopedic potential for this topic lies. A list of present routes in the town is reasonable, but would be even better as a component of a larger prose article covering the extensive and well-documented history of bus operations in the town (at least one book, two pieces in Buses Magazine and plenty of local news sources cover it). Alzarian16 (talk) 15:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to Buses in Colchester, require expansion of context, and get rid of the ridiculous sections after the list in the first section per all the comments above. There is no way the community can maintain the accuracy of all the routes and timetables that are in the article, and they are subject to such variation and change that we are very mucch likely to be spreading unverified misinformation in the near future. Direction to the websites where readers can find the time tables and actual stops on route would be much more preferable, Sadads (talk) 13:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - until rewritten as Buses in Colchester as nom - The article creator has continued to work on the article during the AfD but all those edits have been to expand the detail of the list without establishing notability for the subject. The creator has on his own talk page stated that his only interest is in "the routes and timetables" and I have reservations that if moved instead of being userfied the same non-notable content will remain just in a different location. It is better that he be encouraged to rewrite as prose in his own userspace rather than continuing to focus on list formats. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 20:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This will be made into Buses in Colchester, as soon as the AfD process finishes, as I don't think it is allowed to change the name during an AfD process. As for the quote, my interest in routes also includes their history, which is far more notable. Adam mugliston Talk 13:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly my point, simply Moving the article will not make it better or more notable. Improving the content so that it meets our notability requirements is what is required. The history of the routes is only marginally more notable - so far I can see one source that would establish the history of 6 of the routes on your list back to 1959, 20 years after the Tram lines were lifted (of which there were only 4). That leaves something like 84 routes on your list with no notable history recorded in the source we have so far, and like Buses in Bristol the notable information is in the general history of bus travel in Colchester not solely about the history of bus routes. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to buses in Colchester. Topic is clearly notable as per the mention of secondary sources already listed in this discussion. Whether the original article creator has been working effectively towards inclusion of those sources, or merely has them on order from a library, or has an excessive personal interest in routes and timetables, or whatever else, does not affect the topic's notability. The topic (buses in Colchester) is also covered in secondary sources such as here, here, here, here and others, in addition to the ones already mentioned. The extensive debates above where it's mentioned that bus routes in cities where the routes were established after 1990 are generally not notable, but bus routes in cities where the routes were based on an existing tramway system generally are notable, is a clear indication that notability is met in this case - Colchester's bus infrastructure is obviously much closer to the latter than the former, as has already been acknowledged in this discussion. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with nom that article fails Wikipedia is not a Directory, Wikipedia is not a Travel Guide, Wikipedia Stand Alone List Guideline, Wikipedia is not a list of indiscriminate information. If the article was more general in nature, fine, but it contains far too much detail and timetables that is totally un-encyclopedic as per WP:NOTDIR! -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 12:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL, but also more importantly, because it's a list of bus routes and this is an encylopedia. Just like I don't expect to see an article about benzethonium chloride pinned up at my local train station, nor do I expect to find local transport advice on the pages of Wikipedia. ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 15:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the article and this discussion? The article is in the process of becomming far more than a list of bus routes. Additionally, as shown by articles such as List of bus routes in London and List of bus routes in Greater Manchester such list can be encyclopaedic so deleting this "because it is a list of bus routes" would be like deleing benzethonium chloride "because it is a chemical compound" - just because some are not encyclopeadic does not mean that none are encyclopaedic. Thryduulf (talk) 16:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for assuming that I've commented here blindly, reading neither article nor discussion. However, I actually have read both, and – in common with the substantial number of people who have argued that the list should be deleted – nevertheless feel that the list should be deleted. I didn't notice you badgering the others, incidentally, so I guess I should be honoured to have an additional opportunity to comment. ╟─Treasury Tag►CANUKUS─╢ 21:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The other people who have recommended deleting this list have expressed their opinion in terms of this article, rather than a general class of articles. From other AfDs it appears that some people see "List of bus routes" in the title and then recommend deletion on that basis. Thryduulf (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I might mention, that I have been working on the article in question, to make it more notable. The new History section at the bottom, explains how the tram system evolved and how it became a bus system. Adam mugliston Talk 21:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 15:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Skrime[edit]

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

Possibly neologism; could not find any information on Google. ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 10:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article sounds like something just made up a few weeks ago. Jaque Hammer (talk) 12:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally agree, unheard of music genre made up by a couple of kids in their bedroom, would suggest an entry on UrbanDictionary would be more appropriate. Captain Screebo (talk) 21:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. --Klein zach 08:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEO; non-notable made up word. -MrFizyx (talk) 15:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, more unsourced made up EDM stuff - filelake shoe 14:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Closing over outstanding delete !vote per WP:IAR. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Major League Baseball All-Star Game[edit]

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

OK, so if the 2014 game doesn't get an article, why should this one? -happy 5214 09:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- With a brief nod to WP:CRYSTAL, the 2011, 2012, and 2013 articles do exist; planning for major sporting events has notability and coverage in various independendent third-party reliable sources long before they occur, with the 2028 Summer Olympics being the furthest sourced example ready at hand. If there was a 2014 article, it was not deleted through an AfD, and creation and sourcing are likely only a matter of an interested editor's priorities. MLB.com isn't independendent, but it is certainly reliable about venue coverage. Dru of Id (talk) 09:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or redirect to Major League Baseball All-Star Game as 2014 does. It does not appear a host has been announced yet; therefore, there is little to report on other than random speculation on the host, which runs afoul of WP:CRYSTAL. Note that similar events like the NBA All-Star Game and the Super Bowl do not have articles for future games with no announced site. BryanG (talk) 19:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a future event that will take place. As long as there's a source on it, I don't see why it should be deleted. If there's a source for the 2014 game, I don't see a problem with it having an article, either. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I found some sources for the 2014 game and restored the article, which had been turned into a redirect. This renders the reason for deletion, which sounds like a variant of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, moot. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NOTCRYSTAL allows that "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." The All-Star game is almost certain to take place as it is an annual event. Also there are reliable sources about the planning of the event, one of which is in the article. Arguing deletion of this article because an article does not yet exist for the year before, 2014, should be avoided per WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. The 2014 article might not exist because nobody had an interested in starting it yet, or in the extreme case no reliable sources exists for 2014 but have been found for 2015. I encourage consideration of this article on its own merits. —Bagumba (talk) 19:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw Per Muboshgu and Bagumba. In all fairness, despite being a user for over four years, this is my first AfD, and I was completely unaware of WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. As my point is moot, I recommend closing this discussion. -happy 5214 09:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can be restored for merging or userfied for improvement. Sandstein 19:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu and Buddhist heritage of Pakistan[edit]

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

I am nominating this article for deletion because it is basically a duplication of the purpose, scope and work of Hinduism in Pakistan and Buddhism in Pakistan, as well as Culture of Pakistan and History of Pakistan. There is hardly any distinguished content that justifies this article on its own. Shiva (Visnu) 08:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notes After approximately one year, the content is still poor and undeveloped, not establishing the need for this particular article as opposed to the already existing main articles. In additoin,

"Tangible and intangible heritage" - an observation about the existence of heritage and artifacts, and a quote from the Pakistani Foreign Ministry.
The "Social and cultural influences" sub-section has no citations or references and offers a few random observations.
"See also" and "Further reading" are redundant - links to other articles and a google book.
"Antiquity" states that Hinduism originated in the areas now in Pakistan. No further information, or anything that actually builds a section. Shiva (Visnu) 08:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a POV fork of Hinduism in Pakistanm Buddhism in Pakistan, Culture of Pakistan, and History of Pakistan, per nominator. Carrite (talk) 00:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this article is redundant as per the nominator. However an article on Religious or Ethnic minorities in Pakistan would pass muster, but would require massive editing to be kept.Thisbites (talk) 00:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or redirect content to appropriate articles - Article has a useful place in describing the Buddhist/Hindu history of Pakstian. However if it is kept, requires urgent copyediting, restructuring and notable citations from sources. As nominator already mentioned there are articles on related topics e.g. Hinduism in Pakistan and Buddhism in Pakistan.

I think article requires major sources to back up the information in the article. --Visik (Chinwag Podium) 07:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Visik: But how does the article have a "useful place" in a sense any different from the one that Hinduism in Pakistan/Buddhism in Pakistan already possess? What content matter would be exclusive to this article? Shiva, Lord Black Adder 16:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't think the time commitment needed in saving this would be justifiable given that it is redundant anyway. Kansan (talk) 16:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

North Louisiana History[edit]

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

Unnotable local history publication published by an unnotable local history organization. Lacks affiliation to a university as well.

This article was created as sheer self-promotion and to promote local religious organizations. This article was created by Billy Hathorn (talk · contribs) who authored the article: "Billy Hathorn, "Austin Toliver Powers and Leander Louis Clover: Planting the American Baptist Association in Northwest Louisiana during the Middle 20th Century," North Louisiana History, Vol. XLI (Summer-Fall 2010)." This same user created Louisiana Missionary Baptist Institute and Seminary, L. L. Clover, and Jimmy G. Tharpe, which all source that same North Louisiana History and it is the sole "independent" article to prove notablity of Clover and Tharpe articles are Billy's article. These appear to be merely local pastors with no notable sources and should be brought to AFD. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 21:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since this AFD started, a Richard Arthur Norton has started building a wikipedia article at North Louisiana Historical Association (the local history organization that publishes the above), which is also being listed for deletion in this AFD. This organization fails WP:ORG. It is NOT to be confused with the Louisiana Historical Association, which is completely separate. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 04:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable publication. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep North Louisiana History is loosely affiliated with Louisiana State University in Shreveport, where the back articles are on file, and formerly with Louisiana Tech University. It has been around for some forty years. Much of the contents is written by professional historians. I would think all historical publications would be "notable", particularly those publishing materials by professional historians. Billy Hathorn (talk) 00:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This user created the article for the reasons stated above. I dispute two false claims the creator of this article said. Academic publications are directly tied to a university of university press. University of California Press, for example, publishes 54 journals, but that by itself doesn't make those journals notable. The fact that Louisiana State University in Shreveport keeps copies on its shelf doesn't make it affiliated, academic or even notable.
- Secondly, regional historical associations accept work by amateur historians (people who aren't professionals) interested in local history. For example, this publication will publish people's personal stories, which is hardly academic. Professional historians are people who spent years learning the profession and earned graduate degrees in the methodology. It's obvious, but being more than forty years old doesn't mean its notable. The fact that its so old and there aren't any sources, demonstrate it isn't notable. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 00:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Loose affiliations does not reliable sources make. "Notability" is not a factor of how you or I define it, it is how it is outlined in WP:Notability. Who it is written by is not the issue or a criteria for Wikipedia ("The Encyclopedia that anyone can edit"). The issue is singularly whether or not the subject matter of the article can objectively meet the criteria for inclusion. I understand that this article was created by you, and you feel an affinity for it, but that alone doesn't make it notable. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also delete redirect North Louisiana Historical Association, which was created a few minutes ago along with some changes to the article. 01:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HHaeyyn89 (talk • contribs)

Keep - A third deletion nomination by the same editor who is simultaneously seeking elimination of Louisiana Missionary Baptist Institute and Seminary and L. L. Clover. Wikipedia would be the weaker if any of these challenges succeed, in my estimation. North Louisiana History is the journal of the NORTH LOUISIANA HISTORICAL SOCIETY. I can't think of a single rational reason why an article on that journal does not belong in Wikipedia. Carrite (talk) 02:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of this article solicited/canvassed this vote. 03:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

False claim - I did not solicit Carrite's response but thanked him for his favorable comment on my behalf. Billy Hathorn (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I confirm this. Don't be so quick to cast aspersions, please. Carrite (talk) 04:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Please tell that's a joke given what you wrote here or here.

When I get followed from AFD to AFD by the same group of people who want to keep the articles created by the same user who has a history of creating unnotable articles (see: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Billy Hathorn--warned by the community to stop doing that), and they comment claiming deletion is part of a "anti-Christian bias" (Billy Hathron and Carrite 1 2 3). Then they appear on my AFDs, talking not about sourcing or actual policy, it looks like this is a canvassing on my AFDs. Meanwhile they ignore that this whole time only one secondary source on this has been written in the last 60 years-- a brief mention in a local paper.HHaeyyn89 (talk) 19:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google Scholar doesn't turn up any cases of this journal actually being cited in other peoples' work. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering what you are seeing. Try this search on Google scholar and tell me if you get 129 citations: ["North Louisiana History" OR "Journal of the North Louisiana Historical Association" OR "North Louisiana Historical Association journal" OR "Journal (North Louisiana Historical Association)" OR "Journal / North La. Hist. Assoc."]. Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 03:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking for myself, if you click the link above for google scholar or search for "North Louisiana History" in quote for google scholar you get 17 hits: Not a single one refer to his journal or association, but simply refer to north Louisiana history in general. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 03:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I got only 93, but the first couple pages of hits were articles that had appeared in the journal (under whatever name). There were only a couple of actual citations of articles in that journal by articles in other journals, and I gave up looking through them before I found a journal _outside_ LA that cited one. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand now, thank you. My results and conclusions are somewhat different. I agree that the first 30 hits include 25 that are self-referential citations. Looking at the rest of the citations, I find 13 books, and 38 journal citations in 25 different journals. Under Wikipedia:Notability (media)#Newspapers, magazines and journals Point 4, given frequent citations which I would consider these to be, I conclude that "Notability is presumed". Unscintillating (talk) 00:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This number of citations would be miles removed from what would make a single academic notable. For a journal, this is an absolutely minimal number of citations. Most academic journals get this number of citations in a single week, not over their lifetime. This is not "frequent", it is "very occasionally". As an aside, I find most "keep" arguments here rather lacking in substance. --Crusio (talk) 05:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is your basis for "miles removed" and "lacking in substance"? As it stands, I find that your statement is free-floating opinion. On the other hand, my statement that there are 50 Google scholar citations quantifiably refutes the statement, "Google Scholar doesn't turn up any cases of this journal actually being cited in other peoples' work." Do you think that the closing admin should assign any of the delete positions greater than zero weight? Unscintillating (talk) 14:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is based on several years of experience with the WikiProject Journals and discussions around WP:PROF. 50 GS cites would result in a ~~speedy~~ snow delete decision (in the absence of anything else) if it were an academic. We may expect more from a journal. Given that no evidence of notability seems to be forthcoming (and given that just 50 GS cites is, IMHO, evidence of the opposite), I'm going to !vote Delete here. --Crusio (talk) 16:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see no references given for the assertion that 50 Google scholar cites is cause for a speedy deletion. I also reviewed WP:Speedy deletion and believe that this claim is (to use a term from there) "patent nonsense". Regarding the implied and more-relevant but still undocumented idea for AfD, the explanation does not factor the availability of the magazine. For example, the Journal of Physics (if there is such a journal) is probably available in more libraries and will get more citations than North Louisiana History journal. This also relates to Wikipedia:Notability (media)#Newspapers, magazines and journals which explicitly mentions journals serving "niche markets" as having a presumption of notability. Nor has respondent refuted the presumption of notability that the NLH journal has a "significant history", nor the presumption of notability in that the NLH journal has an "historic purpose". Regarding respondent's implied claim to represent Wikipedia norms, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Vancouver Voice which was kept with one Google scholar citation and one newspaper article (and don't bother looking for The Vancouver Voice in Trove at the National Library of Australia because it is not there, and Worldcat doesn't know when The Vancouver Voice started publishing). Unscintillating (talk) 17:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant "speedy" here in the sense of "very fast", not CSD. As for the Vancouver Voice, I'm amazed that that one was kept, but this falls under WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. As for refuting things: it's extremely difficult to show that something is not notable, as the proof is in the negative (i.e., no sources can be found). However, the procedure here is that those who argue for "keep" produce evidence that a subject is notable, not the other way around. And up till now, I am not impressed at all with the "evidence" that has been produced. The comparison with the newspaper is incorrect. Newspapers indeed do not often cite each other (I guess), but academic journals do that all the time, hence 50 GS cites is a trivial amount. --Crusio (talk) 17:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are here to discuss notability, not popularity–IMO the null hypothesis that North Louisiana History is not notable is not sustainable: given proper citing by the worldwide library systems including Worldcat, ongoing abstracting published in two outside references, academic support with public money through LSUS in the form of office space and library shelving and a web page with a listing of archives, routine citations (50 known from Google alone) by 40 outside sources, the fact that articles published there are WP:RS, the idea that readers would not be able to look up this journal in Wikipedia, and that editors would not be able to Wikilink this journal when using articles published there. For those who want policy citations for this statement, these ideas are discussed in WP:UCS. Unscintillating (talk) 17:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is indeed the null hypothesis and it is up to those who argue otherwise to produce evidence of the contrary. WorldCat listing is absolutely not a sign of notability, however. The inclusion in Historical Abstracts and America, History and Life is possibly different, if it can be shown that these are major, selective databases. If they are and this journal is indeed included, i'll change my vote to keep, but for the moment I stay with the delete. --Crusio (talk) 17:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Crusio's delete rationale. It's a good point, which why I search for this publications articles in those indexes. Nothing came up, as I wrote below and the talk page more than a week ago here Talk:North Louisiana History. Thus, can those who want to keep the article provide an independent source for the claim "ongoing abstracting published in two outside references" or prove "academic support with public money through LSUS from office space." These are wild, unspported claims. We need independent secondary sources. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 19:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep easily meets GNG. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said to you before, an AFD is not a vote. Name one independent non-trival secondary source this has discussed in. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 04:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of North Louisiana History articles (1970-1995) can be obtained at http://nwla-archives.org/indexes/nlhas.htm Billy Hathorn (talk) 22:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How does that help meet WP:BOOK or WP:ORG? Just because you wrote for this publication and chose to create this wikipedia article to promote your work, doesn't make this notable. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 07:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Previously nominator disputes as a "false claim" that LSUS is "loosely affiliated". I don't think nominator can have it both ways, either LSUS is affiliated with the journal, or LSUS is an independent secondary third-party reliable source. Either way, the Noel Memorial Library special collection website source is an indication of notability for North Louisiana History. Unscintillating (talk) 05:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what your point is. Maybe you can explain it? Academic journals are published by academic presses. This is not published by an academic press or even a publishing house. As ill-defined as a claim of "loosely affiliated" is, there is no evidence of it. Unless you're claiming a 16 year out of date index is proof of being "loosely affiliated." Are you? In that case all research libraries are "loosely affiliated" with the NY Times too for keeping the NY Times indexes.

But let's, for the sake of argument, say this local publication is "loosely affiliated" with a university. So what? The fact that its own "loose affiliation" hasn't even bothered to update an index about it in 16 years proves just how unremarkable this publication is. Furthermore, it just means that everyone who want to keep this article doesn't have secondary sources to demonstrate notablity. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 19:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It would be good to have the list of articles updated since 1995. I have no idea why that has not been done. If one looks through the list of articles in North Louisiana History there are several dozen that have separate Wikipedia articles now. So that fact should show notability. Robert Russ, Robert F. Kennon, Shreveport, Louisiana, Hubert D. Humphreys, John D. Winters, many more. Billy Hathorn (talk) 01:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because you created them too in order to promote yourself! You added yourself to Louisiana Missionary Baptist Institute and Seminary (now deleted), Earl Williamson, A. T. Powers, L. L. Clover, Barbara Staff, Robert L. Frye, John Tower, Ray Barnhart, Don W. Williamson, Tedford Williamson, American Baptist Association, Crane, Texas, James M. Collins, Tom Craddick, Frank Kell Cahoon, James A. McClure, John Grenier, Mangum, Oklahoma, Port Lavaca, Texas, Henderson, Texas, John N. Leedom, Sheridan, Arkansas, Jimmy G. Tharpe, Little Rock, Arkansas, Ernest Angelo, Somerset, Kentucky, Winthrop Rockefeller, Hot Springs, Arkansas, Jesse Helms, Plano, Texas, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Pine Bluff, Arkansas, Taylor W. O'Hearn, Sam H. Jones, DeLesseps Story Morrison, Orval Faubus, Edwin Edwards, Albert Estopinal, he even cites himself on other people's alumni pages here List of University of North Texas alumni and List of Southern Methodist University people. (Click on those and look for "Billy Hathorn.") And even more pathetically, for example, he cited one reference in Edwin Edwards, which was his own MA thesis!

Also your references, as adminstrator expects will be removed.

New comment: I am not familiar with the "en.wikipedia.org" source mentioned above, and I rarely use such a reference; didn't know I ever had, actually. Many of the notable alumni lists require notation, and that explains the sourcing of "List of Southern Methodist University people." Billy Hathorn (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closing adminstrator should take note of the RFC about this user creating unnotable articles here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Billy Hathorn. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 17:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Refutation: None of the list that you cite above is non-notable. Any state legislator qualifies for Wikipedia under the rules, and most of that list have gone beyond legislatures. I did not create all of those article but added information to some of them and had to give the source when I added new information. Billy Hathorn (talk) 18:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New comment The above is a different list, and I stand by the content of each article; show what is in error with any of them, and I will make corrections. Many of these cited above are not in North Louisiana History.. There are many in North Louisiana History who have their own Wikipedia article even if the NLH article is not cited in their biographies. This demonstrates that much of what is in NLH is "notable." If there was, for instance, a Journal of South Missouri History, would you asssume that it too is not notable? Billy Hathorn (talk) 17:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment Theses and dissertations (secondary works) are valid sources in any historical journal and are even encouraged. If there is something incorrect in any source, it is the responsibility of the author to ferret out the error and make adjustment. If the author writes a falsehood from what he thought is a valid source, he is still correct, because his information he had was presumed valid, and he has cited the source. Family-supplied obituaries (also secondary works) in newspapers (primary sources) are also presumed valid; I have found only one flagrant obituary error in the past five years that I have written for Wikipedia, and I believe that error came from a family misperception about the occupation of the deceased, not deliberate falsehood. Someone disparaged a "35-year old obituary" as an unreliable source; well, that is when the person died! Billy Hathorn (talk) 18:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The title of the webpage is "Archives - North Louisiana Historical Association Index, 1970-2005 (by Subject)". FYI, Unscintillating (talk) 02:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So? Libraries archive publications they receive. That's what they do with them. Individual issues get bound in larger volumes for researchers and shelf-space. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 17:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at Robert F. Kennon, but it does not cite North Louisiana History or one of its predecessors. I think it is a mis-connect to say that because the journal reports on notable topics, that the journal is therefore "worthy of notice". This is an associational study, and studies showing a statistical association do not show causality. I would agree that if this is all we knew about the notability of the journal it would be a reason to justify more research and to expect to find verifiable evidence of the journal being worthy of notice or attracting notice. In this case, we already have verifiable evidence both that the journal is "worthy of notice" and that it "attracts notice". Unscintillating (talk) 15:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic satisfies Wikipedia:Notability (media)#Newspapers, magazines and journals under points 2a, 2b, 4, and 5, each of which creates a "presumption of notability".

2. have served some sort of historic purpose or have a significant history
4. are frequently cited by other reliable sources
5. are significant publications in ethnic and other non-trivial niche markets

Nominator's opening statement that this is a local journal is refuted by being documented by the National Library of Australia. Unscintillating (talk) 00:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the sources for this publication leaving a "historic purpose or have a significant history"? Sources for being "frequently cited by other reliable sources" Sources that this is "non-trivial niche markets"? You can't assert this without proof. You provide some sources and I'll withdrawal the AFD. It's simple.

That a nation's archive would archive an obscure publication is not surprising. That's what a national archive does! They track down or are given (through several methods) an obscure publication for the country and archive it for scholars. That's why the National Library of Australia has racist publications from obscure, unnotable American groups too. For the record, an academic press would produce about 1000 copies of a book and research libraries and national archives throughout the world would buy it because its from an academic press. That's even for scholarly books that are rarely reviewed and have no academic impact. The fact that this doesn't even fall within these guidelines and you citing its existence in a library does not prove it notable. On the contrary, it shows how hard you've looked for sources, can't find them and don't understand library holdings and archival purposes. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 17:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To make my point by example: one the obscure things the National Library of Australia has is issues of the newsletter published by the Florida Conservation Foundation. Will you also claim this organization's newsletter is a notable publication and create a wiki article on it. Because a library has it doesn't mean its notable. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 17:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New comment I would not object to an article on Florida Conservation Foundation, or North Carolina Conservation Foundation, for that matter, though I am unfamiliar with this organization and would not likely be contributing to said article. Billy Hathorn (talk) 18:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm seeing a lot of assumption as to "because it is a newspaper, it is notable" and "it is in a library in Australia", and "serving non-trivial niche markets" (without proof) and I'm sure the intent is honorable, but those are not accepted "proofs" of notability. I understand it is a contentious AFD, but it seems like there is a lot of grasping at straws, assuming and conjecture, but very little (read: none) actual verification of notability. Seriously, when you have to go so broad as to make a claim that because a library in Australia has a copy, this tends to reinforce the idea that no verifiable sources DO exist. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is difficult here to respond to all of the rhetoric. The nominator has been warned by people in current AfDs and on his/her talk page to tone it down. What more is there to say to someone that rather than agree that it was incorrect to say that the journal was "local", brings the spectre of "racism" into an AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 20:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't really see any need to start calling people racist in this AFD. I commented on his talk page about him simply getting a bit overzealous, which is a common mistake, but I agree with his conclusions that the article isn't notable and surely that doesn't make me a racist. Saying it is a "local" paper (ie: no widespread appeal outside of the general locale) alone is not enough reason to make such claims, and I would dare say is bordering on being uncivil. Everyone would do good to tone down the rhetoric and simply look at the facts. We can disagree on the facts without throwing around labels. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please give your diffs that have examples of "calling people racist in this AFD" Unscintillating (talk) 17:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply brings the spectre of "racism" into an AfD. above introduced the concept into the AFD, which is essentially the equivalent of invoking Godwin's Law, so I fail to see how any additional comments will add clarity to the situation. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Comment: There are several NLH articles dealing with blacks, desegregation, etc. Here is one from 2004: Example: NAACP in LA

"We Are But Americans: Ms. Georgia M. Johnson," Sartain, Lee. Vol.35, No.2,3, Spring-Summer 2004 108-134 Billy Hathorn (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Billy, what's that have to do with the article? I hope you're not trying to imply anyone who wants this deleted is racist.

Can we focus on how this article suffers from a lack of third-party sources and nothing in the article demonstrates notablity? I added the third-party needed tag because everything that's been added are links to libraries that shows this publication exists. No one doubts it exists. The debate is on how there aren't sources demonstrating this is significant to include on wikipedia. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 21:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New comment: The diverse listings of articles printed in North Louisiana History demonstrate its notability. Billy Hathorn (talk) 21:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and SarekOfVulcan Shadowjams (talk) 21:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request:Before this article is deleted, can we see if any other historical journals have been similarly dropped from Wikipedia? And if so, why? Billy Hathorn (talk) 22:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what that has to do with anything here... WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --Crusio (talk) 22:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is helpful to know if deleting historical journals is a common practice, or is just this one being singled out? Billy Hathorn (talk) 00:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up Has any other historical journal been deleted? The Baton Rouge Morning Advocate 2006 article is right about three editions per year. About 2008, the publication was reduced to twice annually. Billy Hathorn (talk) 12:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply yes, other local history organizations more than 50 years old with a publication have been deleted because there aren't secondary sources showing notablity, see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hayward Area Historical Society. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 21:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets the basic requirement for journals, which is being included in the major subject indexing services (in this case, America History and Life , & Historical abstracts.) That's a reasonable standard applicable to all disciplines, and is essentially the equivalent of "significant 3rd party coverage" At worst, merge to an article about the association, which is how we have sometimes handled marginal journals. DGG ( talk ) 23:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This seems like a very reasonable take on this. Carrite (talk) 04:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I searched both those databases and found no evidence of that. That means the NLH website and the 1998 catalog listing is wrong and/or out of date. Furthermore, we don't have an independent source to verify this publication is abstracted by those indexes. In fact regarding this issue, I left a tag on the article (which was removed) and mentioned on the talk page here: Talk:North Louisiana History a week ago. I received no reply.

Also that 1998 reference (#15) is used three times in the article says the publication is quarterly. The wikipedia article says it comes out three times a year. The creator of the article says it comes out twice a year. Which is correct? You need secondary sources to have an article on a subject, not out of date library listings. That is why there is a guideline for notablity. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This AfD should have been closed 24 hours ago, might I suggest that an admin close this ASAP as a No consensus since the discussion has been disrupted by a personal attack with racism added, such that further discussion is itself tending to disruption. The article has been greatly improved during this time, so while a "No consensus" could be challenged again with another AfD, the article is not now and would not then be a weak article in the encyclopedia. Unscintillating (talk) 03:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How so? There are two AFDs. In sheer votes (which an AFD is not it is 5-including nom- to 5 keeps, including the creator of this article and another creator of the Association's article. Or take out involved parties, 4 to 3 in favor of deletion). All but one of the keep votes, having been from people who have been following me from AFD to AFD.

Furthermore, the status of sourcing hasn't changed and doesn't support the claims of those who want to keep. Despite repeatedly inquiries for sources, one secondary source has not proven notablity for either (or both). Posting a link that a library has catalog a former publication "news letter" and another called it "newsletter" hardly merits WP:BOOK.

The fact that this has been published for so many decades and merited one mention in a local paper speaks volumes. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Someone keeps saying that NLH is published three times a year. No, it is now twice a year. That change was made in 2008 or so. It is Winter/Spring and Summer/Fall. For instance, Summer/Fall 2010 is Vol. XLI (Nos. 3-4). Billy Hathorn (talk) 03:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem. Sources on this are scant, hence the all links to library catalogs. Secondary sources, in the last six decades, are close to nil--one mention in a local paper.HHaeyyn89 (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all; I have the most recent copy before me, Vol. XLI, Nos. 3-4, Summer-Fall 2010. It is now published twice a year. The board of directors met on April 17, 2010, and again on May 11, 2010, the latter at the Shreve Memorial Library, Brooadmoor Branch. Billy Hathorn (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the point here is that you can't add the "fact" that it is published twice a year based on your having a copy in your hands. That is defacto the definition of original research, which is prohibited. That is why a citation is required. That has been a concern with articles you write, based on your books, etc. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Oh, come on now, be FAIR. If a journal is published twice a year instead of three times a year, and the dude has a copy in front of him that says it's published twice a year, it's not "original research" for him to make a note of the FACT. Carrite (talk) 00:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply This is ridiculous. The article has been here for nearly a year and the creator has to reference the publication itself and two meetings of the organization (the definition of WP:OR) from last year, to claim to know the publication rate. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 00:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If the publication itself gives its publication rate, that may be WP:PRIMARY but certainly not WP:OR. Rlendog (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'll be of service: this should close as NO CONSENSUS. Carrite (talk) 00:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to ask again: What secondary sources about this publication and/or organization (there are two AFDs) do you have that demonstrate notablity? As discussed above, the citation for how many issues get published is the publication itself. Links to library catalogs do not demonstrate notablity. If this publication is so rich and relevant to wikipedia readers why haven't people/scholars written about it? HHaeyyn89 (talk) 00:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you continue to ignore the article in the Baton Rouge Morning Advocate? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I asked above for secondary sourceS, plural. Guidelines expect more than one non-trival secondary source. I am not ignoring the single local newspaper coverage from years ago. However, that alone doesn't meet WP:ORG or WP:BOOK because you need sourceS to build an article. Furthermore, the quote in that article is "It is published three times a year by the North Louisiana Historical Association, Inc. of Shreveport." The creator of the article says its published only twice. We don't have any secondary sourcing that can accurately describe important matters like how many times this gets published or relevance to society. If it isn't notable for newspapers or academics, it isn't notable for wikipedia. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 05:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article was scheduled to be processed by an admin 48 hours ago. 24 hours ago I asked that it be closed as "No consensus" for complex reasons that included the risk of an admin keeping the AfD open for another 7 days. Instead we remain in limbo. Unscintillating (talk) 03:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I feel that it is bad form to tell the closing admin how this should be closed. The admin will weigh the arguments (not count the !votes, mind you) and make up his/her own mind. Part of the delay may be that few admins may be willing to wad through all the bickering here in search of the few solid arguments. I said above that I would change my mind and vote keep (like DGG) if the inclusion in the two mentioned databases could be verified. However, this appears not to be possible, so I maintain my delete vote. It will be interesting to see the closing admin's evaluation of all this... --Crusio (talk) 07:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on database inclusion: Looking in America: History & Life I find listing of 132 articles using North Louisiana History. EG it lists McCleary, William - Source:North Louisiana History; -Winter/Spring2011, Vol. 42 Issue 1/2, p3-20, 18p - Document Type:Article - Full Text Word Count:2761 - ISSN:0739005X - Accession Number:59867535- Database: America: History & Life

But there are 888 articles listed under one of the suggested other titles in our article: North Louisiana Historical Association Journal.

Looking in Historical Abstracts I could only find one article (But I didn't try with other titles):

RE-DEDICATION CEREMONY OF THE BRONZE TABLETS ON THE GRAVE OF DR. JOHN SIBLEY (1757-1837).Detail Only Available By: Wernet, Mary Linn. North Louisiana History, Spring/Summer2009, Vol. 40 Issue 2/3, p127-127, 1p; Historical Period: 2009; 1757 to 1837 Subjects: NATCHITOCHES (La.); LOUISIANA; RITES & ceremonies; SIBLEY, John; SEPULCHRAL monuments; SIBLEY, Jackson Database: Historical Abstracts

(Msrasnw (talk) 09:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Strange. I searched for Billy's article by author name/title and it didn't come up.

I researched a little more about these databases and I don't know how being one of 2,000 publications in America: History & Life or one in 2,000 publications Historical Abstracts makes each publication, including this, notable. I find it troublesome that an index in a database, means we ignore WP:BOOK and WP:ORG.

Reply. My article is 2010; the index goes only to 2005. That's why you didn't find it.Billy Hathorn (talk) 18:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There simply aren't sources to have an article about this and the keepers can only point to one secondary source from a local paper in this organization's six decades. Anyone find a secondary source about how many times a year this is published? Can the contradictions be fixed? HHaeyyn89 (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: In the past 30 days, 3,466 have viewed the article. Its references are twice as long as the article itself. Billy Hathorn (talk) 12:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because people think its about North Louisiana history (history of the region) or because all the interest of this AFD? HHaeyyn89 (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, there is more than one good independent references, but you have your selective glasses on. There is "Louisiana, the Pelican State" which has a brief history of the journal and the "Baton Rouge Morning Advocate" which also talks about the journal. You just choose to ignore them and use the bibliography listings as strawmen. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I counted 5 for the article and 5 against; only ten stated a position with so many additional comments as well. Billy Hathorn (talk) 01:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More than 3,800 have viewed the article in the last thirty day but very few have commented. Billy Hathorn (talk) 01:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be silly. You've been around long enough to know that AfD is not a vote and that number of page views is not an argument at AfD either (and how many of those views have been related to this AfD and the flurry of editing it has caused, do you think? This AfD has over 500 page views since last week, so I guess you'd think that this is notable, too... --Crusio (talk) 01:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why the harsh statements? I was just trying to summarize the "votes." as they are stashed within so much irregular text. Yes, I know that the vote can be 10 for and 1 against, and the "against" wins. Billy Hathorn (talk) 02:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per DGG. There's a laundry list of items that need to be cleaned up, including sourcing - which, despite claims to the contrary, is not adequate. We do have several references that don't pass muster, and those have been discussed at length above. But there's also evidence to suggest that this journal is (barely) notable, and DGG hit the nail on the head with his comment on indexing. This article can be salvaged. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also - stop vote counting. This will close when it closes, and anyone who expects admins to snap to it hasn't read the wall of text above. It's not (yet!) a trainwreck, so chill out and let ~~some other poor bastard~~ the closing admin do their job. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 15:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix Rising (Deströyer 666 album)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

speedy renomination due to no votes at last AfD. fails WP:NALBUMS. never charted and nothing in gnews [18]. LibStar (talk) 04:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Alexius08 (talk) 06:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above reasoning. Wickedjacob (talk) 02:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 15:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William Heyward[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Longtime unverified BLP. Article contains so little information that I can't tell if this is about him. Note: the first AfD did nothing to improve the article, and I am not convinced by the sources presented there. There is proof that he wrote a few articles, and that there's something not so fresh and clean, but this is hardly a reliable source. Drmies (talk) 04:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 06:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A few articles found at Google Scholar, but nothing striking. The CRO he founded does not appear to be notable. BTW I've been seeing an awful lot of stuff about CRO's (contract research organizations, which do contract work for the pharmaceutical and biomedical industries) lately, and I wonder if there has been some kind of organized push by the CRO industry to create articles and links at Wikipedia; however, a variety of different users seem to have been involved so maybe I'm just paranoid. --MelanieN (talk) 03:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Clearly vandalism, given the information available. I'm also going to redirect this, as it seems to be a reasonable search term for... well, for something. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Major television stations[edit]

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

Article originally from pt.wiki, where it was discovered recently that the informations were edited by a Brazilian TV station [19] (Google translation). The article was deleted (Google translation) due to this and lack of sources and criteria for inclusion. Translated, was brought to here by the same users who were trying to recreated it on pt.wiki today. viniciusmc 02:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any notable third-party agreement of what "major" means with respect to television stations, so this is original research. Worse, most of the entries in this list are not television stations but networks, and only from a few countries at that. If kept, I think those logos have to go per WP:NONFREE. --NellieBly (talk) 03:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete highly skewed list. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 03:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too highly American-centric, and most of the paragraphs describing each network are just the first few paragraphs of their own articles. Not really needed as many other articles cover the subject in better and much more focused detail. Nate • (chatter) 05:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Crosswiki vandalism that could have been deleted earlier if e administrador were responsible enough to check the damage Rede Globo's employees are causing at pt.wp - and, worst of all, the insertion of original research by them WAS ALREADY CONFIRMED BY A THIRD-PARTY, when the brazilian newspaper "Estado de S.Paulo" notes that they were paying people to insert favorable information in Wikipedia, without no sources. Maddox (talk) 05:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and other !voters. ArcAngel (talk) ) 05:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge into Dalton McGuinty and Ontario general election, 2003, as appropriate at editorial discretion. Cenarium (talk) 01:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet (2nd nomination)[edit]

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

"Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for random information" WP:ENC. The previous nomination was in 2005, about a year and a half after the events described in the article. The events may have been newsworthy at the time, giving the impression of notability 18 months on, but now, almost eight years on, the article appears to be nothing more than random information. There are existing articles on the politician concerned (Dalton McGuinty) and the broader event (Ontario general election, 2003), into which the nominated article should be merged.

Rainjar (talk) 02:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The string "Evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet" -wikipedia -dictionary -encyclopedia in Google returns 33,900 hits. Whether that has any bearing on the matter I don't know. Herostratus (talk) 03:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Stephen Harper Eats Babies" has 499,000 hits and we've survived not having an article on that. --NellieBly (talk) 03:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well that's a good point. I'm not saying the article should be kept. I guess the question is, is this something that is pretty much forgotten now, or something which still pops up in occasional references? Don't know. Herostratus (talk) 06:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I understand "lasting effect" to be more than just being remembered. See WP:EFFECT. Rainjar (talk) 07:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, I don't know. WP:EFFECT is a pretty high bar. If an event is notable per WP:GNG (which I guess this one is) and is part of the lexicon, that seems a reasonable level of notability. If a person says "Oh no, this is another 'Evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet' situation!" is someone going to go "oh yeah" or just look at me blankly? If I write a headline for the Toronto Star: "Stephen Harper: Evil reptilian baby-eater from Calgary?" is my editor going to say "No one is going to get that" or not? If not, fine; but if so, then that is a "lasting effect", at least on the political lexicon, maybe. Maybe. Herostratus (talk) 08:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        If you're limiting your frame of reference to the place where the event occurred, you might also like to consider WP:GEOSCOPE. Reliance on WP:GNG doesn't address the reason for this nomination. As expressly stated in WP:GNG, ""Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not.". "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". See WP:INDISCRIMINATE. As discussed below, there is nothing to suggest the phrase has become notable as a broader part of the lexicon beyond its original context. Rainjar (talk) 08:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking long-term notability. It was a stupid comment. If we had an article for every stupid comment made by or about a politician, the servers would groan under the weight of all those extra electrons and crash through the floor. --NellieBly (talk) 03:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dalton McGuinty and Ontario general election, 2003. Aspects of the person and the election. Then redirect to the politician. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 03:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the term itself has ongoing notability as demonstrated in a range of sources (mainly pop culture references), and there's no harm to any BLP in the article remaining in place. Newer sources do need to be brought in, but the article in its present form is sourced in accordance with WP:V and WP:RS. Orderinchaos 06:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A Google search shows no notable usage other than the original political context, which is adequately served by a merger. Rainjar (talk) 06:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not entirely opposed to a merger with Ontario general election, 2003, in the event that that proves to be the option people think is best. Orderinchaos 08:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:EVENT. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 06:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Editing Wikipedia with a constructive motive should have led any editor to do some research before nominating this article for AfD. The Chatham Daily News provides a clear definition for the term: "evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet, a term that surfaced in a press release from the PC campaign of Ernie Eves to describe McGuinty in the 2003 election." [20] There are enough coverage and discussion of this phrase in the media [21] and in GBooks [22] The phrase has also received coverage in scholarly journals [23] WP:IINFO does not apply for political phrases. Yes it is a newly developed political phrase, but it passes WP:RS and WP:N. --Reference Desker (talk) 10:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- An exception for "political phrases"? To be a "political phrase" in the first place, shouldn't it be of broader socio-political applicability, rather than arise merely from a one-time usage, albeit in a political context? The context remains limited to the Ontario general election, 2003, with which it should be merged. Rainjar (talk) 12:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Ontario general election, 2003, the phrase has had virtually no lasting impact. I'm an Ontarian and this debate is the first time in years that I've been reminded of this incident. PK T(alk) 17:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the relevant content to Dalton McGuinty and Ontario general election, 2003. I'm not sure which is a more appropriate target for the redirect though. --RFBailey (talk) 01:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the relevant content to Dalton McGuinty and Ontario general election, 2003. Phrase has had virtually no lasting impact. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 19:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Italian consulate in Vlorë[edit]

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

Not every diplomatic mission is notable, and nothing in particular makes these stand out. For the one in Vlorë, we are told that it's about 90 years old (nothing unusual there, especially considering the close proximity of the countries involved) and that it briefly closed during a war — something that a) every belligerent does to its missions in the countries with which it is at war b) is unconfirmed by the source and c) can, if needed, which I doubt, be covered at Vlora War. For the one in Shkodër, we are told how the consulate staff justify their existence ("duing projects for the local projects") — not exactly relevant stuff for an encyclopedia. The existence of these missions is duly recorded here, and there really is no reason for going further than that. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page:

Delete both fails WP:ORG. Consulates are not inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 11:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. No claim of notability, and it seems very unlikely. Hans Adler 07:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Italian embassy in tirana --Vinie007 17:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abe Donzo[edit]

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

An Everton F.C. youth player who hasn't made a senior appearance at all and therefore fails WP:NFOOTBALL. – Michael (talk) 02:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom for lack of notability. Usual Caveats apply, however. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 01:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails both WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG; recreate if/when he makes it as a professional. Giant Snowman 01:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 10:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, This athlete is now non-notable. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. To keep is to ignore the principles of WP:SPECULATION. Keeping the article would set a perilous precedent, and would instigate a slippery slope for future deletion discussions. If this person achieves notability in future by virtue of his accomplishments, then this article can be recreated at that later date. Overdrawn Invader (talk) 21:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Don't disagree.. although player is now known as Abraham Kumara and is has been involved in the Canada U-20 international team. TheBigJagielka (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 15:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hoodia Gum[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. got a spike of coverage when released [24], but no real significant coverage. just another product. LibStar (talk) 01:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google search finds only places to buy it. Google News Archive finds only press releases. --MelanieN (talk) 23:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable product. Wickedjacob (talk) 02:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) MacMed^talk _stalk 04:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Jordan (swimmer)[edit]

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

Non-notable athlete, when I type in Alexis Jordan Barbados I get few results pertaining to the swimmer and when I type in Alexis Jordan barbadian swimmer I get results but from unreliable third-party sources. I could not find any newspaper articles or interviews with the swimmer. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 11:47am • 01:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:ATHLETE says that athletes are notable if they "have participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level", and Jordan was in the 2005 World Aquatics Championships per this source which appears to be reliable. The national record information does need a source if it is to remain in the article. --bonadea contributions talk 07:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm aware of the notability guidelines for sportspersons, however, outside of her participation in these internation competitions, she has not been in the limelight, nothing is known about her personal life and Google searches for Alexis Jordan return the singer primarily, even when I used specific termsthe search returned links relating to singer and these appeared on almost every single page. What use is it if she's participated in international competitions if nothing else is known about her? It's not adding to Wikipedia AT ALL, the article if anything is useless. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 11:56am • 01:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - How is detailing the major competitions that the subject has taken part in "not adding to Wikipedia AT ALL"? She is notable as a swimmer, so the article concentrates on her swimming, in the same way that articles about musicians concentrate on their music and articles about politicians concentrate on their political activities. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Barbados-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, If she participated at the 2005 World Aquatics Championships then this qualifiers to have participated in a major international amateur or professional competition. Overdrawn Invader (talk) 21:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the subject of the article is only notable for on thing. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 16:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The policy linked there is about people only notable for one event, not for one thing. The subject is notable for her whole swimming career, including the several highlights listed in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's verified that Jordan passes WP:NSPORTS. That most google hits are about the more notable singer is irrelevant. As to the WP:BLP1E comment, I have to agree with Phil Bridger, her whole career is notable per NSPORTS. Jenks24 (talk) 20:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 evoking a bit of WP:IAR regarding timescales. The article is likely getting substantial interest as it's now official. We likely need some editorial changes (for example the proper name of the console when available) but that can be covered by a move or merge/redirect. The original nomination of unverifiable sources (whilst in good faith and likely accurate at the time) has clearly been superceded by events where we have strong verifiable sources. Pedro : Chat 20:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Project Cafe[edit]

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

The sources used (IGN) speak of unverifiable sources giving info on new controller design, HD graphics, etc. It's too early for it to have its own article, and has enough info on it in the Wii article. Delete and redirect. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 01:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You insert IGN like it's not a good source, when in fact it's pretty much at the top of the list of reputable video game sources. You may not like them, but that is irrelevant. The "unverifiable sources" that you speak of are always going to remain unverifiable. Why? Because the only people who would have information on the new console (other than Nintendo employees) are the developers that Nintendo has shown the console to in order to gain 3rd-party support. They don't want Nintendo to know that they've been blabbing about their console because of "disclosure of the invention". They could get in serious trouble for that if Nintendo felt like charging them for intruding the disclosure agreement. However, that's not a good practice for Nintendo, because they might lose support for their new console if they're charging all of the developers for crimes against them. That's why Ubisoft, Activision and Electronic Arts (EA) have openly talked about the console. They're the juggernauts of the 3rd-party video game developers; they can get away with it, because they know Nintendo needs their support. MeleeDude (talk) 21:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- IGN is not a good source. IGN was behind the "portable Gamecube" hoax several years ago. They claimed it was in development until it was confirmed fake, and then they removed evidence from their articles to cover their tracks. heladyacross (talk) 22:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah. IGN's not a good source. I guess that's why so few people visit that site. Or maybe that's why no other video game site ever cites IGN articles... yeah, right. You think one, or even a few mishaps makes a media outlet unreliable? Well, if IGN is wrong, then so is every other video game site on the internet, because they're all covering the same thing. So is every video game site unreliable? MeleeDude (talk) 07:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - IGN has a reputation for unreliable reporting and unprofessional reviewers. You are asking people to take a leap of faith for no good reason. heladyacross(talk) 07:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Oh? I thought I was just asking for the page to remain until E3? But now I'm asking for everybody to put their complete faith into what's written in the article? Very nice. "IGN has a reputation for unreliable reporting and unprofessional reviewers." Really? When did they get a reputation like that? Are you sure you're not just voicing your opinion? MeleeDude (talk) 07:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        No, you are treating the rumors as fact, and expect everyone to accept it. heladyacross (talk) 09:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        What? IGN is definitely a good source. I just don't like how good sources are reporting about unverifiable sources. Read it again. And heladyacross: He's not treating rumors as fact. He's admitted many times that these are rumors. Plus, calling IGN a bad source is just plain dumb. It's a big gaming site on the web. And please, format your replies correctly. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 16:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        If IGN was a good source, they wouldn't report unverifiable sources. It can't be both ways. Meleedude is using logical fallacy to support why this article must be kept. His actions have shown he believes the rumors to be true. He even claimed "this is history in the making." One does not say such a thing unless they believe it to be fact or have blind faith in its validity. heladyacross (talk) 20:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        THANK YOU! At least I can tell that you're actually just debating whether this deserves an article or not. Unlike heladyacross, who is flat out terrorizing the article. MeleeDude (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I tried to debate with you, but since you were unable to counter my argument you immediately began attacking me and using fallacies to support your position. heladyacross (talk) 20:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Why would I bother debating with you? You completely shut your mind off to my argument before you even read it. I don't know how many times I've had to repeat myself to you and then you ask the same questions again. You jumped into this debate without reading/understanding what was already covered. Also, you're the one who started the rude comments; my comments were just increasingly rude in return. MeleeDude (talk) 06:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        So you admit all your responses to me and about me have been motivated by something other than debate. You put words and actions into my mouth and hands. Please stop. heladyacross (talk) 06:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Did you follow-up yet another one of my posts with a rude comment? You speak for yourself. MeleeDude (talk) 06:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Did you ignore anything you couldn't counter and instead throw another wild accusation at me, hoping one would stick? Why, yes. Yes, you did. heladyacross (talk)06:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually, to my knowledge, I've posted a follow-up to all of your posts. MeleeDude (talk) 07:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Both of you: save that kind of arguing for each other's talk pages. Keep to the topic at hand, the article itself, here, not your personal qualms about each other's posting habits. Thank you. Sergecross73 msg me 12:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Right... sorry about that. MeleeDude (talk) 06:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If it's redirected, then there is no need for deletion. Also the fact that the section in Wii was copied from the article means that the article can not be deleted because it's history needs to be preserve for GFDL purposes. SNS (talk) 01:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't redirecting require deletion first? Also, explain how the whole GNU license makes us have to keep the article after it was copied to the Wii article. I've never been familiar with that sort of thing... TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 02:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - No if an article is redirected, it's edit history remains. If an article is merged into another, then the history needs to be preserved. It's the reason why templates like this exist [25]. 02:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
    - So, since it essentially has been merged, you wish for this article just to be redirected to preserve the history? I'd be fine with that. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 16:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A lot of Nintendo rumors in the past have been confirmed. ----iSquishy (talk) 02:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's no basis for the article. "It's been true in the past, so it must be true now." Why not wait until it actually is confirmed? You can't make an article based on rumors. These are noteworthy rumors, and have been included in the Wii article. However, they don't deserve their own article. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 02:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I should also note that iSquishy is the article creator, since he has not disclosed it himself. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 22:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Therefore he has no right to voice his opinion? Glad you're not a politician. MeleeDude (talk) 07:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Where did that come from? I don't see that insinuated anywhere in there. Please, assume good faith. Sergecross73 msg me 12:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Now you're putting words into my mouth. And you seemed to know a lot about the WP rules, too. You can look at this. I quote: "Please disclose whether you are the article's creator, a substantial or minor contributor, or if you otherwise have a vested interest in the article; WP:AVOIDCOI." You don't have to feel personally attacked because I want this article gone and go on to imply that I'd be a horrible politician. Though, to be honest, I probably would be a bad one. I loathe politics, anyway... TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 16:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Fair enough. I'll admit that I was unaware that you were supposed to state whether you are a creator or contributor of the article. I guess I would be considered a major contributor to the article. I take back that comment above. MeleeDude (talk) 18:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: I'd feel better if this wasn't created until after E3 2011 or whenever Project Cafe is formally announced. To Squish: The article shouldn't be created until the rumors are confirmed Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 02:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 02:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No. You cannot delete this article. It is defended by the crystal ball rule. "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view." The sources in the article are a collection of some of the most reputable sources in the video game industry, including Game Informer, IGN, EDGE, CVG, Kotaku, etc. Not to mention Ubisoft, Activision and Electronic Arts (EA) told EDGE that they have had development kits for months! These are the three biggest 3rd-party video game developers on the face of the planet! That information is a source in the article: http://www.next-gen.biz/news/sources-confirm-more-details-on-wii-successor . You couldn't have better sources, except for Nintendo themselves, and they're not going to say anything before E3; they never do. UPDATE: If that doesn't persuade you, CNN just recently did an article on the new Nintendo system: http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/gaming.gadgets/04/15/nintendo.wii.2.mashable/index.html . Case closed. This page should not be deleted according to the Wikipedia rules, because of expert sources and recognized entities. ----MeleeDude (talk) 05:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But remember: Almost everything goes back to that one French website. All of these sources, despite being reputable, get their info from one random French website that does not name where it got this information. Edge's statements from developers are mixed and don't confirm too much. Nintendo themselves has come out and said that these are rumors. Wait until E3 where it probably will get announced, with concrete info enough to give it its own article. Oh, and that CNN article? "Nintendo could be revealing a HD successor to the Wii console this summer, according to new reports." They're writing about the possibility of it. There's a section about that possibility in the Wii article already. This article needs to go. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 11:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - TheStickMan, the whole reason why I posted that CNN article was because it was a "recognizable entity", and all of the other sources I gave were "reliable, expert sources". The exception to the crystal ball rule. As for 01net, they were the ones who (according to CVG) reported the technical specifications of Sony's upcoming PlayStation Portable (PSP2) or NGP (Next Generation Portable) before any other video game source. All of which (speaking of the technical specs.) were later confirmed. So 01net, actually has good credibility right now because of that. MeleeDude (talk) 20:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - What you say... makes sense. I suppose that my main worry is that these rumors aren't substantial enough for it to have its own article. It pretty much has been half-merged with the Wii article already (Half because you only undid the edit redirecting this article, undoing only have of the merge that occurred). TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 22:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thank you. I also feel that the Wii article should have a section about it's successor. However, I think it should just be a small paragraph with the basic information about the console that has a link to the (more detailed) Project Cafe article. I would do this myself, but I am not allowed yet, because I am a new user and the Wii article is semi-protected. I'm having to wait for the four day time period before I can edit semi-protected pages. Information about Project Cafe will seem out of place on the Wii article if the information continues to grow in that section (it's too large and takes away from the focus of the Wii itself). I can appreciate and respect your point of view, but I do feel that it deserves a page of its own. MeleeDude (talk) 00:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, looking at the actual article, it tells me very little about the project itself and more about Nintendo's comments of when to expect a console after the Wii and what it may be like. Not exactly article material... TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 00:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I feel like we just did a 180. Look at these comments, they keep questioning everything I've already thoroughly answered. "TheStickMan" I've already given you my argument. You even said yourself that it made sense. You have your opinion, I have mine. Just keep in mind that I've already proven that this article does not meet the grounds for a speedy deletion, because it follows all of Wikipedia's rules. MeleeDude (talk) 22:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        A 180? Not really. I think ThomasO1989 down below has said what I've been trying to say. By the way, 01net got the NGP specs right? So they're one-for-one. That doesn't mean anything. When IGN got some 3DS some some unnamed sources, they weren't considered reliable. 01net is no exception. We can't make exceptions because a site has previously been right. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 22:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        So you're saying that even though 01net released the technical specifications of the NGP before anyone else even knew it existed... 01net still has not gained any credibility whatsoever? That is ridiculous! Either way, it has no relevance. It seems I will have to repeat myself yet again. It is defended by the crystal ball rule. "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view." The sources in the article are a collection of some of the most reputable sources in the video game industry, including Game Informer, IGN, EDGE, CVG, Kotaku, etc. Not to mention Ubisoft, Activision and Electronic Arts (EA) told EDGE that they have had development kits for months! These are the three biggest 3rd-party video game developers on the face of the planet! Sound familiar? Even if you think 01net is unreliable, there are numerous other "reliable, expert sources" that are cited in the article, and that CNN article I posted established a "recognized entity". This article has both of those things. Do you think all of these different sources and Ubisoft, Activision and EA are just in part of some crazy, elaborate prank? MeleeDude (talk) 02:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        As Stickman said, they're really only 1 for 1. They were right once. That does not make them a reliable source. Furthermore, those sources you're listing, they're not necessarily confirming the rumors, they're merely stating they're out there. They're just "forwarding the information on". They're only confirming they're existence, not truth. Sergecross73 msg me 02:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        You still don't get it. It's not about how verifiable their information is. It's about the fact that it was reported by "reliable, expert sources" and "recognizable entities". Also, the successor to the Wii is a noteworthy subject. That's what makes Project Cafe eligible for an article of its own. MeleeDude (talk) 02:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Weren't you the one praising their verifiability? Now it doesn't matter? Perhaps I should claim that the original source is not 01net, but the mysterious "source" that they claim to get their info from. We know nothing about this source. Do you say that this source is reliable? Besides, IGN did something similar once. They listed some 3DS specs from an unverifiable source. The consensus was to keep them out. Why should this case be different? TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 02:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Careful, you're putting words in my mouth. Nowhere did I say that anything was "verifiable", instead I explained to you why these "unverifiable sources" are always going to remain unverifiable. Reread my post near the top of the page if you have to. The sources cited in the article is what makes Project Cafe eligible for an article of its own. Also, it really doesn't matter what you think of the sources. Would you argue against the claims of Ubisoft, Activision and EA? They say they've had development kits for months. Why would the juggernauts of the 3rd-party video game developers lie about something like that? MeleeDude (talk) 03:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        More rumors. heladyacross (talk) 09:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Hold on. This argument is confusing me. Let me get some things straight: We are arguing about whether or not Project Cafe deserves an article. You say yes. And now I'll say that your argument is half wrong. You constantly quote, "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view." So yes, they can be included. But then you take the extra step to claim that now, it needs its own article, too. You have proven that these rumors need to be included. Now you have to give a good reason why this means it needs an article of its own. (And I don't really think the "taking focus off the Wii article" will really be a problem. And when the NGP article first started, there was much more content than what we have now.) And heladyacross: Try saying something useful and read what was said previously. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 11:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I simply believe that it should have its own article based on the notability of the subject, because of the reliable third-party sources (not the validity of the content). MeleeDude (talk) 18:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I was merely stating that Ubisoft, Activision and EA have not confirmed any of the rumors. Their inclusion is yet another rumor being spread. heladyacross (talk) 14:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        For once, I will admit you are correct. Ubisoft, Activision and EA's inclusion was in a rumor. I misread the article and thought that EDGE had directly interviewed the developers about their involvement. While that does not make their involvement in making games for a Wii successor false, it does mean that those sources are still unconfirmed. Nevertheless, the article still contains numerous reliable, 3rd-party sources and etc. Fortunately, I never put anything about those developers in the article. I only mentioned them on this page and the other talk page to back up my argument. However - if I might add - this is no different than your own mistake near the bottom of this page, when you tried to back up your argument by saying that IGN said the new Nintendo console name would not be Project Cafe, as previously reported, but Stream. However, IGN actually reported that Project Cafe was only the codename and that Nintendo is currently considering naming the console Stream. It seems we're both guilty of accidentally distorting an article's content to back up our own arguments. I say it's best to forgive and forget. Mistakes happen. MeleeDude (talk) 07:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        IGN is the one that claims Nintendo will name the new console Stream. It is still rumor. Now you want to forgive and forget? How about I no longer respond to you, and you no longer respond to me? That's much better because I am done rolling in the mud with you. I did not come here for that. Next time I see someone being rude to another, I will not jump in to defend them. That is what got me into this mess of an argument with you, and I even got attacked by the one I was defending. Well you can celebrate now because I am done here. heladyacross (talk)08:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        IGN said Nintendo is CONSIDERING making the OFFICIAL NAME of the new console "Stream". IGN NEVER said Project Cafe was the official name, but the CODENAME (temporary name) for the successor to the Wii. MeleeDude (talk) 08:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is notable, and needs a split from the Wii article because if you people would expand the article instead of deleting it, there are many more sources out there then what is currently in the article. There is too much information to simply keep in the Wii article. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 13:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Helady: The fact that they are rumors is not what's being discussed. What we're trying to do here is decide whether the rumors deserve their own articles. Saying that "they're just rumors" is not the way to go. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 17:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep IGN is a reputable source and has been revealed that Nintendo will supposably unveil their new console at E3. --Victory93 (talk) 23:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Too many "supposedly"s. I think it's better to wait till after E3 Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 23:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's the beauty of rumors and speculation. But Wikipedia rules (the Crystal Ball rule) allows for it as I've mentioned three times before. "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view." MeleeDude (talk) 00:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you fully understand things though. Speculation is indeed allowed by reliable sources, however, that just justifies their inclusion in a given article, not the justification of the article itself. It's justified in inclusion of a notable article, like the article, but it is not justified in establishing an article itself. It's not notable yet, because its ENTIRELY rumors. Not a single thing has been confirmed. Sergecross73 msg me 12:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you don't fully understand things. Nowhere in the Wikipedia rules does it say that an article based on pure rumors and speculation cannot have an article of itself. It just needs noteworthy sources, and this article is full of them. So, if you have a new rule that you would like to pitch to Wikipedia, go right ahead and do so. If you don't agree that Game Informer, IGN, EDGE, CVG, Kotaku, Ubisoft, Activision, EA, etc., are "reliable, expert sources", and you don't think CNN is a "recognizable entity", then that just sounds like a personal problem. MeleeDude (talk) 02:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Come on now, let's be realistic. Look at this discussion. It's virtually a 50/50 split on delete or keep. (I counted 10 to 9.) And there is extensive discussion going on. Do you really think all of this is because of me "pitching new rules" or my "personal problems"? It's obvious there's a little bit more to it than that. Again, I ask you to assume good faith and don't make it personal. Sergecross73 msg me 13:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That seems fair. My recent comments may sound annoyed, due to the amount of comments I've responded to and heladyacross, who was vandalizing the article. I apologize for that. However, I can't stress enough how significant these rumors are considering so many noteworthy sites have covered it. Not to mention Nintendo has just dropped the price of the Wii from $200 to $170. It's rumored that next month it will drop again to $150... and just less than two months away from E3? That is suspicious indeed and seems to add more credibility to these rumors, because the Wii price drop rumor surrounded the successor rumors and now it's confirmed. Nintendo must be playing up something for a big price drop like that. MeleeDude (talk) 19:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not invoke my name as a shield in your ongoing debate. Do not make anymore personal attacks against me and/or character assassination attempts. Thank you. heladyacross (talk) 21:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have to. You seem to do a pretty good job yourself of assassinating your character, by vandalizing articles and adding biased information to them. MeleeDude (talk) 06:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you're accusing me of adding biased information to a biased article. That's great. I did not vandalize anything. Please stop this. heladyacross (talk)07:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can deny all you want, but I wasn't the only one who witnessed your revisions. The article is in no way biased. Almost every sentence in the article has its own source. If there is biased information in the article, please indicate where. MeleeDude (talk) 08:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're the the one who is attacking everyone who defends the deletion of this article, and especially the other guy. I don't know why you're so interested in keeping it now, since it'll eventually get back later when news regarding this subject gains more substance, . I'm no Wikipedia contributor myself, as you can see, but watching you degrade this site and attacking people at ramdom just makes me so sick I had to say this. Revert this change, guys, if you want, but this guy just can't wreak havoc like this and stay unnoticed. No "forgetting and forgiving." It seems your username fits what you're here for. 189.18.48.84 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Just a note, everything you just said after "It's rumored that next month..." was speculation, and original research. You can't say "more might be revealed later because of these signs". _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as personal opinions go, I agree, it is suspicious. But as Blake said, as far as wikipedia goes, you can't use original research like that. It's almost comparable to like how a judge can say to a jury "strike that from the record" for legal reasons, or how things can be "off the record" and not used in a case. Similar situation here. A Wii price cut, while personally interesting, is completely irrelevant to the notability of the Project Cafe article. Sergecross73 msg me 19:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please, don't get me wrong. I was just adding some simple logic to suggest why there is reason to believe a new system launch is coming soon; I wasn't suggesting on backing up the sources in the article with this argument. It's nothing more than some logic I decided to throw into that post. Sorry for the confusion. MeleeDude (talk) 06:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Stick Man's rationale, and per my comment above. Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Again, speculation may be warranted when by a reliable source, but reliably sourced rumors doe not make a subject notable/justify it's own article. Delete and put any good info into the Wii article in the Successor section. Sergecross73 msg me 12:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The IGN source is still an amalgamation of rumors that cannot be substantiated because no official outlets are talking. This is all a crystal ball of unverified information. When/if this project actually materializes the IGN/reputable publisher content might be useful as background info, but it cannot be the backing source justifying an article itself. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think there are good sources covering the article. While many of the reliable sources are just reporting on what unreliable sources said, we can just say it as not fact. While Wikipedia is not news, this is an important topic, and things will be revealed about it a lot through the next two months. Much can be said about it at the moment such as reported features, developers said to have development kits, and general commentary by reliable sources. If you delete it now, it will just have to be remade in a week or two. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What would be so wrong with just re-writing in a few weeks? It's not like a lot of care or work was put into the article, (The bulk of the rumors started not even a week ago) and the core, more important information would be kept on the current Wii article in the "Successor" section... Sergecross73 msg me 18:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - What would be wrong with keeping it for a few weeks? Kingdom Hearts III is barely confirmed, but it has a lot of reliable sources covering what is confirmed/rumoured about it, and the reaction from reliable sources. I think this kind of article should be allowed. WP:CRYSTAL states that "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 01:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, I think the main difference is "barely". KH3 is atleast addressed by name by the company. No Nintendo rep has ever uttered the words "Project Cafe", as far as I've seen. Also, who's to say we'll know anything more in "a few weeks"? I don't believe Nintendo has any plans for a Press Conference/Release ina few weeks. There's E3, but that's 1.5 months away. Even there, the only indication that they'd mention it there are the same people speculating everything else in the article, not Nintendo themselves. Sergecross73 msg me 19:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I moved the page to Project Café. Sorry if this breaks anything in the AfD process. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 15:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Solid references that there are rumors is not the same thing as fact about the thing being rumored - and that is what is required here. Wikipedia can afford to wait for this article until something more solid is known - there is no hurry here, we are not a magazine trying to scoop a story - we're here to document truth for generations to come. SteveBaker (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ultimately, all that can be substantiated by the references are rumors. This article should wait for the actual announcement of the product. Safiel (talk) 23:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is full of notable citations. Even if the rumors are wrong, the rumors themselves exist and are notable. When information is officially announced, the article can be changed as necessary. 4368 (talk) 23:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So just because the rumors are notable, it means they need an article? Hey, my friend said that GameStop heard from a "Nintendo representative" that Virtual Boy games will be available on the e-Shop. *creates article because the rumors might be wrong, but still exist, and may be notable*--The Ultimate Koopa (talk) 20:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that most of the sources talking about this are notable, and the prose generated from all of this would be too big for the main Wii article, thus it should be split. If it was only a paragraph or two, it would be fine, but if all of you took the time to actually expand it with the vast amount of sources that aren't in this article, then it would actually not require deletion. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 20:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, GameStop isn't a news outlet like GameInformer and IGN. So, no, it wouldn't be a good source... but GameInformer and IGN would be. An article, at the very least, needs notability and reliable, third-party sources. MeleeDude (talk) 07:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gamestop owns GameInformer, you know. Dusk Orchestra (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, you're correct. But it's actually "GameStop Corportation" that owns both GameInformer magazine and the GameStop retail store (GameStop and GameStop Incorporated are two separate companies). However, the GameStop retail store would not have direct access to sources like GameInformer would (because GameStop is nothing more than just a retail store), but I imagine that there is probably some intermingling going on between the sibling companies. But you would still want to hear it from GameInformer instead of GameStop. MeleeDude (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: until E3/official source confirms. All information can be summarized in the Wii article. I support the notion that it is not up to notability requirements for article creation. On a side note this very much appears to be a "Pet Article" situation with the only real argument against deletion being that it will likely be confirmed at E3. However, Wikipedia can do without it until then; just be patient until after E3. Pikmin 3 is confirmed to be in development by Nintendo, yet it doesn't have it's own article. Explain why this should receive different treatment. ImmortalPeasant (talk) 00:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect There's enough info out there that it warrants a wikipedia article. Or at least redirect it to the Wii article with a section somewhere on the bottom mentioning the console's successor until the next E3 event when Nintendo either confirms or denies the console's development. But I would not delete it outright. --FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 05:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect mostly per User:4368a ("Even if the rumors are wrong, the rumors themselves exist and are notable"). Seeing that the current Project Cafè article is still rather stubby/start-class, I don't mind seeing it as a mere section in the Wii article though. But since the Wii is going to have a successor, and that rather soon, an article about the successor would just temporarily be deleted in the worst case. Not worth the hasssle of an AfD. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whenever there is a rumor Nintendo usually says it's fake, but this time they're not confirming or denying anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.163.106 (talk) 14:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nintendo's non-response is not a valid reason to keep an article. Sergecross73 msg me 14:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Usually", huh? Like when? TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 16:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources just seem to be repetitive and run in circles, with source Z making a claim, source Y stating "Z said", and X stating "Y said Z said." If the claims are not tracked back to 01.net, they are from the ambiguous "multiple sources" which doesn't say anything. Until source Z is actually Nintendo, delete the article or otherwise rewrite the article so that it isn't listing off every single claim floating around. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 19:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Isn't there an investor's briefing on the 25th? That is the same day this afd reaches seven days old, so if nothing gets confirmed there, then delete the article. « ₣M₣ » 05:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- That is an interesting proposal. But I strongly suggest that this article remains until E3, since the sources specifically point to that event for an announcement. Though they say it's possible it'll be announced sooner. MeleeDude (talk) 06:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Rename. Now this should be renamed to Wii successor or something since the name is not confirmed. 15:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Keep The Next Generation Portable had an article for at least a month before it was officially announced, when all the information was just rumors but coming from reliable sources (or at least semi-reliable sources), I don't see how this is any different. The Mach Turtle (talk) 06:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is different because the NGP leak was merely minor technical information. The Project Cafe rumors are wildly contradicting, and within a very short time frame (days). If it was an official leak by Nintendo, the contradictions would be non-existent. Nintendo has nothing to gain from spreading false information about their potential upcoming projects. The Project Cafe rumors reek of a hoax being taken seriously by supposedly reputable sources. heladyacross (talk) 07:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The NGP information was still unconfirmed by Sony until the official announcement, though, and though some things turned out to be wrong a lot of it turned out to be right; I wouldn't be at all surprised if that's the case here. There's no way that not just an actual gaming news source, but so many of them could just be talking out their asses. The Mach Turtle (talk) 09:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - The NGP info was unofficially confirmed by a Sony employee before that. heladyacross (talk) 22:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Most of them are just recycling the rumors. heladyacross (talk) 09:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Dude, it wasn't just "minor technical information." Maybe you should see it for yourself. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 11:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        The tech was more accurate, but the design was not. It's rumors were minor in comparison to these Project Cafe rumors. heladyacross (talk) 13:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Minor? I'm pretty sure that there had been some pretty big buzz back then. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 17:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Move to user space for further work - The references run around in circles or are unnamed sources, along with the unreferenced "It is rumoured", "it has been suggested" sections, mean that it has to be deleted or be moved for further work regarding its tone and its basic reliable sources. - X201 (talk) 09:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, most of it looks like sourced speculation. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 11:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to Wii#Successor and discontinuation: Looks a bit too speculative currently, no indication that the reliable sources have it right (which is when WP:CRYSTAL would not apply). Prime Blue (talk) 15:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean; CNN, GameInformer, Edge Magazine, and several other reliable sources have confirmed the existence of an HD Nintendo console. I say keep the article, but remove anything that has not been given sufficient confirmation. — Supuhstar * § 17:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. This is a good subject that just needs cleaning. Even if you cut down most of the rumors, there is enough coverage otherwise for a good article. It just isn't all IN the article yet because nobody wants to work on an article that may be deleted. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 17:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflift) Yes, it appears you were also in favor of prematurely keeping ~~the article~~ a very similar article three years ago too, for what it's worth... Sergecross73 msg me 17:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Miyamoto just shortly discussed the rumors, but didn't say whether any were right or wrong, and merely said "please wait". [26] [27]. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 18:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- They always (Miyamoto, Iwata, etc.) always reply the same thing when questioned about the Wii successor since 2007. They haven't confirmed the rumours. I think the article should be deleted until Nintendo really confirms it. IGN always had a tendency of publishing hoax and blowing them out of porpotions. The only real source are Nintendo themselves and so far nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Askinsbob (talk • contribs) 21:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - IGN now claims that the next Nintendo console is not called Project Cafe, but "Stream." So much for those previously reliable sources. As for Nintendo, Shigeru Miyamoto said he's seen the rumors and advised people to not believe everything they read. heladyacross (talk)06:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for telling me that, I didn't know! I hate to tell you this, but they said Nintendo is considering "naming" the console Stream. Project Cafe is the "codename" for the system, not the actual name. Not only that, but they backed up all of the console technical specifications released by 01net, and said that the console is indeed more powerful than the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3. To be fair, this is still a rumor, but I certainly like the direction this is heading in. MeleeDude (talk) 07:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thank you for admitting once again that you want this rumor to be true. Shigeru Miyamoto outranks all those multiple unverified sources by a million to one. heladyacross (talk)07:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Can you not muster up enough humility to admit when you're wrong? Every time I've been wrong about something in this debate or have regretted posting something, I have admitted that I was wrong and/or apologized for it. You have done neither. Furthermore, while I would like the rumors to be true, I don't let any bias effect any contributions I make to the article. It's called professionalism. MeleeDude (talk) 07:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Saying "you like where this is heading" is an admission of bias. You want it to be true. Don't try to deflect that by accusing me of yet another crime. See my edit above. I am done here. heladyacross (talk)08:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        All I can say is there is no bias in the Project Cafe article. Also, you don't have to leave; my goal here wasn't to chase you off. This is just a debate, and sometimes things get a little heated. That's all. MeleeDude (talk) 06:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is nothing that prevents Wikipedia from playing host to articles about such content. Even if it was a hoax, it would be a well-referenced one that cites many reliable sources. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: IGN released a blog post about the Project Café rumors entitled Who Are My Sources?. It only states readers should just trust IGN despite the fact that can't say who the sources are.--ThomasO1989 (talk) 11:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I read that page earlier. The author of that article (Scott Lowe) said he would love to say who they are, but just couldn't. Let me rephrase an earlier post of mine. The "unverifiable sources" are always going to remain unverifiable. Why is that? Because the only people who would have information on the new console (other than Nintendo employees) are the developers that Nintendo has shown the console to in order to gain 3rd-party support. They don't want Nintendo to know that they've been blabbing about their console because of "disclosure of the invention". They could get in serious trouble for that if Nintendo felt like charging them for intruding the disclosure agreement. Thus, they tell the media (in this case IGN) that they want to remain anonymous. However, it is a good practice for IGN to write an article addressing the concerns that so many readers have on the legitimacy of their information. The very best that they can do is say, "Rest assured; these sources are very reliable." IGN has now done that. MeleeDude (talk) 06:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's great and all for IGN, and makes sense for them to do, but really changes nothing on whether this deserves an article. The fact still remains that they are rumors, not official info verified by Nintendo. Sergecross73 msg me 21:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - The rumors though are reported by reliable sources, and the sources are commenting on it. This makes the topic notable because of the coverage. Deleting it would be silly. I really think that if you took more of this coverage and put it into a different format, it would have less speculation, and more commentary by reliable sources. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 21:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I understand what you're saying, but that's not what I'm tlaking about here; I'm just saying that IGN saying "hey guys, come on, just trust us" really doesn't affect anything. Sergecross73 msg me 22:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, you're correct. But, let's not forget that that is all IGN can say, because their sources are tied by the "disclosure of the invention" agreement. Like I said before, "the only people who would have information on the new console (other than Nintendo employees) are the developers that Nintendo has shown the console to in order to gain 3rd-party support." If IGN were to report who their sources were, their sources would be in serious trouble for intruding the disclosure agreement. If that happened, do you think that those sources would want to reveal any more secret information to IGN in the future? No. In other words, if IGN revealed their sources, it's likely that their sources would never want to report that kind of information to them again (because IGN got them in trouble). The less sources IGN has, the less breaking news stories they have. That's never good for a news outlet. Therefore, IGN reports the secret information they get from their sources, while allowing their sources to remain anonymous. As for the unverifiable sources/information; WP:Crystal makes an exception for notable subjects that have "reliable, expert sources or recognized entities". The Project Cafe article is a notable subject and has both kinds of sources. Also, I apologize for repeating bits of information so much, but I feel it's necessary. MeleeDude (talk) 07:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Again, no one is arguing about IGN's business tactics, and their business tactics have no bearing on this AFD. Sergecross73 msg me 15:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I just used IGN as an example, this goes for any video game site that reports news like this. Business tactics have the utmost relevance when discussing why sources may be unverifiable. Also, Shigeru Miyamoto just commented on a new Nintendo console being launched soon: [28]. Lastly, I just wanted to point out that if nobody cares that Nintendo On has a page of its own (thanks to Aielyn for bringing that up), then why would anyone claim to care that Project Cafe has an article of its own? So, why does Nintendo On have a page of its own? Is it just because it's not popular at the moment and nobody cares about old news? That article has been posted for years. There are other articles just like this one... so why the double standard? MeleeDude (talk) 06:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think that some are confusing notability with their personal opinion on the implications of a console launch. While it is indeed a notable event, it has not occurred yet, and regardless of cryptic PR from Miyamoto, or IGN's faith in their source, much of the information in this article could be condensed and moved back into the subsection of the Wii article. Again, it is a bias to assume that because the theoretical confirmation of a new console would be big news for the "industry" and would be notable when it is actually confirmed by name and specs, does not justify a "preparation" or "countdown" article. The bulk of the article is just a collection of sources that while notable, are bound to second-hand nondisclosure agreements. While that is a reasonable excuse for lack of named sources on their part, it does not warrant that Wikipedia follow in their same vein of scoop journalism. It seems we are making exceptions to the notability guidelines simply because some editors feel a rumor about something they are hopeful for is more important than something that is confirmed but has less of an impact on the industry, IE. a sequel. As far as I can see, only speculation is being sourced here, and the basic points could be summarized within the space a subsection of the Wii article would allow. Piling heaps of sources to big name websites and their personal speculations and unnamed sources is just fluff, really. Dusk Orchestra (talk) 14:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I am not implying the news has no place at all of Wikipedia, just that it does not warrant an entire article.Dusk Orchestra (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. - Gilgamesh (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are plenty of rumors and speculation floating around, yes, but a lot of reliable resources are confirming the existence of this thing. If something this big exists, we might as well have a page for it. We're not going to delete the page just because it isn't officially announced yet. Might as well keep it around and edit it as necessary. And I think this is about high-time we re-create the Eighth Generation page. It's been long enough. VinLAURiA (talk) 13:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that sources have not been using the term "Eighth Generation". Right now, The 3DS and Wii2 are just really big upgrades in the 7th gen. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 13:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh come on. What sources are needed to confirm the whole eighth-gen thing, then? The manufacturers rarely if ever use such terms and it's pretty much clear to everyone that these are eighth-gen systems. Just because no one has explicitly stated it yet doesn't mean we can just ignore it and dance around the issue, pretending these are seventh-gen systems. VinLAURiA (talk) 15:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - That would be going on original research which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Everything must be verified. There was a HUGE discussion over how to deal with the "History of video games (x generation)" pages here. Going against that consensus at this point would be crazy. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 16:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep IGN is not the only reputable source covering this, in fact, practically all gaming-journalism sites are all over the story. Even Miyamoto hinted at it here Marlith (Talk) 18:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It is pretty much the major subject matter in video game news at the moment and has been reported by pretty much every source that could reasonably be expected to report on it. While any number of details about Cafe may be false, and while there's even the (extremely slim) possibility the console itself is false... the very fact that it's such a major news item is notability enough.--Harlequin212121 (talk) 19:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article should be deleted. The only things shown here are rumors and nothing has been actually confirmed. Until at least E3 2011, this article should not exist until "Project Cafe" has been been officially confirmed by Nintendo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.60.243.144 (talk) 21:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's nothing but rumours. I doubt it's authenticity. - Another n00b (talk) 22:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Its official http://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/pdf/2011/110425_4e.pdf --sss333 (talk) 07:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just announced. http://kotaku.com/#!5795241/nintendo-confirms-wii-successor -- GSK (talk ● evidence) 07:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See the official anouncement on the Investor relations site: http://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/pdf/2011/110425_4e.pdf It will be shown at the E3 Expo in 2012.--RaviC (talk) 10:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As stated above, nintendo has officialy announced the system, and confirms its release date of 2012, as well as confirming that it will be playable at this years E3. The article shoukd be kept, and an Eigth Generation console page should now be made aswell. Technoguy123 (talk) 12:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep now I would of said delete but not now as the Wii successor has been confirmed by Nintendo officially.[29] can't really argue with that. I would suggest that this page need some verifiable references but I little reason at all why the page should be deleted now it is confirmed Stevo1000 (talk) 12:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as the system's existence has now been verified by Nintendo themselves. The article obviously needs work, but we now know that this is not a hoax. --Dorsal Axe 15:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep official and being widely reported in mainstream media. --Oscarthecat (talk) 15:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ok, the damn thing has been confirmed. And this article should have been created today, not several days ago on rumors. In the future, I really believe we should wait for the official announcement. Safiel (talk) 15:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup If all this rumor is still here by the time we have actual facts to go on, we'll have a very shitty and unreadable article. Nobody wants to read four paragraphs about chattering media and fan speculation before actually getting to read the FACTS. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See? This is exactly why the Wikipedia rules allows for unverifiable information with "reliable, expert sources or recognizable entities" to have an article of its own (of course it also has to be a notable subject). It's in black & white in the Wikipedia rules, and I pointed that out several times. Yet many people kept arguing about this having an article of its own. Please, read the rules with an open mind, people. I made many contributions to this page based solely on what the sources reported, yet many people claimed there was a bias. I made NO biased contributions to this article. The newest reports confirmed that there is indeed a new Nintendo console, which is set for a 2012 release, and it will be unveiled at E3 this June. Hold the phone... wasn't all of that in the Project Cafe article over a week ago? Sorry for gloating, but YES IT WAS! I guess that makes 01net 2:2. So much for unreliable sources. However, I do agree that the article needs work; I never once objected to that. On the contrary, I strongly encourage it. Again, I did the best I could with the contributions I made, but the article is still a little sloppy. Please, anyone who has information from a reliable source; please help cleanup the article. If any of the rumors turn out not to be true, please remove that bit of information with the correct/confirmed information. Note (for any rumors in the article that might later be confirmed to be false): A few incorrect bits of information does not give anyone the grounds to a speedy deletion. Just wanted to point that out. Obviously, I am excited about this, but (again) I NEVER contributed any biased information as other people on this page have claimed. Plus, I'm mostly excited just because this confirms what I've been arguing for so long. Otherwise, this official announcement definitely would not have been a shock to me. Though, we'll probably have to wait until E3 to get anymore details confirmed. MeleeDude (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for proving to everyone here how immature you are as an editor. It was hinted several times in your inflamatory remarks throughout the discussion. I'm sure everyone here stands by their previous arguments on notability standards. Remember, WP:WIN Dusk Orchestra (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 'Too early'? It's kinda.. announced, dudes. I see now this was created on Apr 18, but it's announced. It without a doubt exists, and is gonna continue to do so. Time to remove the AFD or what? --Joffeloff (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 13:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Panteras[edit]

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

According to WP:ORG, "an organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." This article lacks significant coverage in many secondary sources, and as a result, fails WP:ORG. Just because the team has won many local awards does not mean that the team is notable enough to merit its own article. —mc10 (t/c) 01:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a copyvio of http://panteras.up.edu.mx/jrfll.html, http://panteras.up.edu.mx/fll.html, http://panteras.up.edu.mx/team.html, and http://panteras.up.edu.mx/home.html. Article so tagged. Goodvac (talk) 04:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You may notice that those pages actually are licensed with a creative commons license, so the stuff here is not techniclly a copyright violation, however the license is unsuitable for Wikipedia because it has ND and NC on it. I am checking if it really is a copy. . . . . It is actually different enough not to be an infringement as a whole. There may be some bits that should be removed or changed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it's just CC-BY-NC. There's no ND. —mc10 (t/c) 01:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unclear whether this is a copyvio, but the article doesn't cite substantial coverage in reliable independent sources, as would be required by WP:GNG. Sandstein 19:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 18:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sonoma Sommelier Wine Magazine[edit]

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

Notability not established, only refs are links to the magazine's own website. XXX antiuser ^eh? 01:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've Wikified the article, but am unsure about the notability of a publication only a couple of years old. I will leave it to others to express their opinions, and will look for reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 01:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article even seems to go out of its way to point out that this recently-created online magazine intends to remain obscure and non-notable. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely non-notable magazine. Qworty (talk) 08:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable publication. Wickedjacob (talk) 02:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Even after discounting several WP:ITSCRUFT arguments, consensus is clear and unanimous. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional characters who bear a maternal surname[edit]

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

An unsourced list on an incredibly overcategorized topic, with no coverage of the greater topic at all. Some sources may say a specific fictional character uses a maternal surname, but there is no coverage on the whole of fictional characters using the maternal surnames. Recently PRODed as "unsourced list of WP:TRIVIA with no discernible evidence of notability." Yaksar (let's chat) 00:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as pointless trivia. Carrite (talk) 00:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR as none of the listed entries cannot be confirmed beyond fanon or even fanon invented by a non-show source. Nate • (chatter) 05:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as useless WP:LISTCRUFT ArcAngel (talk) ) 05:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete list of no value. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 07:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Matronymic surnames are far too common, especially in English given the medieval tradition of giving posthumous children matronyms, for this list to have any importance or meaning. Does every Madison, Beaton, and Custer qualify? --NellieBly (talk) 08:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TRIVIA, WP:LISTCRUFT or WP:OR. Rlendog (talk) 20:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional characters who can fly this same song and dance has happened before. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A list of this type must have third-party sources to demonstrate that the entries are relevant to the main topic, otherwise it is trivia and original research. However, since the main topic of fictional characters who bear a maternal surnames is not a notable subject, the list is an non-encyclopedic cross-categorization of indiscriminate information. —Farix (t | c) 13:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is a trivia section composed of original research. It does not meet the criteria of appropriate topics for lists because, as stated above, the list falls into what Wikipedia is not, by being an indiscriminate collection of information and a non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations. Also, the underlying concept is not notable. Jfgslo (talk) 02:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Princess (Flash series)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG as there's no verifiable references that Trey Parker & Matt Stone had anything to do with the project which is currently the only claim of notability.

I'm unable to find any sources that can be used to verify that this content was made by Trey Parker & Matt Stone. There's a link to South Park Studios that can't be verified (dead link) that previously pointed to another website all together. There's also a link to SPSChat, a fansite which doesn't provide any reliable sources to back up its claim that Trey Parker and Matt Stone had anything to do with Princess and itself is not a reliable source. A Google News search provides two hits which have nothing to do with this show and I've gone through several pages of Google News Archive hits and haven't found a single reliable source that discusses the topic. OlYeller^Talktome 02:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dead link has been repaired and confirms their involvement (rather easily as they just changed the page structure), and a confirmed project by the both of them that didn't go anywhere, which is expected as it was one of those killed by the dot-com bust and many of the links describing it were probably fellow dot-com victims. Nate • (chatter) 04:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Nate. Ryan shell (talk) 03:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note I think it's safe to close this nomination at this point. I withdraw, conceded, etc. as verifiable proof has been given. OlYeller^Talktome 14:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Pretty minor part of Matt Stone and Trey Parker's career, but no good place to merge it to. Maybe we should put it in Matt Stone and Trey Parker's shorts. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 22:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation for a "keep" consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ikimonobakari: Members Best Selection[edit]

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

not sourced at all, may as well be a hoax. Jasper Deng (talk) 01:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not sure if it merits a stand-alone article but certainly not a hoax. Look at the group's article Ikimono-gakari and you see the title of the album and four sources, including one that asserts it a million seller, though all of them are in Japanese. I have expanded the article a little bit accordingly. --Kusunose 04:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is not a hoax, only a badly formatted new article. It is the lastest album by notable Japanese band Ikimono-gakari. I have added an infobox, reformatted/copyedit the article and added a couple more references. Hopefully it should meet notability as per WP:NALBUMS. BTW I have also taqgged the article with the deletion tag as it wasn't tagged when the AfD was created on 4 April 2011.--Michaela den (talk) 11:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Laws[edit]

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

non notable firm WuhWuzDat 14:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not find any sources to establish the notability of this company. ArcAngel (talk) ) 05:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Call of Duty#Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3. For now at least, until there is enough reliable information to write a separate article. Sandstein 20:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3[edit]

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

Too much speculation/CRYSTALBALL Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 00:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - yes there is some speculation but there are also references in the article. TML (talk) 00:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is Modern Warfare 3, it's coming, there are confirmed sources, there should be an article for it even if it's a stub in the mean time. Revrant (talk) 02:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does the video game really pass WP:CRYSTALHAMMER? We don't really know anything about the video game other than its name; we don't know the characters, the weapon set, or the release date. "This is Modern Warfare 3" isn't a valid reason to keep Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 03:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, and notability hasn't been proven yet. ArcAngel (talk) ) 06:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per CRYSTALBALL. Pure speculation so far.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Its not notable enough, everything that we know about it is pre speculation. It hasn't even been officially revealed yet. This page should only be recreated once it gets as much media attention as Battlefield 3, with official trailers and announced dates, etc. I am a violinist ♫ talk to me here! 10:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 10:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.244.110 (talk) 16:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: This is the IP's only edit, it offers no reason for keeping, and it was not even formatted properly Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 06:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Merge/Redirect to Call of Duty#Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 - Not enough sources covering the subject yet. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 20:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If it mean a normal game - ok, delete. But, this is Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 - successor of the one of the best games in history (revenue above 1 billion $, many millions of fans). You can make an exception. Subtropical-man (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not inherited. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its obvious that this game is in the making, and I don't see any particular reason why this game would be qualified for deletion, when there's a massive amount of other, less credible articles that people let stay. 88.89.42.129 (talk) 07:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no verifiable evidence to support that the next game will be modern warfare 3, although highly likely, no official announcement has been made from activision or any of the developers. Delete. Recommend renaming article to "Call of Duty 8" until the title is confirmed, but mention the speculation of Modern Warfare 3 in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.222.208.167 (talk) 15:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Release year can be kept as IGN and LA Times has a release slated for 2011, but no specific month has been specified.
IGN Page - http://pc.ign.com/objects/063/063810.html
LA Times - http://pc.ign.com/articles/114/1145244p1.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrose323 (talk • contribs) 03:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: no offense, but it appears that many of the keep votes are based on invalid ILIKE arguments Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 05:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Blake. Minor verification, but not enough substance to justify a separate article. Viable search term. Marasmusine (talk) 08:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I think that merging this material into the appropriate section of the Call of Duty main article makes sense for now. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Seems like the most sensible thing to do at this stage. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are valid references to this page, and based on the success of Modern Warfare 2, it seems inevitable there will be a sequel. Russbus64 (talk)
Merge though notability is not inherited, being part of a notable franchise is not insignificant. Still, merging is a fine outcome until it can be better sourced and more fully described. Wickedjacob (talk) 02:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep confirmed details, delete intriguing infos We should not delete the whole article. We can reconsider it. Maybe Modern Warfare 3 will emerge this year. Also, maybe we can merge this to the parent article, the Call of Duty. [Saxons] 09:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Call of Duty. While there's sources, there isn't enough information to justify a separate article. CR4ZE (talk) 12:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Yes, we know it's coming, but we don't know much more then that. Till enough info is available, I support that the article be merged with the Call of Duty article. Another Type of Zombie ^talk 16:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a stub. It is a developing article. Andrei S (talk) 12:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge A title and a developer aren't enough for an article. Merging is the best option at the moment. Muskeato 15:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DataObscura and Blue Oasis (record labels)[edit]

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

Queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not affliated with any notables artists ArcAngel (talk) ) 06:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Listed for 25 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neko Jump[edit]

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

non notable musical group WuhWuzDat 14:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are numerous foreign language sources available from both Japan and Thailand. I added one of them a few months ago. I don't speak the languages and google translate is pretty inadequate, so I didn't add the others, but there were multiple interviews with the band members in seemingly reliable sources. Clearly passes WP:NBAND since it "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself." Sailsbystars (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not to say the article couldn't use vast improvement..... Sailsbystars (talk) 15:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - If there was not already another vote with work done by Sailsbystars, I would call for Speedy Close because the nominator violated WP:JNN. Regardless, despite a shortage of sources in English there appears to be enough for a basic article, but the group might be better off on Thai or Japanese Wikipedia, because there seems to be a lot more available in those languages. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Note that on April 14 WuhWuzDat was banned from nominating articles for deletion, largely for not observing WP:BEFORE and other requirements of the AfD process. See this discussion at WP:ANI, though the ban took place after this particular nomination. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Webchutney[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

non notable firm WuhWuzDat 14:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions.

Delete. Yet another digital advertising agency and consulting firm. "References" are to "best of" lists and press release announcements of routine investment transactions, and do not establish notability, or incidental mentions in stories about services it helped develop behind the scenes. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of the top ad companies in India. There is enough non-press release coverage [30]. Has had enough independent coverage in indian financial media. Needs a cleanup to remove advertisement like language.--Sodabottle (talk) 07:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - note that the above Moneycontrol link noted is owned by Network 18 - the people who actually invested in the company! Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 11:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 13:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fish Smarty[edit]

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

non notable website, pure spam WuhWuzDat 14:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wuhwuzdat,

Marking Fish Smarty as a non notable website and pure spam is outrageous. The website has thousands of visitors every month due the educational content it delivers. All the content provided is targeted at parents with kids 3-9 years old. The educational drawings, comics, games, contests are valuable learning sources. Recently kindergartens start using the website as teaching platform therefore marking Fish Smarty Wikipedia entry as spam is inappropriate.

All references and categories are valid.

May i ask you to review your entry and check the previous marking and history of the article?

Thank you Andrewrichard (talk) 15:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC) — Andrewrichard (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The main rules are WP:Notability and WP:Verifiability, both of which rely on WP:Reliable sources. What you need is sources, Andrewrichard. Sources independent of the Fish Smarty project, independent of financial interests, (for example, Amazon.com pages used to source books). Use Google Books and the other links up at the top of this section. I looked and could not find anything, but with what you know about the organization it may be easier for you. Regular Google is ok, too, but the quality of sources is usually lower. The trick with the wording in the article is to show the organization to be important, not say it is. "The goal of Fish Smarty is to deliver a safe place where children have fun, enjoy various activities and learn at the same time." is a statement you could just about get away with proving with a citation from the organization, but "Nothing is more important than online safety for children and parents together..." is not salvageable. Delete unsupportable statements of opinion like this. Trust me, it is either little things like that (that parents can read on the site anyway), or lose the whole article altogether. Good luck. Anarchangel (talk) 01:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, New content and recommendation from educationalkidswebsites were added to show that this portal is appreaciated around the world by parents. Please review and withdraw from deletion.

Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trusttheguru (talk • contribs) 08:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC) — Trusttheguru (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: thousands of visitors is not enough to make this site notable. Alexius08 (talk) 06:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is constantly updated based on company evolution and presence on the web. The site is notable thru the content it provides. There are very few sites out there on the web which provide educational content via child design interface and via an advanced UI. The UI simplicity was brought to light by the artists and collaborators they use (see section Company / Meet the team). In addition to this the community of friends they have on Facebook is quite considerable (+2000 friends) and Twitter is growing every day on average by 10%.

The website is providing an educational added value to parents and kids, who are the main consumers as such. And that's what it makes the site notable. Let's not expect that their presence is notable comparing to Disney, however it is notable comparing to Moshi Monsters. Joelangman (talk) 06:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC) — Joelangman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

More content has been added, really enjoyed how they present the world of education for the kids, using the characters. Each one represent actually a real personality in which kids can find each other or the people around them. Thus this is much easier for children to understand and learn. Such kind of learning process is making the difference and is sustain by all the fans from social media channels. Please review and do not delete this article. Trusttheguru — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trusttheguru (talk • contribs) 10:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough reliable, THIRD-PARTY sources to satisfy notability. Also put off buy all the SPA's suddenly appearing here. ArcAngel (talk) ) 10:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KKS Power Plant Classification System[edit]

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

no assertion of notability whatsoever WuhWuzDat 14:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—This is the power plant classification system used in the FDR. Plenty of sources available to establish notability.—RJH (talk) 20:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - every electric power company has some kind of filing system and this one isn't particularly notable (and it looks like it is abuot to be replaced anyway). I could write a page about my local utility's "SCI" system but it wouldn't be notable either. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wtshymanski. Being able to verify isn't the same as notable. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 06:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

62TV Records[edit]

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

non notable music label WuhWuzDat 14:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep having multiple notable artists makes this label notable in my opinion. ArcAngel (talk) ) 06:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Belgian Beer Cafe[edit]

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

No indications of notability for this company. Although a Google news or book search will produce a fair number of hits, they all appear to be reviews or directory listings of individual restaurants in local papers. There doesn't appear to be any coverage of this company as a company. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. It should be noted that the article was created by a user whose name matches a company whose business is marketing in digital and new media. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: there does appear to be some news coverage. 199.80.13.96 (talk) 15:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As noted in the nomination, news coverage based on a search of the term "Belgian Beer Cafe" appears limited to local reviews of local establishments. No coverage of the company as a whole. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I find more than 200 references to the chain around the world and in several languages, including the NY Times travel section and even discussion by Belgian government officials as well as several Frommer's travel guides. However, there are no detailed sources about the chain, but mentions about individual places. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 06:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Rolando Hinojosa. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Partners in Crime (novel)[edit]

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

non notable novel WuhWuzDat 15:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rolando Hinojosa. The author is important, and there are multiple books about him that discuss this book in some detail,[31][32][33] but since there's none of that currently in the article and it's part of a series, this is better handled by consolidation at the author article.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 07:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cube Entertainment[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since March, this article fails to establish notability in any way, shape, or form due to the fact that there is no importance or significance stated. Nor can I find any ENGLISH source to establish notability. Perhaps someone can find some Korean sources? Given that, it might be better suited for the Korean Wikipedia. ArcAngel (talk) ) 15:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe that technically I am the "page creator", because I had this redirecting to JYP Entertainment, a (previous?!) owner of Cube.. Anyway, there's indirect coverage of Cube as a Google news search shows. I don't know whether or not it's worth keeping on that basis, because the page would essentially just summarize the number of groups/bands under the company/label. It's hard to find information about the company because usually the focus is on the big three: SM, YG, and JYP. SKS (talk) 16:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 DLAwaster (talk) 18:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chomsky (band)[edit]

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

non notable musical group WuhWuzDat 15:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep band is notable in mainstream press, as discussed here. But the articles needs sources. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 07:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No sentiment for deletion outside of nominator. Carrite (talk) 04:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Carrite's excellent rationale. ArcAngel (talk) ) 06:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - First, the nominator violated WP:JNN and this AfD could possibly be speedy closed for that reason. Anyway, having an AllMusic entry helps the band out, and apparently they've been noticed by some major sources and appeared on the Craig Ferguson show, though I'm having a hard time finding anything more substantial online. Note that it's difficult to search for material because of the guy they're named after. The article definitely needs expansion and improvement, but it's keep-able and if someone wants to nominate deletion they should be more convincing. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Note that on April 14 WuhWuzDat was banned from nominating articles for deletion, largely for not observing WP:BEFORE and other requirements of the AfD process. See this discussion at WP:ANI, though the ban took place after this particular nomination. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 13:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Qur'an[edit]

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

non notable digital e-reader WuhWuzDat 15:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable generic type of electronic instrument. The article content itself has been hijacked by advertising for a specific brand name, but that is easily fixed. <edit-all fixed now Anarchangel (talk) 13:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)>[reply]

A few Google News hits for title. Also Google News search "Digital Koran": Indonesians tune in to digital Koran Reuters, The Almost Complete Lack of the Element of "Futureness" Heise Online, etc.

Five Google Books hits: Living the Information Society in Asia; Erwin Alampay. Religion online: finding faith on the Internet; Lorne L. Dawson, Douglas E. Cowan. The Death of Sacred Texts: Ritual Disposal and Renovation of Texts in World Religions; Kristina Myrvold. iMuslims; Gary R. Bunt.

Anarchangel (talk) 12:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article condensed, promotional material removed, citations added. Anarchangel (talk) 13:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per article improvement by Anaarchangel. ArcAngel (talk) ) 06:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after the spam is gone. Alexius08 (talk) 06:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Screwed Up Click[edit]

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

non notable musical group (actually, more of a club than a group) WuhWuzDat 15:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, DJ Screw is an influential producer for hip hop, pioneering and popularizing the "chopped and screwed" technique later used in Swishahouse records. They represent the South Side of Houston Hip Hop in the 90s and were a collective of artists that all had appearances on DJ Screws numerous mixtapes. Perhaps the article could be more historically represented - here's a link to Hip Hop in America: East Coast and West Coast By Mickey Hess page 450 in which he chronicles the creation of the Screwed Up and its cultivation by DJ Screw.

http://books.google.com/books?id=XkCncJ7j744C&pg=PA450&dq=chopped+and+screwed&hl=en&ei=zNyfTf2eGbTXiALBrszxAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=chopped%20and%20screwed&f=false —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.10.176.87 (talk) 04:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Note that on April 14 WuhWuzDat was banned from nominating articles for deletion, largely for not observing WP:BEFORE and other requirements of the AfD process. See this discussion at WP:ANI, though the ban took place after this particular nomination. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FMR Records[edit]

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

This company does not have the "Significant coverage" that address the company directly in detail needed for it's own article. The only coverage that can be found is mentions and trival coverage. Mtking (talk) 23:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per Mtking TangSing (talk) 19:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jazz notified. -- AllyD (talk) 20:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets wp:n. News coverage from the last 40 years: [34] That's respectable for such a for such a small niche (improvisational percussion jazz). Also written about in books [35]. There is enough here for a nice little article. ^walk victor falk^talk 06:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Victor Falk's rationale. ArcAngel (talk) ) 06:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 13:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

India International Friendship Society[edit]

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

non notable organization, references section of the article is ....quite unique WuhWuzDat 15:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No sentiment shown for deletion outside of the nominator. Tag for sources, if necessary. Carrite (talk) 00:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Newspapers and books worldwide regularly report on the awards given by this group. Though I agree that the reference section is a bit eccentric, that can be corrected through normal editing. Cullen328 (talk) 02:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Carrite's rationale. ArcAngel (talk) ) 06:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find about 50 sources in google news archive and discussion of this in dozens of books. However, the sourcing in the article is bad and the blog references should be removed. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 06:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find the Criticism section, (previously blanked and restored by author) is while apparently NPOV, is defensive in nature. As above, somewhat eccentric, but can be corrected with normal editing.--Whiteguru (talk) 09:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dhar Mann[edit]

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

I get the feeling that this is a case of inherited notability. Plenty of hits in Google searches etc but they seem to be either promotional or otherwise primarily relating to his company rather than him as an individual. Does this satisfy WP:GNG ? Sitush (talk) 16:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the creating contributor added the following comment to the body of the article on 6 April 2010 and I subsequently moved it to the talk page. I've been trying to help this contributor for some time regarding references etc {{quote|There are references, numerous articles, media coverage and notability with this individual. Please help em understand why it is up for removal... - (quoting [[User:WriteCreole]] as explained)}}

As I said in my nom, I do not deny that there are plenty of mentions of Mann's name. I query whether they meet GNG as being more than peripheral, PR, promo etc things that would occur in the normal course of business activities. I'm probably wrong but need to test this because I was going round in circles with WriteCreole. - Sitush (talk) 16:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Regardless of what one may think of him or his business model, he is clearly notable. He has had heavy, sustained, country-wide news coverage. I added four references to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 21:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there appears possibly to be a subliminal reference to me in the above Keep comment. For the record, I have no issues with the use, legality or otherwise of cannabis. I really couldn't care less. I remain uncertain as to the guy's personal notability, as opposed to that of the business that he fronts. Most of the references are in relation to his company: he does not inherit notability because of that. If he had umpteen businesses, most of which were notable per Wikipedia guidelines, then I could understand an entry for him. An example of this would be Carlos Slim ... but not Dhar Mann. - Sitush (talk) 23:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification - see section on no inherited notability. - Sitush (talk) 23:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No dig at the nominator was intended; sorry if it read that way. I am familiar with WP:INHERIT but I don't think it applies here; I think he has plenty of coverage as an individual. Your mileage may vary. --MelanieN (talk) 03:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ERPLAB[edit]

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

Does not have significant coverage in independent secondary sources. Google Scholar locates a number of references to this software, but they appear to be all brief mentions of its use in other projects, rather than significant discussion of the product itself. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I know this software from my own work and I can attest anecdotally that people in the field are familiar with it. But I can't dig up any coverage in independent sources of the kind Wikipedia generally requires for demonstration of notability. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, reluctantly - The noteworthiness of this topic may be difficult to judge for the general reader, but the bottom line is that without significant secondary source material there is neither evidence of notability nor any raw material to construct an article out of. The present version of the article, written by editors with close connections to the subject, is a mix of OR and primary source material. In short, if it's not been written about in reliable sources, there shouldn't be a Wikipedia article about it. -- Rrburke (talk) 17:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete nothing in gnews. LibStar (talk) 08:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 13:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FRAMECAD Group[edit]

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

non notable firm WuhWuzDat 16:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as commercial spam. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. Carrite (talk) 04:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Carrite. ArcAngel (talk) ) 06:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for speedy deletion as plain spam. Alexius08 (talk) 06:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 13:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

R&A Promotions Co.,Ltd[edit]

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

non notable firm, notability is not inherited from it's clients WuhWuzDat 14:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as commercial spam. No notability demonstrated. Carrite (talk) 00:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Carrite. ArcAngel (talk) ) 06:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being featured in a movie as part of the scene is not enough. Alexius08 (talk) 07:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lanny Quarles[edit]

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

non notable person WuhWuzDat 14:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No sentiment shown for deletion outside of nominator. Carrite (talk) 00:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't...is that a reason for...how does that...what?--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Think of my vote as a debate starter. Time to finish off these superannuated Nobody Gives a Crap random notability challenges seemingly created by use of an automated challenging machine. Carrite (talk) 04:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Well ok. In this case the article should probably be deleted anyway though, even if the nominator still had bad intentions. If you want, just consider my argument to be the main !vote so far. No reason to let one editor doing things out of bad faith affect the quality of the encyclopedia as a whole.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per lack of any significant coverage in reliable and independent sources to show notability.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Person does not appear to be notable outsite of his genre of work. The external links do nothing to establish his notability. ArcAngel (talk) ) 06:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LGI Homes[edit]

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

spammy article about non notable firm WuhWuzDat 14:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would point out that the article was not subjected to the speedy deletion request placed upon it, and was found to not be unambiguously promotional by User:Ged_UK. I would be interested in hearing which parts of the article are considered "spammy", and feel if they are found to exist, they could presumably be omitted or edited to guideline. As for notability requirements, the company is the 57th largest homebuilder in the United States (by raw sales numbers), and was also named the fastest-growing company by the largest of home construction sector publications (Builder Magazine) in 2009-- which suggests to me that the company is notable, as it was duly noted by these two third-party organizations. I would also point out that less notable homebuilders who aren't among the country's largest (such as Classic Homes) currently have their articles standing, with only prompts for revision, which seems inequitable. BizGooRoo (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is unambiguous advertising from start to finish. Appearances on lists of "fastest growing companies" and the like are close to the canonical sort of trivial coverage or list inclusion that does not confer notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Start to finish? Come now, I think we may be exaggerating the matter. Clearly we have a dual challenge as to 1) notability and 2) promotion. To the former, I say: however much one may loathe lists like the NAHB's Builder 100 (which is flat-out about sales numbers, and pegs LGI Homes as one of the country's largest builders, by the impartial statistic of dollars) they do confer a matter of notability within the subject's own industry of home building. Which, I presume, is of interest to anyone researching home builders. Is this company Coca-Cola? Certainly not. But it is an influential one within its own right and within its own business. Again, I have to wonder why other articles for smaller and less well-known private builders stand, yet this one is taken so readily to task. As to the latter issue of promotion, I respect Smerdis' opinion that the article is promotional, although that opinion has already been directly contradicted by User:Ged_UK's earlier appraisal. Can anyone point to a particular sentence or thematic that is promotional? As I have said from the start, I would be happy to adjust any and all perceived violating content as per guidelines. BizGooRoo (talk) 23:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Promotional, from start to finish. The opening paragraph says: community development focused mostly in the southwestern region. "Community development"??? I thought they were a building contractor. Or is "community development" what they call platting out another subdivision? This is the English language Wikipedia, not the patent nonsense Wikipedia.

At any rate: LGI Homes has been noted within its industry as a company that runs contrary to the trend... the LGI brand was considered a success story among homebuilders during the collapse of the United States real estate market in 2008... The company also employs a sales force that receives close to 100 days of training before they are able to interact with prospective buyers... one of the most highly-trained sales teams in the industry... The affordable and entry-level home market that is the focus of the LGI Homes brand... The company currently has an A+ rating from the Better Business Bureau... 100% pure Grade F spam from start to finish, like I said. The article is about as far from neutrality as it's possible to get. I would have speedily deleted this.

And, since this nomination is going to get PR filibustered anyways, what, pray tell, is their claim to long term historical notability? What, apart from being the "57th largest homebuilder" in 2009, removes them from being just another firm in their industry? What is their significant effect on history, culture, or technology? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The mini-lesson on semantics is most appreciated, but I would point out that virtually every line cited as promotional is not mashed together from marketing dust, but rather pulled from real third-party coverage of the company. Builder Magazine wrote the article on LGI's contrary business practices (in an article aptly entitled "Exception to the Rule"). Same article profiled them as one of the only builders that turned a profit in one of the first years of the downturn--that was an industry assessment, not mine. An article in Exchange Magazine discussed their inordinately long training practices--this was an assessment from a publication for entrepreneurs examining different business practices, not my own spin. LGI Homes builds homes that are categorized as affordable (which refers to their actual pricing, not perception), and are marketed to first-time homebuyers, which is just a basic fact. Anyone is welcome to look up their BBB rating; if they see something other than what is written in the article, feel free to correct. If the phrasing irks, then the phrasing can be changed. A writer can't make these facts or these published articles about the company any different than they are. I simply wrote what I found.

And since it's been brought up, why are there articles on any homebuilders at all, public or private? Where is their extraordinary notability? Sure, KB Home or Lennar are large companies, but what do they really do, aside from build subdivisions? --BizGooRoo (talk) 03:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Couldn't find significant coverage in independent sources. Dragquennom (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You mean like The Houston Business Journal, Bloomberg Businessweek, or the aforementioned articles in Exchange Magazine or Builder Magazine? I'm not sure what is meant by "~~sufficient~~ significant" (which seems a very subjective word to me), but I don't think the linked coverage (both here and in the article) is trivial or incidental in nature. BizGooRoo (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think you should know what is meant by "sufficient"? Did I ever say "sufficient"? Dragquennom (talk) 16:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon. I meant "significant".BizGooRoo (talk) 20:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I can't really see why this company is notable but since there IS significant coverage in some local newspaper, my previous "delete" argument is now refuted. Dragquennom (talk) 06:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marginal keep. Not a ton of revenue, and nothing suggests it's notable for other reasons, but it does have some local significance, and the article is not overly promotional. Cool Hand Luke 14:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the 57th largest? As User:Cool Hand Luke says above, there's nothing to suggest this company is notable. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment. (Removed bout of histrionics here. I've regained my sense of equilibrium, for now. Apologies.) BizGooRoo (talk) 05:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources provided by BizGooRoo (talk · contribs). The article from the Houston Business Journal and the article from Bloomberg Businessweek each provide over 8 paragraphs of discussion about LGI Homes. I consider them to fulfill the "significant coverage" requirement at Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. The promotional editing can be addressed through editing and pruning, not wholesale deletion. Cunard (talk) 05:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the significant coverage. It will need to be rewritten though. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed much of the puffery and marketing language from this article. I am neutral on the issue of deletion. Note to article author: footnotes come after punctuation. Chick Bowen 00:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I have to confess surprise, but the discussion correctly pointed out a lack of sources showing notability. In the absence of reliable sources to show notability, the subject doesn't meet the standards for a standalone article. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 11:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ewen Macintosh[edit]

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

Despite being featured in a highly notable television series, this actor is not notable. There is no significant coverage of him in reliable sources. ^Bongo_matic 14:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's a recognisable actor - certainly as notable as many other 21st-century British actors with Wikipedia pages. Dadge (talk) 18:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone knows who 'Big Keith' is! "not notable" your comment is so laughable, where have you been? I take it back if you dont have a telly. I thought Wikipedia was the free encyclopedia - or is it you can only be here if bongo knows you and approves of what you do? And who is Bongo? How notable is bongo that he gets to stay and says who goes. Ah, I get it, Bongo is the GOD of Wikipedia. The creator and owner, yes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CelebrityFanClub (talk • contribs) 12:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This ones to help you out, Bongo with your deletion selection - Keith Bishop (The Office) its on Wiki too. Or is the fictional Character allowed as its notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CelebrityFanClub (talk • contribs) 13:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC) — CelebrityFanClub (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What may be not notable to one has relevance and subsistance to others. This is afterall an information centre. Keep this! And if people keep attempting to delete information that has no relevance to them they will be doing wikipedia a huge dis-service. People will start going elsewhere for their information. People on here maybe try helping others before hitting the delete button as anyone new will not understand and know how it works and it hardly helps promote the site or encourage new people to sign up and stay when they see this type of service going on! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pickylady (talk • contribs) 19:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC) — Pickylady (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Hear, hear Dadge (talk) 23:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Dadge. I find it to be a notable article.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrityfanclub, chill out. You make no sense of your arguments whatsoever. Take a step back and relax. This article is notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – All this banter is slightly amusing; however, the article fails to establish notability using reliable sources. This is not an opinion, but a very basic application of notability Wikipedia criteria. For clarification, Wikipedia articles do not survive because they are notable, they survive because the subject's notability is established using reliable sources. Dadge, please note that "real-world" notability has no bearing in Wikipedia. The guidelines to establish notably, WP:BIO WP:CREATIVE, etc., are written in such a manner to eliminate one man's treasure is another's trash application of notability. No one questions his existence, only if he is notable per Wikipedia criteria. To everyone, I would suggest that instead of commenting back and forth to establish notability here in this AfD, someone looks for and puts some strong secondary sources in the article to establish notability. ttonyb (talk) 00:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - although he's appeared in a fair number of TV shows, he doesn't seem to pass WP:BIO as I can find virtually no reliable sources about him. The best I can find is this, an Office fan site, which I don't think is a reliable source: [36] Robofish (talk) 23:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet WP:NACTOR, no significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Dragquennom (talk) 13:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've tried Googling both spellings (Ewen and Ewan) and gotten nothing but non-reliable sources. Does not seem to pass WP:N. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The sense of the discussion is that the article improved enough to avoid deletion. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 11:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taleeb Noormohamed[edit]

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

Yet another in the eternal line of unelected candidates in the current Canadian federal election, who has no properly sourced indication of notability for anything besides being an unelected candidate (which, per WP:POLITICIAN, is not a valid claim of notability.) He can certainly come back if he wins, but he's not entitled to use Wikipedia as a campaign tool in the meantime. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 05:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bearcat, All honesty - this wasn't meant to be used as a campaign tool. Our intention was to use it as a biography of him for professional means - being the VP of VANOC and President & CEO of a turned-around technology company. I will edit the page to reflect this and use the political aspect as a small feature, not main. Apologize for inconvenience. Please let me know if this is ok. - User: Fudge786 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fudge786 (talk • contribs) 07:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the page, Taleeb Noormohamed. Please let me know if this is satisfactory now. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fudge786 (talk • contribs) 07:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AFD needs to decide that, not me; to my eyes, it still has a "campaign brochure" tone to it (frex, referring to him by his first name instead of his last name, talking about what he believes, etc.), but it's up to AFDers to decide whether it meets their standards or not. Bearcat (talk) 22:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I've made more changes to reflect what you've said. Hopefully this will be ok. If not, I can continue making revisions until it works for both parties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fudge786 (talk • contribs) 05:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I personally don't see anything wrong with the article, which despite Mr. Noormohamed's present status as a federal Liberal candidate is neutral. Many North Vancouver residents doing political due diligence such as myself are looking for more information than appears in his campaign material. The article provides some of it. (moved from talk page, as this is a more appropriate location). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12phil34 (talk • contribs) 05:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not Wikipedia's job to provide "equal time" to all candidates in an election as a public service to the voters; our job is to demonstrate through the use of reliable sources that the topic actually meets our notability rules — and just being a candidate in an election, even a current one, does not fulfill that standard by itself. Bearcat (talk) 20:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Decently written, verifiable, neutral, meets WP:GNG per the assertions and sources given. It's still borderline as far as meeting WP:POLITICIAN, but I think his other achievements and press mentions make up for it. -- œ ^™ 19:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fudge786 (talk • contribs) 06:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Verifiable and neutral, but I think this one is borderline for the GNG. Some of the sources are company press releases, and the press articles seem to be in the context of the election. However, they are more in depth than a casual mention. I think this passes, but barely. Ray^Talk 16:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:ARTSPAM content has been rewritten in accordance to WP:NPOV, and his other accomplishments alone seem to be enough to satisfy the criteria for notability. Searching Google for '"Taleeb Noormohamed" -mp -liberal' turns some useful references not related to the election. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Kings of Leon. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 11:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Followill[edit]

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

Member of a notable band. However, does not appear to have any significant solo activity outside of Kings of Leon (Wikipedia:MUSICBIO see italics at the end), relevant information here can easily be incorporated into band article. Another band is listed, however it does not appear to notable (as of now at least, should be the main crux of the discussion I think), thus the caveat does not apply here. Fixer23 (talk) 01:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just did some research on the "Jane Shermans", it should be disregarded. Followill is not a part of this band, which brings to question why it is even mentioned in "Associated Acts". One of the Jane Shermans "discovered" Kings of Leon. Thus, this should be pretty clear cut. Fixer23 (talk) 01:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This person is of sufficient status to meet general notability criteria on his own. Although he did come to fame only for being a member of one band, the interviews which reliable sources are collecting are pointedly personal and probe into him as an artist and not as a member of an ensemble. The article's subject seems to be a celebrity figure in his own right. The Sun Village Voice MTV It seems that this might be the case for all the band members, because they all get questioned in interviews for their opinions on musical technique. I am cross-posting this argument on the other band members' AfD debates. Blue Rasberry (talk) 04:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Blue Rasberry. I'll admit, I really wasn't sure about this either way when I first saw it. MobileSnail 04:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But the caveat in the policy applies to "individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases," surely attaining minor "celebrity status" does not qualify as significant activity. The policy takes into account that there will be independent coverage, but all with regard to the band's activity as a whole, obviously interviews are not going to always be conducted with all the members present. I'm not sure being asked separately about their instruments (in the context of their work in the band) constitues individual notability/activity. Surely being more popular member doesn't immediately qualify as notability? Correct me if I'm wrong, but none of them have reached the status of being a household name outside of the band (which could make this discussion less obvious). I think the main point here is that there should be "individual notability for activity independent of the band," the argument that someone "famous for being famous" sometimes qualify for articles based on notability established by individual coverage. However, in this case, individual coverage is inevitable and in the cases of pages of members of groups, those individuals have done work to differentiate themselves from their group, such as side projects, film, solo albums etc. Here, it is not demonstrated. Fixer23 (talk) 06:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Much of this info is already in the parent article, and some of the rest duplicates the article on his brother (which should also be merged). Chick Bowen 00:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kings of Leon. Dragquennom (talk) 12:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kings of Leon per Chick Bowen. There is not significant third party coverage of this musician to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO and should be merged back into the group article. -Atmoz (talk) 16:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kings of Leon. All three sources provided by Bluerasberry (talk · contribs) are interviews, which are considered primary sources since they mainly involve the subject talking about himself. There is little secondary discussion about Jared Followill and none independent of discussion about the band. I agree with the above three participants that the biography of this band member should be merged to the band. Cunard (talk) 05:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Kings of Leon. Given the presence of an obvious merge target, I gave less weight to the delete !votes. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 11:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Followill[edit]

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

Member of a notable band. However, does not appear to have any significant solo activity outside of Kings of Leon (Wikipedia:MUSICBIO see italics at the end), relevant information here can easily be incorporated into band article. Fixer23 (talk) 01:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:MUSICBIO, Sumsum2010·T·C 19:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AFD template was missing from article; it has been added now. Peter E. James (talk) 23:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This can be redirected if not notable enough for a separate article - some sources are cited and a merge of some of the information is possible. Peter E. James (talk) 23:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:MUSICBIO. no individual notability. LibStar (talk) 04:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kings of Leon per Fixer's argument regarding WP:MUSICBIO. Wickedjacob (talk) 02:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Merge to Kings of Leon. he's mentioned in 1000 news sources, see [37] some of them include him as the article's subject- see this CNN article: Kings of Leon's Matthew Followill is a dad-to-be . What I can't understand is why everybody here's voting to Delete while in all the other AfDs for the other band's members the votes lean to keep??? for example, this one: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Caleb_Followill Dragquennom (talk) 14:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that as well. Seems he's least popular? Of course he's going to be mentioned in many news sources, he's a part of Kings of Leon. That is what this discussion is about, having a child doesn't pertain to having notable solo activity outside of Leon. Fixer23 (talk) 09:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Much of this info is already in the parent article, and the rest duplicates what is in his brother's article. Chick Bowen 00:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kings of Leon per Chick Bowen. There is not significant third party coverage of this musician to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO and should be merged back into the group article. -Atmoz (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kings of Leon per my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jared Followill. Cunard (talk) 05:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Kings of Leon. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 11:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Followill[edit]

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

Member of a notable band. However, does not appear to have any significant solo activity outside of Kings of Leon (Wikipedia:MUSICBIO see italics at the end), relevant information here can easily be incorporated into band article. The main difference between this article the pages of the other members of the band is an "attack" of the show Glee, which could in some editors minds be notable solo activity? Fixer23 (talk) 01:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This person is of sufficient status to meet general notability criteria on his own. Although he did come to fame only for being a member of one band, the interviews which reliable sources are collecting are pointedly personal and probe into him as an artist and not as a member of an ensemble. The article's subject seems to be a celebrity figure in his own right. The Sun Village Voice MTV It seems that this might be the case for all the band members, because they all get questioned in interviews for their opinions on musical technique. I am cross-posting this argument on the other band members' AfD debates. Blue Rasberry (talk) 04:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per Blue Rasberry. I'll admit, I really wasn't sure about this either way when I first saw it. MobileSnail 04:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But the caveat in the policy applies to "individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases," surely attaining minor "celebrity status" does not qualify as significant activity. The policy takes into account that there will be independent coverage, but all with regard to the band's activity as a whole, obviously interviews are not going to always be conducted with all the members present. I'm not sure being asked separately about their instruments (in the context of their work in the band) constitues individual notability/activity. Surely being more popular member doesn't immediately qualify as notability? Correct me if I'm wrong, but none of them have reached the status of being a household name outside of the band (which could make this discussion less obvious). I think the main point here is that there should be "individual notability for activity independent of the band," the argument that someone "famous for being famous" sometimes qualify for articles based on notability established by individual coverage. However, in this case, individual coverage is inevitable and in the cases of pages of members of groups, those individuals have done work to differentiate themselves from their group, such as side projects, film, solo albums etc. Here, it is not demonstrated. Fixer23 (talk) 06:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per my comments at the others. Chick Bowen 00:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kings of Leon.Dragquennom (talk) 12:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kings of Leon per Chick Bowen's arguments at the other AfDs. There is not significant third party coverage of this musician to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO and should be merged back into the group article. -Atmoz (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kings of Leon per my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jared Followill. Cunard (talk) 05:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Kings of Leon. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 11:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Caleb Followill[edit]

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

Member of a notable band. However, does not appear to have any significant solo activity outside of Kings of Leon (Wikipedia:MUSICBIO see italics at the end), relevant information here can easily be incorporated into band article. Fixer23 (talk) 01:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This person is of sufficient status to meet general notability criteria on his own. Although he did come to fame only for being a member of one band, the interviews which reliable sources are collecting are pointedly personal and probe into him as an artist and not as a member of an ensemble. The article's subject seems to be a celebrity figure in his own right. The Sun Village Voice MTV It seems that this might be the case for all the band members, because they all get questioned in interviews for their opinions on musical technique. I am cross-posting this argument on the other band members' AfD debates. Blue Rasberry (talk) 04:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep per Blue Rasberry. I'll admit, I really wasn't sure about this either way when I first saw it. MobileSnail 04:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But the caveat in the policy applies to "individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases," surely attaining minor "celebrity status" does not qualify as significant activity. The policy takes into account that there will be independent coverage, but all with regard to the band's activity as a whole, obviously interviews are not going to always be conducted with all the members present. I'm not sure being asked separately about their instruments (in the context of their work in the band) constitues individual notability/activity. Surely being more popular member doesn't immediately qualify as notability? Correct me if I'm wrong, but none of them have reached the status of being a household name outside of the band (which could make this discussion less obvious). I think the main point here is that there should be "individual notability for activity independent of the band," the argument that someone "famous for being famous" sometimes qualify for articles based on notability established by individual coverage. However, in this case, individual coverage is inevitable and in the cases of pages of members of groups, those individuals have done work to differentiate themselves from their group, such as side projects, film, solo albums etc. Here, it is not demonstrated. Fixer23 (talk) 06:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 6 April 2011

(UTC)

OK, I guess you are right. However I feel this is ridiculous and should be altered at least slightly to exempt the frontman of the band from this rule. Maybe other bandmates that have no solo activity should still apply but I think that the frontman should exempt at least. For the time being I'll just stay out of this discussion while I see if I can get a change on that. MobileSnail 20:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per my comments on the AfDs for the others. Chick Bowen 00:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kings of Leon.. Dragquennom (talk) 12:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kings of Leon per Chick Bowen's arguments at the other AfDs. There is not significant third party coverage of this musician to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO and should be merged back into the group article. -Atmoz (talk) 16:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kings of Leon per my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jared Followill. Cunard (talk) 05:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article has substantially changed during the course of the AfD, consensus on the revised version is Keep. (Non-admin closure) Monty ₈₄₅ 18:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Oyakhilome[edit]

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

This "biography" has negligable independent sources to verify notability, breaches just about every rule in the book when it comes to reliable sources (including using enwiki as a footnote reference!), and does not demonstrate why this subject, or the article in its current state, merits inclusion in Wikipedia. Daniel (talk) 02:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Nominated version)

Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Nigeria|list of Nigeria-related deletion discussion--Scarletharlot69 (talk) 20:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)--Scarletharlot69 (talk) 20:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)s]]. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete not notable at all. Sceptre ^(talk) 03:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's getting quite a coverage in the African press[38][39][40], isn't he? Ankimai (talk) 07:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Oyakhilome is a very well known Nigerian televangelist. I don't see anything in criteria for notability that makes this person not notable. He's written about in books, in magazines, in newspapers. He's studied by scholars. I saw him mentioned on an American tv show recently. How is this not notable? I don't get it. --ConcealMyIPAddress (talk) 21:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read the notability link above, and there is no way this guy fails notability. But it seems the notability link and editing is meaningless, when someone just pronounces he's not notable without any proof. There are newspapers, books, articles on scholar. In English, French, and other languages. But someone said "he's not notable," and that's all that matters. Editing articles is a poor second to discussing articles and tagging articles, it seems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ConcealMyIPAddress (talk • contribs) 01:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The articles referred to by Ankimai appear to be about the article subject and his ministry and his scandals and the government's crusade against him and go into enough depth that he passes WP:GNG handily from those alone. I suspect, though, that most of the reliably sourced third-party notice of him is in print, as the African press is still largely offline. These articles certainly assume that the reader is familiar with him, in the same way that an American article on Pat Robertson or the late Jerry Falwell would. --NellieBly (talk) 04:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep maybe incorporate into article on 'Christ Embassy'. Have just bumped into one of their Brothers here in Leeds, England. And I wanted to know something about them...

Keep Tell me again why this was nominated? If it had been about a US televangeleist there would be no question of deleting. Almost anybody appearing on US TV gets an article here, no matter how useless and pathetic a human being they are, merely by having been on TV. As for the Wikipedia self-ref, that is a simple and understandable newbie mistake, it is not in any way an argument for deletion. SpinningSpark 23:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Sears (American Translator)[edit]

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

I see no evidence, in the article or on the internets, that this person is notable. Drmies (talk) 04:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree given the complexity of the translator's work in The Legend of Heroes: Trails in the Sky. It is considered to be one of the largest and most difficult to translate games ever to come out of Japan and why nobody had dared to pick it up until now. In the sphere of interactive entertainment and especially Japanese interactive entertainment as well as novels, I think this is extremely relevant. I also think that if we are going to delete everyone who people don't think are noteworthy, than we should just simply delete everyone on Wikipedia, because people are for the most part only noteworthy in their own sphere of professional work. There are also other people in this same line of work on Wikipedia such as Alexander O. Smith, but the games they worked on are significantly smaller, though some are of world-renown like Final Fantasy, etc. Please take a look at this for yourself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_O._Smith — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabbanum (talk • contribs) 05:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC) — Rabbanum (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- The article has no reliable sources to bear out these claims. You added a review of sorts from a PS2 fansite (I think--hard to tell in between all the loud advertisements that popped up), which mentioned "the translation grinder" but said nothing about the subject. It's not that I don't think the person is noteworthy--the problem is that there is no proof that he is. Drmies (talk) 14:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Let me see if there's anything else I can dig up about this person, I think there are a number of influential people in the video game industry that largely remain uncredited for their work because of the way corporate structures are set up. I don't know if this is to prevent them from seeking out their own careers, but here's another person on wikipedia that is widely known in the video game industry who has a page and who used to be a game translator. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Woolsey --Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabbanum (talk • contribs)

I think that people in the video game industry needs to have more attention paid to their work given that this particular industry has surpassed the movie industry and other media industries in terms of creativity, sales, etc. Also, translation can be considered a form of art as well and as far as I can tell, this particular translator's work has been fairly highly regarded. Rabbanum (talk) 04:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability has not been demonstrated per any WP notability policy. Qworty (talk) 08:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being an awesome translator is cool. But so is being an awesome dentist. Without sources showing notability beyond awesomeness, an individual article is unlikely to be appropriate.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 02:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yafei[edit]

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

Clearly fails WP:N, specifically WP:BAND. One source includes a total of 2 sentences in a blog-type posting on a Community Talkback page for a student radio station. The second source mentions only his name in a time slot for aforementioned radio station. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 11:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant and reliable coverage from independent sources. Yaksar (let's chat) 02:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Gregory[edit]

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

Nothing to indicate notability. As far as it goes it describes a perfectly ordinary journalist. Nothing stated in the article is sourced, and the one reference given simply tells us that Donna Gregory has taught a class to 7th and 8th grade children - not sufficient to establish notability. A PROD was removed by an IP editor with no explanation. The reason given for the PROD was "This article has existed for almost six years in an "abbreviated" form and has failed to develop much substance at all. Last year I added an archived link, to replace the dead one at the time, hoping to spur some attention on moving the article along, but little has subsequently occurred. In its present state, I believe it fails to meet our requirements for either notability and, because of its single supporting source from a (self published?) rather "puffy" article from seven years ago, I believe it fails our need for "verifiability" in biographical material related to living persons as well. In my opinion,this article appears to exist exclusively for promotional purposes." JamesBWatson (talk) 11:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was the editor who placed the original PROD, quoted above. Deconstructhis (talk) 13:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mark McCrindle[edit]

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

Subject of article has published two small books (one described on its own website as "Seventy short, heart-warming stories of acts of kindness by strangers with contributions by prominent Australians" and "as featured in Reader's Digest"), and a clutch of "white papers". The subject also has a wide variety of websites, and offers useful analysis to media organisations such as "it costs $somenumber to raise a child now" and "these are the popular baby names this year", which seems regularly to get him cited as a "demographics expert" or similar. This results in a respectable selection of hits - numerically at least - across Google News, Books and Scholar. However, significant coverage in reliable sources of the subject or his work in general, seems to be lacking. Despite efforts to improve and update the article, none of it is properly backed up with independent sources. The article was created, and is maintained by, User:EmilyW which appears to be a single purpose account with a possible conflict of interest - one of McCrindle's company websites lists an Emily W as being a staff member of the company. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Passes WP:CREATIVE. Found sources via Gnews [41] that do provide significant coverage for this person, therefore he passes WP:N. Auseplot (talk) 21:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, there are plenty of sources that say "Mark McCrindle says so-and-so", but I haven't been able to find any that actually talk about McCrindle, as required by WP:N. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 08:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage about him in Schmidt, Lucinda (13 April 2011), "Profile Mark McCrindle", The Sydney Morning Herald duffbeerforme (talk) 01:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: SMH article is best claim for notability [42], but this is still pretty sketchy overall, no best-sellers. a competent (perhaps stellar) professional, but so is my dentist.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 02:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spy6teen[edit]

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

Very limited coverage in secondary sources, which seem to do nothing more than establish that this webcomic exists and is still published. The link provided to "list of monthly Zuda contestants" is a link to another wikipedia article (and thus can't be used as a source), and indicates nothing other than that there are several Zuda contestants every month and that the subject of the article was one of them in 2009. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable publication. Wickedjacob (talk) 02:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet the WP:NOTABILITY standard of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Sharksaredangerous (talk) 19:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Honolulu Advertiser reference meets the WP:NOTABILITY standard of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Citizentim (talk • contribs) 19:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest you review WP:GNG. The Advertiser is a decent enough source, but it is only one and I'm not sure even that article represents significant coverage. Wickedjacob (talk) 21:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isis Taylor[edit]

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

Appears to be nn porn star lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. The award and nominations are unsupported in the article and the award is not listed as one in the Category:Pornographic film awards. It does not appear the award or nominations are "well-known" per WP:PORNBIO. ttonyb (talk) 14:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All hype and wishful thinking about being "notable" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhhhhhtttere (talk • contribs) 22:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Note: Sockpuppet vote stricken. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Penthouse and Hustler should count as notable mainstream media. Not finding her awards in the awards category may say more about that category; if I look at the competition she beat, the award is probably worth taking a closer look at. 132.195.109.67 (talk) 12:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:ENT, and the GNG, all coverage appears to be trivial/promotional. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not established through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Additionally, the subject does not meet the topical notability guidelines for either porn stars or entertainers. Regards, Cind.amuse 05:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PDF Sign&Seal[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The article makes no particular claim for notability for this software and leans towards being an advertorial in tone. The references included are product reviews which appear based on Ascertia's own press releases or simple product release statements which appear to do nothing to demonstrate notability against WP:PRODUCT or WP:GNG. My own search on GNews archives finds nothing but an Ascertia press release and I find one tangential mention in GBooks in someone's short how-to Virtual Accounting guide in Dutch.

The previous AFD was for a much shorter version but concluded with deletion for similar reasons. Fæ (talk) 15:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 15:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some coverage in reviews so I'm begrudingly stopping short of a G4 speedy, but such a horrible bit of spamvertising that even if these reviews are considered to be independent reliable coverage, there's nothing non-neutral in the article worth saving. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:HASREFS I have updated the article and improved the quality of few links and added one (top ten reviews). Reference 2,4 & 7 are independant articles. Mwahaj —Preceding undated comment added 09:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Of those references 2 is by a second party, 4 leads to an instance of a cookie-cut product review (as seen on A B C D), and the same for 7 (with cookies A B C D). The only "reviews" A and B are still minimal and unreliable - frankie^MR (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage by reliable sources and spam - frankie^MR (talk) 14:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:HASREFS See reference 4 which is pretty detailed. I have further improved the page Mwahaj —Preceding undated comment added 16:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Note, you should not repeat your Keep opinion, if you have additional comments or updates these can be added to the original discussion thread or you make it clear this is just a note by starting a new line with Comment. Thanks Fæ (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fringe software, Adobe makes an almost identical program for the same thing. Sumsum2010·T·C 00:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References appear to be submitted for listing and bear similarity to software listings on download sites. Agree, this article is promotional in nature.--Whiteguru (talk) 09:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - references do not meet threshold of significant coverage in reliable 3rd party sources; created by an SPA so possible spam. Dialectric (talk) 04:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (Previously closed as delete, then reexamined following a request on my talk page.) Sandstein 05:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1/0 (web comic)[edit]

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

There is a long-standing precedent per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabrina Online (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan and Mab's Furry Adventures, Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(web)/Archive_08#Web_Cartoonist.27s_Choice_award and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lackadaisy_(3rd_nomination) that the Web Cartoonist's Choice Award is not a notable enough award to confer notability per WP:WEB. The only other sources in the article are three reviews from websites which do not appear to be reputable reviewers: one is credited to screen names and therefore inherently unreliable; one is a dead link; and one is openly admitted to be the personal website of a non-notable reviewer. I have looked for more sources but found absolutely nothing, so I have every reason to believe that this is a continuation of the precedent. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep While I agree that the WCCA has not been found to be enough in the past, I do think it meets the sourcing requirements of WP:WEB. Hobit (talk) 02:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Explain how you think the sources are sufficient. I just pointed out how they clearly are not. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going with WP:WEB criteria 3, footnote 6. It's been nominated for what I consider an important (well-known and independent) award multiple (3) times. I fully understand that previous AfDs have come to the conclusion that the award isn't enough. I disagree and so feel WP:WEB is met. Hobit (talk) 03:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete It's a webcomic. End of discussion.75.3.142.181 (talk) 22:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sometimes Web Cartoonists' Choice Award is seen as notable, sometimes not, depending on what people say in the discussion and the opinions of the closing administrator. We have multiple Wikipedia articles listing who won this award each year. Dream Focus 13:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks significant (or even any) coverage in reliable independent secondary sources, which is what we need to write an encyclopedia article. Longstanding consensus has been that webcomics do not somehow inherit notability by "winning" a "Web Cartoonists' Choice Award" (which is basically an unscientific internet poll), and this webcomic has never even won one. "Webcartoonist Choice Awards" are neither independent ("winner" Shaenon Garrity agrees they're a "simpering circlejerk"[43]), nor well-known (Webcartoonist Choice Awards administrator Lewis Powell describes their failure at "making people aware of them, getting people to care about them."[44]) Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 16:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is no more an "unscientific internet poll" than the Academy Awards. Those who create web comics get to vote on the awards. The negative comments aren't ideal, but again, I suspect you can find Academy Award winners who have made similar statements. Hobit (talk) 01:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. DS (talk) 23:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why? You should know better than to put just a !vote. Come on, Dragonfly, I thought you were smart. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 00:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very Very Strong Keep: Notable --Reference Desker (talk) 11:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE is not an argument. Try again, n00b. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, was busy earlier. For dead links, consult the Wayback Machine - thus, this source. Also, Shaenon Garrity thought 1/0 was important enough that she interviewed Williams about it after it was finished (note that ComixTalk has a managing editor). I strongly assert that, within the microfield of webcomics, 1/0 is historically relevant and notable. DS (talk) 14:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SUPER DUPER STRONG MEGADELETE Does not meet the WP:NOTABILITY standard of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Without reliable sources this is just a mess of original research. Long-standing precedent is that the Web Cartoonist's Choice Award is too minor to confer notability, simply saying WP:ILIKEIT here does not change that. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 19:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 19:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matīss Akuraters[edit]

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

Created by single-purpose account Plasticwords (talk · contribs), possible conflict of interest. Notability per WP:NMG seems questionable. bender235 (talk) 18:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is nothing wrong with a single purpose account creating an article as a significant percentage of our articles are created by such accounts. I could have been called a single purpose account at the time I finished my first article, as could many other prolific editors. This article asserts notability and includes references. I would defer to the opinion of a Latvian speaking editor regarding the quality of the references and the availability of additional references. Cullen328 (talk) 19:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Never heard of him, famous mom doesn't warrant an article ~~Xil (talk) 17:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 (talk) 19:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 (talk) 19:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - there seems to be just about enough coverage in reliable sources for notability, though this is a borderline case. I would note that 'never heard of him', above, is a poor argument for deletion - what matters is whether the sources exist. Robofish (talk) 01:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Short Stories (Kenny Rogers album)[edit]

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

Deprodded without comment. Allmusic listing is blank, no non-trivial sources found. Fails WP:NALBUMS. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Originally I had some hard-to-find sources for it, but AllMusic doesn't list it charting anywhere and I don't know if it ever did. If there is no such evidence, it might be delete-worthy. Also, I think it WAS deleted before I saw it, so it was restored so I could try to find my information. Never did, and I'm busy with a couple of other articles now NEway. Also, not sure what TPH refers to as "blank" since the entry is here; two years ago had a picture of the record itself proving the AllMusic listing incorrect; they never fixed it and that picture got lost on a busted laptop (unless I backed it up). Makes me question AllMusic's reliability throughout. CycloneGU (talk) 22:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By blank, I mean it has no album cover, review or credits. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I thought you meant no tracklist. It does have credits for composers and vocals, but apparently AM wants us to pick through the albums for the rest of the details. I found the cover tho. CycloneGU (talk) 15:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This isn't really a compilation album at all, and clearly not a generic "greatest hits" album.. It's easy enough to find a source covering the album [45], reporting that this was a rather odd experiment in creating "new" recordings, mixing the artist's original vocals into new instrumental tracks. I don't know quite how to classify this, but it's not the sort of "compilation" we usually dismiss. In the absence of a good reason to punch a hole into a reasonably complete discography for the period involved (there are well-earned gaps in later periods for generic "greatest hits" albums), I'd say keep this.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; the Billboard link provided by Hullabaloo Wolfowitz shows that, while the nature of this album isn't completely clear, it at least had some notability back at the time of its release, so we might as well keep it for the sake of keeping the discography as complete as possible, as he mentioned. Kansan (talk) 00:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both as article creator and in light of the Billboard info. I was wondering whether it was keep-worthy and that suggests it is. CycloneGU (talk) 05:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Mihalis Safras residentadvisor.net

[2] ttp://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/local/colchester/768100.Colchester__Bus_users_face_route_woe/

[1]

[2]