Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 May 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 3 May 5 May >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Whatever point the page was used to make has been made. T. Canens (talk) 05:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Otto Middleton[edit]

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

The word "allegedly" in the lead is pretty strong evidence that this is not a notable pet. StAnselm (talk) 23:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The nomination argument is rubbish. How is "alleged" evidence of non-notability. Many notable things may not be altogether reliable. All the facts in the article are referenced and verified. The question is, do the sources indicate notability, not whether the the allegations are true or not. If you want to delete this, you'll need a better reason than "alleged". Otherwise we delete all article on things which may not be true.--Scott Mac 23:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - IT is so super notable i am wetting myself - easily hurdles the grass cutting trivia of GNG minimal triavia level - keep keep I love it. Off2riorob (talk) 23:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've removed the picture you added, which doesn't even represent the subject correctly. This is about notability, not cuteness. Guoguo12--Talk--  02:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh dear. Doesn't even touch GNG. Maybe worth a sentence in Kate Middleton, but delete otherwise.  狐 Dhéanamh ar rolla bairille!  23:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The family are heirs to the throne now - please keep - this is viral of facebook, wikipedia will be laughed at if there is not an article about this family friend. - easily passes the trivia of GNG. Off2riorob (talk) 00:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Middleton family are not heirs to the throne. GoodDay (talk) 00:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect whatever is relevant to Kate Middleton. Plausible enough search term, but as substance for an article of its own this is thin gruel indeed. And yes, if 2/3s of an article is "alleged incident", it's a safe bet the topic has no legs. Skomorokh 00:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The alleged incident has been noted in multiple non-trivial sources. And then still others have commented on the veracity of the original reports.--Scott Mac 00:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • None of which contributes much to the tenability of an article on the canine itself. If you want to spend your free time repurposing this into an article on the flash-in-the-pan incident (which all sources cited except the unreliable one seem to focus on), then by all means go ahead; I expect a tedious AfD would follow that just as quickly. Skomorokh 00:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • That would be a reason to improve the article, not to delete it. It is verifible, neutral and noted. So keep.--Scott Mac 00:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'd ask what on earth you are referring to, but having just seen this ANI thread, I wonder if the aim of this exercise is to parrot inanities in order to make a point? If so, you could at least try to be a little funnier at it, because it's been a rather tedious reading experience thus far. Skomorokh 00:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, OK Scott your point has been made - and crushingly so. The citations to the Daily Mail were a nice touch, by the way. Now, how about tagging this for G7 deletion sooner rather than later before WP:POINT becomes used as smokescreen to undermine attention on the actual the issue you're highlighting. CIreland (talk) 00:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's the rush? The article is a few hours old, and it is all perfectly verifiable and inoffensive. I've always been pretty inclusionist outside of BLP, so personally I've no particular issue with stuff like this.--Scott Mac 00:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh! - Alison ❤ 00:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, per Skomorokh. We do have some articles on notable animals, but for me Otto doesn't get past WP:N. Surely there's room for him somewhere, just as the Elizabeth II page mentions the Queen's corgis. Moonraker2 (talk) 00:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge content to List_of_dogs and put this mutt of an article to sleep. →StaniStani  01:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move or merge – the sources do not support calling this mut "Otto Middleton", but he does seem to have significant coverage in independent reliable sources; if you really want an article on him, how about Otto (dog)? Oops, that's taken. Dicklyon (talk) 01:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Sources are nothing more than trivial. I think we have better topics to address, per WP:NOTNEWS. Hengist Pod (talk) 01:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this allegedly non-notable dog. Alison's comment means, I think, we're headed for no consensus. Drmies (talk) 01:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am happy to see this moved to Otto (dog). To be honest I did start writing this as a bit of a joke ("people keep creating article on Middleton family members - so let's write one on the dog"). However, as I began to write it, I found there was a real story here and one of note!! "Otto" has literally thousands of mentions all over the internet, and based on multiple stories in British newspapers. The stories make a claim about him and the earing. (That in itself is probably trivia). But the recorded (probable) fact that these newspapers were printing a false story, which was later the attention of other newspapers is not. Further, given the internet coverage (much of it repeating the false story) it would seem well justifiable for Wikipedia to record the who affair and (as far as it is known) the verifiable facts. As I say, all of this is covered in multiple sources. I'm not going to die in a ditch defending this article, but I genuinely do think it justifies keeping and developing. (I'd only just written it when it was nominated - so no doubt a lot more work could be done).--Scott Mac 02:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You'd risk upsetting the Queen's corgis? GoodDay (talk) 02:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strangely there is already an "Otto (dog)" article. So we'd need some other disambiguating title.--Scott Mac 02:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Peeved delete: this appears to be simply a rather silly attempt to see how far WP:INHERITED & royal wedding mania can be taken. Does not appear to be even a reliable source confirming that the Middletons own this poor benighted pooch. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Several sources claim that that the dog was owned by the Middletons. However, being owned by the Middletons would not make it notable. What makes it notable is that it has been the subject of dozens mainstream media stories. You are not addressing that.--Scott Mac 02:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:Complete bollocks -- what is blatantly obvious is that this dog would have received no attention whatsoever but for its ambiguous relationship to the Middleton family -- and so has no notability independent of them. WP:TABLOID obsession with Willy, Willy's-Katie, Willy's-Katie's-boring-sister, Willy's-Katie's-even-more-boring-brother, Willy's-Katie's-missing-earring, the-dog-that-may-have-eaten-Willy's-Katie's-missing-earring, and each and every one of the This Is the House That Jack Built permutations thereof, is WP:NOT a suitable basis for an article. What's next? An article on the-maker-of-the-collar-for-the-dog-that-may-have-eaten-Willy's-Katie's-missing-earring? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Clearly violates our Biography of Living Dogs policy. Obviously created as an attack page by a cat lover, this kind of POV pushing makes me sick. Qrsdogg (talk) 02:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Otto Middleton is a black cocker spaniel"—I'm sorry, but pets known mainly just for belonging to high-profile people are almost never notable. The exceptions would be perhaps Bo (dog) or Socks (cat), both of which have received more coverage in secondary sources than Otto here. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just not notable, no coverage and not even any proof that the dog has the Middleton surname!! Doubt it's on a birth certificate or dog's pedigree or by deed poll so if anything it ought to be Otto (dog of The Middleton's).--Egghead06 (talk) 07:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and note that dog in Catherine Middleton's article. The Middletons are not a family of dogs. A dog can't be adopted by the Middleton family because he's a dog. A dog is never a member of a family in law, or genealogical. This is only a sarcastic vandalism. -- LeoDavid (talk) 08:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the whole article is full of "alleged" and "claimed", that's a terrible start to begin with. Also; does not really pass the WP:GNG, is trivial un-encyclopaedic rubbish. At most worth a line or two in Kate's article. --Errant (chat!) 08:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now it's Otto, a dog in the Middleton family. That's anyway more correct. -- LeoDavid (talk) 08:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is it? I'm not so sure, and moving it during the deletion discussion is not really all that helpful. The title you chose is different from our usual naming conventions so I moved it back. But go ahead and open a move discussion if it survives AFD --Errant (chat!) 11:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - what next, an article on a tree the Middleton's garden?! GiantSnowman 09:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • LOL. Delete '. But Scotty Mac does have a point about this obsession with this family..♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, with possible Redirect. Does not pass WP:N... and let's remember that notability is not inherited. It's touching to see that everyone cares about the Middleton family, but we must remember that notability is not temporary and we should take the long term view. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails my understanding of the notability guidelines. At best some material might be salvageable for British media response to a Royal Wedding. No chance of a quick close on this process and a bollocking for bringing wikipedia into disrepute through negligent editing? GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - all animals are equal (although apparently some animals are more equal than others). Needs rescuing, perhaps eventual merge to list of Royal pets, akin to the list of Presidential pets. Keristrasza (talk) 12:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Highly notable topic of deep encyclopedic interest. If we don't preserve this crucial knowledge, it will be gone forever in 10-20 years, and humanity will be so much poorer for it. Also add coverage about the cross-dressing gay tomcat friend of Duke Otto that I heard about on a YouTube video! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge! - haha, this is one article too far. I feel a bit sorry for the father, who evidently is considered less noteworthy than his pet. Having said that, if we're going ahead with the Middleton family merge proposal, I guess Otto can have his day there. Bob talk 12:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand with the full pedigree. This AfD is rabid deletionism taken one step too far! Hans Adler 12:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep (I was canvassed, BTW, albeit indirectly) William M. Connolley (talk) 13:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If we have this article stay, does that mean everyone gets to create a page for their pets? Just because an animal is owned by someone notable does not make the pet notable. Oy gevalt! I'd be for deleting the Bo article as well, unless he does something notable. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. First we had List of wedding guests of Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, and Catherine Middleton, then Wedding dress of Kate Middleton. I argued to keep those two, but this one's notability pales in comparison. Like User:Bob Castle said, an article too far, I'm sorry. Merge to Middleton family. - Yk (talk | contrib) 14:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject has received significant coverage in the media, meaning he is independently notable in his own right. Whole articles have been written about this dog by the likes of the Daily Mail, clearly demonstrating its notability as an encyclpoedic topic. That article was written in 2009, well before the marriage of William and Kate, so obviously there is simply no case to answer on the grounds of inherited notability, as Kate and William were merely dating at the time. According to a Daily Telegraph article about Prince William's 28th birthday present to Kate, this dog caused her to be upset and embarrassed when he ate the earings. This sort of notice in reliable sources clearly shows Otto is independantly notable and worthy of a Wikipedia entry. Because that's what notability is after all - getting noticed in sources. And there's loads of other sources out there also, I've seen them. Everything else can be fixed by adhering to our normal editing policy - as such this Afd nomination was clearly disruptive. If people want to delete this article just because Otto is a dog, they are showing their clear bias against dogs, are in danger of alienating our dog focused readership, and are clearly not adhering to our policies and guidelines which only care about how much coverage a topic gets. Merging this article into the family article is not an option, as that would give out the impression that we consider Otto more important than other Middleton family members not mentioned in the family article, which would be a clear violation of the BLP policy. Kate is the future Queen of England, and therefore Otto is notable. Kate is now a Duchess also, so Otto is now part of the nobility, so this also shows he deserves an article here, as there are plenty of other articles here that exist purely because they are nobility. I came here to this article to read more about Otto, therefore he is obviously notable, as giving readers the information they want to know on the stuff they find interesting is what Wikipedia is for after all. Otto Middleton generates 3,550,000 results in Google, therefore he is also clearly notable. We have other articles on dogs called Otto, therefore this Otto deserves an article too. If Wikipedia can delete an article on the family dog of the wife of the son of the son of the head of the British Royal Family, then the whole world will laugh at us. When this article was put up for deletion on the German Wikipedia, it was speedy kept, and the German media all laughed at English Wikipedia for even starting this Afd. Q.E.D., I have proven beyond doubt that Otto is notable according to our policies and guidelines. And besides, it strikes me that being the pet of the Middleton family is an important enough topic for which we can ignore those anyway. MickMacNee (talk) 14:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kate might be the future Queen consort of the United Kingdom & 15 other commonwealth realms. Never say, of England. GoodDay (talk) 15:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah see where you are coming from. I might just change my 'Delete' choice to 'Keep'. By the way the Middletons have a racehorse,Sohraab. Might be worth its own article?--Egghead06 (talk) 15:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until such time as Otto passes away. After that core policies on WP:Biographies of living pets will no longer apply, so that a more detailed account of the life and deeds of these domestic companions can be given. The 2001 obituary of Kelpie in the Daily Telegraph, contains what I assume were hitherto undisclosed facts about Kelpie and his forebear Susan: "Susan, the Queen's first corgi, earned notoriety by nipping the ankle of the royal clockwinder, and taking chunks out of the legs of various servants, a detective and a policeman. Kelpie is believed to have led a relatively blameless life - although there are suspicions that she may have disfigured a jigsaw, borrowed by the Queen from the National Jigsaw library." Mathsci (talk) 14:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why would any one want to destroy a dog that has done no harm? —Preceding unsigned comment added by John lilburne (talk • contribs) 15:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Utterly non-notable. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - as utterly non-notable, tabloid, trivial, bollocks. ukexpat (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The subject has received significant coverage in the media, meaning he is independently notable in his own right. Anyhow this !vote seem to be more directed at "ooh a dog on Wikipedia.. what?" then actual reasonings to why this article should be deleted. --BabbaQ (talk) 15:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then tell us what is notable about the dog. The article doesn't say why the dog is notable. Dogs try to digest things they shouldn't all the time. Besides, according to wikipedia's own article, the Daily Mail does not constitute a reliable source, as it is a tabloid. If the dog can play or dance the minuet, that would be notable. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ignore him, babba's never met an article he didn't want to keep. Tarc (talk) 19:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • And you Tarc never let go of a chance to post yet another insult. Surprise, surprise..... If you for once could focus on a subject instead of insulting people with a different opinion than yourself it would help your cause, and some day I might take you seriously. cheers mate;)--BabbaQ (talk) 21:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • And I would probably take you more seriously if your votes didn't invariably wind up on the wrong side of these types of 90%-10% AfDs. Perhaps less time spent worrying about me and more time spent reviewing basic notability guidelines would do some good. Tarc (talk) 22:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but the loss of the jewelry might be worth a line in the article about the duchess. As other people have noted, the Daily Mail is not a repiable soruce.Martinvl (talk) 16:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: As a very dear and trusted friend of the Royal family, I am very well acquainted with dear little Otto; who is a close and personal friend of my own beloved dog, Crippen. This is an extremely malicious and uncalled for nomination by someone who is clearly a dog hater and probably a bolshevik too. Anything related to a member of Her Majesty's gracious family is clearly notable. Lady Catherine Rollbacker-de Burgh (the Late) (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a dog that may exist who may have once eaten an earring? Barely worth a mention in its owners article... BulbaThor (talk) 17:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Kate. There are refs, but the info is too meagre for a stand-alone article, I think this is the case of merged Max (pig). Brandmeister t 17:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge absent a policy on biographies of living dogs, it appears to be a single-event dog. "Him" and "Her" were substantially more famous, and lacking separate articles or even a mention on Wikipedia that I found. Collect (talk) 17:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and ban the nominator — the most important member of this family must be covered in depth by the wikipedia; it is fascist anthropocentrism that will only play into the hands of the Nazis who want to establish a world government ruled by the despicable ideology of apartheid that forces non-human souls into ghettoized niches and wants to belittle their contributions to the great civilizations of the world. It is an outrage that wikipedia tolerates the witchhunt of innocent fellow creatures. Hitler would have been proud of StAnselm whose Germanic name obviously shows that this nomination is nothing more than cloaked antisemitism at its worst — rather than directly comparing Jews to rats and wishing for their death, he now takes it out on a poor, defenseless canine. Hasn't it occurred to anyone that the dog is black??? Does anyone really this is a mere coincidence??? Where is your common decency? I cannot believe that this veiled racism continues to be tolerated by wikipedia in the 21st century!!! Haven't we learned anything from the past? The late Dr. King died so that Otto could have his place in the sun, too, and now StAnslem wants to murder him again in the most bloodthirsty manner. A helpless dog lynched and his decaying body dangling from a tree while hundreds of spectators cheer and celebrate is the true agenda behind this outrageous nomination. Anyone who !votes delete will be guilty of supporting genocide on a scale much larger than what we've seen in Rwanda! Let those images be burnt into your mind before you cast your vote here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 17:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - as utterly non-notable, tabloid, trivial, bollocks. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some of the Keep comments are getting too silly & should be disregarded. GoodDay (talk) 17:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - You cannot be serious! --93.44.215.42 (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete this Middleton Wikimadness has got to stop!   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 18:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Many of the !voters here clearly realise the article was created to make a point about the number of others springing up about Middleton family members; some presumably realise that some of those were created simply to make a point about the Pippa Middleton one. Anyway, it was a point well made and I chortled heartily but unfortunately not everyone's got it, and to labour it any more would verge on the side of disruption. So let's end this now before it gets that far. RichardOSmith (talk) 18:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Dumb, not-newsworthy blurbs about earring-swallowing pets do not pass a common-sense interpretation of our notability guidelines. This is shit that WP:NOTNEWS is designed to prevent. Tarc (talk) 19:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since when did common sense ever feature in a WP discussion? If there is coverage then the thing, person, event, animal is notable. If one went about applying common sense the 80% of the articles would be deleted or severely reduced in size. The application of common sense is pretty much a violation of NPOV, and is dangerously close to call for expertism. John lilburne (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete essentially all the coverage of this dog relates to a single incident in which it ate an earring. Now I'm not opposed to the idea of pets of extremely notable people getting articles (such as Bo (dog) or Larry (cat)) but in this case the article violates WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ONEEVENT as the coverage relates to a single incident, amplified by the hype over the relationship/wedding. Arguing that the subject meets WP:GNG doesn't counter this argument as the GNG is a necessary rather than a sufficient criterion for inclusion. Hut 8.5 19:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTNEWS etc.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OMFG, there is an article on the Middleton family's dog.—Chris!c/t 20:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete You cannot possibly be serious to keep this nonsense article about an "alleged" pet. Wefihe (talk) 20:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete If we could confirm whether the dog is Otto or Ella and whether it lives with the Royals as opposed to the Middletons, it would be a keeper.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge to Middleton family article. Coverage is trivial. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can delete the article, or you can merge it. You can't do both without violating the CC licence.--Scott Mac 21:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He didn't mean it like that. That pet is worth a sentence to say, maybe. Nothing more. -- LeoDavid (talk) 21:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to Alleged canine consumption of nacreous gemstones incident of 2011, per WP:BLP1E. According to my reading of Wikipedia's animal-rights articles, dogs are people too and thus qualify for BLP protection. Also recommend strong sanctions against some editors here for blatant canvassing. MastCell Talk 21:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I laughed so hard when I read this, because it's ridiculous yet so true. It made my day. =) Thegreatdr (talk) 22:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Absolute bloody nonsense. Any similar content, let alone articles, should also be deleted. Sidetracking our time and energies to be forced to vote on complete trivia submitted facetiously is not funny. Rubywine (talk) 21:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - just not notable tabloid trivia. MilborneOne (talk) 22:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wish to simultaneously !vote Delete per Qrsdogg; Keep per Stephan Schulz; Strong Keep per Lady Catherine Rollbacker-de Burgh (the Late); Strong keep and ban the nominator per Seb_az86556; and Merge/redirect per Mastcell. These !voters are the only ones that have a clear understanding of policy. The rest of the !votes should be disregarded by the closing administrator. -Atmoz (talk) 22:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete A joke's a joke but this is just daft. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep and whack the Delete voters with a rolled-up newspaper. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If nothing else, this AfD is a good way for us to see which editors have a sense of humour or not, and which editors are clueful or not. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non notable, per Tiny the Tiger too. Lovetinkle (talk) 23:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and let's get over with it - frankieMR (talk) 23:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a late April fool (Referring to this Article). Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 00:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mock, per Alison. --jpgordon::==( o ) 01:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Bishzilla diet, already contains list of dog breeds and canine individuals palatable to Bishzilla. Black cocker spaniel is A OK! bishzilla ROARR!! 17:01, 8 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. SilkTork *Tea time 09:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shekar Ramanuja Sidarth[edit]

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

This is a clear case of WP:BLP1E: a person 'notable' for only one event. In this case, it's not even for anything he did himself, but for being called 'macaca' (allegedly an ethnic slur) by a candidate in a US Senate election. That incident is already sufficiently covered in other articles such as Macaca (term) and Controversies of the United States Senate election in Virginia, 2006. I can't find any significant coverage of S.R. Sidarth unrelated to this event; there were a couple of mentions in blogs when he appeared on Jeopardy in 2009, and that's it. The coverage of him that is related to the event is really about Allen and the election, not him. This article should be deleted. Robofish (talk) 23:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(This article was previously discussed at AFD in 2008, ending in 'no consensus': Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. R. Sidarth. Confusingly, there were also two AFDs in 2006, which ended in 'redirect': see here, here. I think by now his lack of notability has become quite clear. Robofish (talk) 23:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
  • Query. Since notability is not fleeting, I was wondering since the last AfD ended in default to keep, what the thinking is that prompts the suggested that a "default to keep" is now a delete. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    My thinking is that this person was never actually 'notable' in the first place; WP:BLP1E guides us that we should not have articles on such people. In 2008, we weren't as strict about enforcing the BLP rules as we are now and there was still some doubt about whether he was notable enough for an article. I believe it is clear by now that, under our policies, he is not. Robofish (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The subject is not personally notable in his own right; he is known primarily for the nickname that George Allen once gave him. As a second choice, redirect to Controversies of the United States Senate election in Virginia, 2006#Allen's Macaca controversy per WP:BLP1E. The subject is known almost entirely for his involvement in the controversy, and so he should be discussed in connection with that event. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: George Allen is running for Senate in Virginia in 2012 and has already begun to campaign. The 2006 incident is again a matter of keen public interest. It is unknown as yet if Mr. Sidarth is going to play a personal role as a political activist in this election, but it seems likely that, at the very least, he will again be interviewed and make the rounds of the talk shows. As a result, there will still be interest in him as an individual at least until the 2012 election cycle is over. Any AfD action until then would be premature. -- LisaSmall T/C 09:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as yesterday's news Richardjames444 —Preceding undated comment added 14:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - I feel the issue is somewhat major and that it was notable enough for him to have his own article. The sources to back him up are there. But I would be satisfied if the biographical information was merged into an article about the incident. ceranthor 13:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wholly negative WP:BLP1e. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article is pointless. The infomation is included in George Allen's page and the 2006 senate election page. This page serves no point. America69 (talk) 00:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - he's not notable, and his name isn't too likely a search term. --Anthem of joy (talk) 15:49, 11 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. J04n(talk page) 21:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Shephard Dube[edit]

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

This is an article about a very ambitious young man, but unfortunately does not meet the criteria of WP:BIO. Many of the references provided do not mention him at all. The CNN link is essentially a blog. There are no other reliable sources for "Marxist Shephardism" nor any that verify his honourable title. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 23:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep The hounarable title was given to him by a the royal family of Filabusi it is in rural Matebeleland Zimbabwe. I have seen him on SABC news before during the legalisations of Zimbabweans in South Africa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.27.105.163 (talk) 22:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Whpq. -- Joaquin008 (talk) 13:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 6 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. (non-admin closure) Baseball Watcher 22:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Radha Madhav Dham[edit]

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

New organization. Not notable. Ism schism (talk) 23:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 23:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can you please explain why you've stubbed the article and removed 40 references [1]? The organization does not seem to be new - only the name. --NeilN talk to me 02:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply Those references referred to an organization that does not exist anymore. This is a different subject. It might become notable some day, but that is speculation. At present the subject is not notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply They claim to be the same organization that was founded in 1990, so they are the same organization. You are confusing a name change with the creation of a new organization. The old references are still valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.227.177 (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep The temple/ashram doesn't become any less notable because it's name was changed. All references to its notability were deleted. It was founded in 1990 using the old name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.44.186 (talk) 02:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply Its not a name change - it a new organization with a new leader and is not notable for anything. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Then this should be undone and the original article kept. --NeilN talk to me 13:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment That is untrue that it is a new organization with a new leader - [2][3]. The leader is the same as it has always been - Jagadguru Shree Kripaluji Maharaj. The only thing new about the organization is its new name and new governing body. Its also untrue that it is not notable for anything - if it was notable for anything before, it is still notable [4]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.227.177 (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The nominator's rationale and comments appear to be based on opinion. If the former temple was dissolved and its management, owners, community and followers and worshipers have all gone elsewhere, and perhaps even the buildings razed to the ground, the temple under its former name is nevertheless not less notable following its closure, and the redirect should be undone. If, however, the same followers and from the local or regional Hindu communities continue to use the complex and worship there, then there is a very strong argument for for keeping the article as a simple page move following its change of name, management and guru. The matter to be debated is what in the Hindu philosophy constitutes a temple? Its complex of buildings, its guru, or its worshipers? These are issues that should be examined and discussed on the relevant talk pages towards retention of one, the other, or both articles, and neither article should be summarily dismissed as a possible candidates for redirect or deletion. The criterion is 'verifiability not truth' and AfD is probably not not the best place for such discussion. My suggestion, failing an outcome through discussion and reliable sources for the temple under its new name, is to undo the redirect and page move, and redirect Radha Madhav Dham to the former article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think the nominators rationale is based on incomplete information, and his opinion is moot considering that the temple itself has explained the situation via a press release [5], which says that its the same temple using a new name. Their website says that Radha Madhav Dham was established in 1990 ([6]) (21 years before it was called Radha Madhav Dham) and a press release from the temple has announced the name change and the new governing body, but same owner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.227.177 (talk) 08:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The more pertinent question is what is wikipedia's policy on name changes. Can you use the old sources, if they are talking about the same organization or institution, but using an old name. For example, some of the sources show that Barsana Dham is one of the largest Hindu temples in the US - it hasn't reduced in size because of the name change. Most of the sources in the old article refer to the same thing (the same temple and ashram) - can they be used to refer to the same temple and ashram after a name change? That is a valid question, but is a delete page the place to discuss that? For the time being I am going to revert the stubbed article and add back the 40 references deleted by the the delete nominator. If anyone disagrees with this, let me know and say why.
      • Comment A re-direct to the old article may be argued for (it hasn't so far), except that the organization is now using the new name and publicizing it. The public and media will be looking for information on Radha Madhav Dham, and wikipedia would be the first place to go to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.227.177 (talk) 08:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This topic is also being discussed on the "Editor Assistance" page of wikipedia [7] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.63.149 (talk) 13:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The person who tagged this page for deletion also placed a tag "This article may contain wording that merely promotes the subject without imparting verifiable information". I don't think an article with 43 reliable and verifiable sources warrants that tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.233.219 (talk) 10:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nominator is operating from an incorrect assertion. And I agree that tag should go; the article is well sourced. oknazevad (talk) 19:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply Please explain, what assertion are you talking about? The sources listed have nothing to do with with article. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply I have re-looked at the sources, and they have *only* got to do with the article, albeit using the old name 'Barsana Dham' rather than "Radha Madhav Dham". So, to say that they have "nothing to do with the article" is blatantly false, because it is opposite to what the text in those sources say. Furthermore, a good majority of the sources are about the "Shree Raseshwari Radha Rani" temple, which is the temple at Radha Madhav Dham and Barsana Dham. The name of the temple hasn't changed [8]. And it hasn't got any less notable than it was 2 weeks ago, just because of a name change. Your false assertion that Radha Madhav Dham is a new organization and non-notable has been invalidated as I pointed out a few times, and as Oknazevad correctly pointed out. As I showed, its a 21 years old organization and the article has 43 verifiable and very reliable sources. If you can cite any solid reasons why the article should be deleted, you are free to do so, as well as citing the relevent wikipedia policies to back it up, but I don't think you have given any valid reason up till now, except your incorrect initial assertion. I am assuming that you have valid, wikipedia-policy-driven reasons to want this article to be deleted, and don't have a personal bias against it. 86.40.233.219 (talk) 02:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Further to my comment and suggestions above, and following further research, the temple complex has not been demolished, and still attracts worshipers from the same local and regional Hindu communities. This is a simple renaming only, and the article has been correctly renamed, keeping it content and references intact. Further updating may be required, but my conclusion is 'keep'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per Kudpung กุดผึ้ง and a "what were you thinking?" to Ism schism for almost demolishing a perfectly valid article. --NeilN talk to me 04:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This organization is clearly the same as (or a successor of) the previous one, and it's unclear how the nominator missed that when researching the topic, as required by WP:BEFORE. This article should be kept and restored, and this debate closed. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Where is the proof that it is the same? Until this is provided, there is no reason to keep the article. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply Ism schism, have you read anything posted above?! There is no need for me, or anyone else to keep posting proof that has already been provided over and over again. Looking at your history, although you have done some good work on wikipedia, I believe most of your motivation lies along sectarian lines and although I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you have wikipedia-policy-driven motivations, at the moment you appear to be trolling. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.32.122 (talk) 21:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply Can you answer my question? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply I already did. The answer is in one of the posts above. Read through the discussion above, and the wikipedia page, when you have finished trolling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.32.122 (talk) 21:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Reply Your statements need to be backed by reliable sources. It is not too much to ask for these - and your sources have yet to back up your statements. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ism schism, notability is not temporary. Even though the New York Yankees moved out of Yankee Stadium a few years ago and the complex was demolished, does not mean that we delete the article. --NeilN talk to me 22:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Reply Its not to much to ask, Ism schism, but you could have asked before hastily nominating the article for deletion. And it has already been discussed above - this is a discussion *page*, whereas you seem to think that each discussion starts from the beginning each time you post here. The ashram's press release explains everything [9]. The press release announced the new governing body and the name change. For you to claim that it is a new organization, you would have to provide evidence that contradicts their own press release, as well as state who was the ashram sold to etc. Radha Madhav Dham is being run by the same organization as Barsana Dham - Jagadguru Kripalu Parishat, not a new owner, as you are implying. A new governing body and name change does not make it a new organization, and the temple/ashram is no less notable than it was a few weeks ago. If it was one of the largest Hindu temples in the USA 2 weeks ago, it still is. In the same way, all the sources about Barsana Dham are relevant to Radha Madhav Dham - same Guru, same organization, same congregation, same buildings - different managing committee and name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.32.122 (talk) 22:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • NeilN, I will not argue with you about the New York Yankees. There is no proof that this is the same organization, and the notability is questionable at best. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well its the same organization unless you can provide evidence which states otherwise. I could claim that any organization I didn't like was somehow new, and request its page to be deleted - but as you know, that would not be a valid argument for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.32.122 (talk) 22:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note One of the main questions seems to be whether this is the creation of Swami Prakashanand Saraswati, or a new entity. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Swami Prakashanand Saraswati built the temple in 1990, as the Radha Madhav Dham article correctly states, but the temple has been managed by various succession of Presidents, none of whom were Swami Prakashanand Saraswati. What is new is that 2 weeks ago, it started being run by a managing committee rather than an individual president, and the name change. But it is still being run by the same international organization as Barsana Dham - Jagadguru Kripalu Parishat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.32.122 (talk) 22:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply Do you have reliable sources that confirm this information? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply I have provided sources that its being run by Jagadguru Kripalu Parishat and that a new committee is managing the affairs of an organization that was founded in 1990, whose name has changed a few weeks ago. There might be more sources out there if you were willing to look; and I can't argue that the page couldn't be improved - most wikipedia pages have room for improvement. But it has been established that the premise of your deletion nomination was incorrect.
  • Keep: You don't delete an artcile just because the subject's name needs to be changed, you just fix it. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply It is not a simple name change - where is the proof of this? What reliable sources back up this statement? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 06:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The source I saw was this press release, clearly showing the transition. Have you had a look at this source? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Please note - Barsana Dham Ashram, Once Home to Wanted Felon Guru Prakashanand Saraswati, Changes Name and Appoints a New Leader -- Another Accused Rapist. This is a different organization. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 06:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have rather good comprehension skill and I find this statement in the blog referenced: "The new leader in charge of the ashram's rebranding is Kripalu Maharaj." It is a blog howvere so not a RS. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The ashram's old website (which was almost 10 years old) listed Kripaluji Maharaj as the spiritual leader, so that blog is 100% unfactual, and it is not a reputable source, although it agrees with me that it is the same organization, who have given themselves a new name. Why did you ask for proof that it is a simple name change, when that proof has already been provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.32.122 (talk) 11:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Press release appears to clinch this for a clear 'keep': '...over 50,000 visitors a year' didn't just happen since the name change. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:53, 11 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. SilkTork *Tea time 10:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NKT - Kenyan Acronym[edit]

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

Unsourced, incorrect (not an acronym as it's not the initials of words). No evidence of existence. Has been prodded and de-prodded without explanation. PamD (talk) 22:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 6 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. -- Cirt (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Catalyst (company)[edit]

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

Procedural nomination. Proposed for deletion with the reason: "Article seems to be corporate advertising. Sources do not show notability: they are trade magazines and business journals that report routine corporate activities, not news outlets that report notable events." [10] Deletion contested by the article's creator. [11] - Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - appearances in trade directories, on a list of "100 fastest growing private companies in this [small] metropolitan area" and getting listed on year as the "4293d fastest-growing private company in the U.S.", do not constitute the substantial coverage recovered to establish corporate notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, solid.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Don't Delete

In order to be included in Wikipedia, the company must be:
• the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself, OR
• listed on ranking indices of important companies produced by well-known and independent publications, OR
• used to calculate stock market indices. Being used to calculate an index that simply comprises the entire market is excluded.

This article meets the first criterion. I have quoted multiple non-trivial, and published works (whose publications are very respected and include a print version), and whose sources are independent of the company itself. Furthermore, there is nothing in the guidelines that states that "trade magazines and business journals" do not constitute as "non-trivial published works". Please note that the official requirements state "non-trivial published works", while you are instead claiming "notability" and "notable events". I would then ask you to define what a "notable event" is, and also to explain the difference between a "business journal" and a "news outlet". Would the New York Times for example be a business journal, or a news outlet?

I have clearly met the requirement of quoting multiple non-trivial *and* published works, whose sources are independent of the company itself. Again, if this fact is going to be contested, then I would ask for an explanation as to how the following examples remain on Wikipedia, some of which have absolutely no cited sources and have remained for over a year:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBDO
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Razorfish_(company)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Hilimire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/GA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mullen_Advertising
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harte-Hanks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Fish_Media

If no one objects, then as the articles author (and based on my understanding of reading the procedures, but please correct if I am wrong), then I would like to be removing the PROD tag and canceling the request for deletion based on the above explanations. --Vcardillo (talk) 12:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC) — Vcardillo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

It's not a PROD, and removing the tag will not stop this process.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


So why aren't you including these for deletion as well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBDO
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Razorfish_%28company%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/GA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mullen_Advertising
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harte-Hanks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partners_and_Napier

You cannot honestly claim this article is spam without claiming the other ones are too. That would be representative of an inconsistent policy on your end. You should be explaining your logic in full for the benefit of other readers and viewers so as not to come off as an authoritarian force ruling on whim. You have not refuted any of my arguments or responded to my direct challenges of your logic. You are all simply ganging up and chanting "delete" without any corroborating evidence or statutes.

re: User:Ihcoyc. I understand your point, but I don't think you understood mine. I am comparing apples to apples. The weak reasons being cited here for deletion would then also need to be applied to those other articles I've mentioned above--which they have not.

"Comparisons can be highly subjective, and so it is better to look at the debates in question and see what policies were cited and make an argument based on how they apply to the current debate"

I've cited the policies--no one else has. Once again:
In order to be included in Wikipedia, the company must be:
• the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself, OR

I have yet to see this point properly challenged or refuted. --Vcardillo (talk) 14:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Further Explanation Requested
    Please cite the policy where it states that trade magazines and business journals do not constitute as "non-trivial published works". "appearances in trade directories, on a list of "100 fastest growing private companies in this [small] metropolitan area" and getting listed on year as the "4293d fastest-growing private company in the U.S.", do not constitute the substantial coverage recovered to establish corporate notability."

+ Please cite the definition of a trade directory.
+ Please define "corporate notability" and cite where it is mentioned in your policies.
+ If this article does not "meet corporate notability", please define what does, and cite such explanation in your policies. Stating that this company "isn't notable enough" isn't sufficient explanation beyond your subjective opinion.

This article meets the first criterion. I have quoted multiple non-trivial, and published works (whose publications are very respected and include a print version), and whose sources are independent of the company itself. Furthermore, there is nothing in the guidelines that states that "trade magazines and business journals" do not constitute as "non-trivial published works". Please note that the official requirements state "non-trivial published works", while you are instead claiming "notability" and "notable events". I would then ask you to define what a "notable event" is, and also to explain the difference between a "business journal" and a "news outlet". Would the New York Times for example be a business journal, or a news outlet?
--Vcardillo (talk) 15:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this company has been cited extensively in a published book (available in all major bookstores and on Amazon). Please let me know if this has any bearing on this entry. Thank you. --Vcardillo (talk) 16:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A smallish company which has not achieved notability. Links are passing mentions in trade magazines; apparently not a single newspaper has taken note of this company. (And I can't believe that the article's author is actually citing "2010 RANKING: #4293" as an argument for notability! The four-thousandth-and-change fastest growing company? Really???) --MelanieN (talk) 00:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To: VCardillo, your arguments are passionate but are getting repetitive and are not really helping. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to show you why the "look at all those other articles!" argument won't get you anywhere in an AfD discussion. And see WP:Conflict of interest for why you are not the best person to be arguing here, or even to be writing the article - since you appear to be an employee of the company. --MelanieN (talk) 00:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! Earlier I posted a link to your Facebook page, as evidence that you work for the company. But I shouldn't have done that - it's against Wikipedia policy - and I apologize. --MelanieN (talk) 04:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


+ Once again I ask for the definition of what notability is, and how it is determined. How is this defined, and where is it defined.
+ Newspaper article: http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20080407/BUSINESS/804070312/Turning-databases-into-direct-marketing-solutions
+ As I said above, mentioned and quoted extensively in a published book: http://www.amazon.com/Direct-Mail-Digital-Age-Grensing-Pophal/dp/1770400710
+ I vehemently disagree with the "other stuff" negation. You are setting your own precedents as Wikipedians and they need to be consistent in order for people to take you seriously.
+ My arguments are repetitive because you're not actually answering any of my questions. Only posting insulting opinions.
--Vcardillo (talk) 14:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply The definition of notability is very precise. You can read it at WP:N and WP:CORP. Specifically,
  • "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability."
  • "Wikipedia bases its decision about whether an organization is notable enough to justify a separate article on the verifiable evidence that the organization or product has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product."
  • "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple[1] independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability."
  • "The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary."
The problem is that all of the sources you have provided are trivial (not significant) or are local (i.e., the Democrat and Chronicle) or "of limited interest and circulation" (i.e., trade magazines). As for the book, I don't know what it says about this company, but I notice that the author is basically a ghost writer according to his web page [12], so I don't know how independent or reliable his work is. --MelanieN (talk) 17:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Reply
+ For about the 5th time I will again quote our own policies and ask where it says that a company must be notable to be published:
In order to be included in Wikipedia, the company must be:
• the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself, OR
• listed on ranking indices of important companies produced by well-known and independent publications, OR
• used to calculate stock market indices. Being used to calculate an index that simply comprises the entire market is excluded.

Please explain how you are implying "notability" from that definition, from our very own requirements. Do you understand what I am saying? You're throwing terms at me that aren't listed anywhere when creating an article. The definition for creation cites non-trivial, and you're continually mentioning "notability". Nowhere during the creation process for a company wiki article is "notability" mentioned.

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:N -- "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article." This is a company and not a *topic*, so in the very first sentence I would deem that link as irrelevant to this discussion.

re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CORP
You're basically making my point for me. "Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." Wikipedia bases its decision about whether an organization is notable enough to justify a separate article on the verifiable evidence that the organization or product has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product. Notability requires only that these necessary sources exist, not that the sources have already been named in the article."

""Notable" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance,""

Primary Criteria: A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization.

And now to reiterate: This company has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources (as opposed to primary sources). Such sources were reliable. Such sources were independent of the subject. Multiple independent sources were cited.

"Links are passing mentions in trade magazines; apparently not a single newspaper has taken note of this company." -- I then quoted a newspaper, to which you responded: "The problem is that all of the sources you have provided are trivial (not significant) or are local (i.e., the Democrat and Chronicle) or "of limited interest and circulation" (i.e., trade magazines)."
By what grounds do you make this distinction? The D&C has a Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_and_Chronicle and is noted as "the most widely circulated daily newspaper in the greater Rochester, New York area."

"attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability;" I have shown attention from national media and nationally circulated magazines. The concept of "limited interest" is your opinion. Everything is relatively of "limited interest" depending on perspective. I do not believe that any of you are providing objective arguments here.

Ultimately I find all of the arguments here to be lacking substantial substance, and I find this "notability" reference to be extremely circular and hypocritical. I've met all of your criteria for an article. --Vcardillo (talk) 03:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you have convinced yourself. You have not convinced anyone else. --MelanieN (talk) 03:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Again quoting our own policies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS
"Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves."
So please stop inserting your opinions on this company itself.

"Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight." -- Not the case with anything I cited.

I have not cited any self-published media.

"The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online. However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable third-party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable source." -- I have cited sources that are published in printed and online, online, and printed only. No sources I have cited are self-published.

You are also not addressing my questions:
In order to be included in Wikipedia, the company must be:
• the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself, OR
• listed on ranking indices of important companies produced by well-known and independent publications, OR
• used to calculate stock market indices. Being used to calculate an index that simply comprises the entire market is excluded.

Please explain how I have not met the first criteria rather than stating random opinions not backed by facts. Thank you.
--Vcardillo (talk) 03:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I would like to escalate this issue to beyond the people here. As a donor and longtime user of Wikipedia I do not believe that anyone here has properly refuted any of my arguments in a logical manner, are acting in a fair way, or are providing objective refutations to my statements. I would like more than a pitchfork and tar trial. Please let me know what higher governing body I can attest to, as I believe the issues presented here are larger than anyone has been willing to work with me on. Thanks, --Vcardillo (talk) 03:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I was looking to close this as delete, as there is a clear consensus from experienced Wikipedians that this topic doesn't meet our inclusion criteria. However, having looked at the claims made by the article creator, and at the sources, I feel there is enough independent coverage in reliable sources to establish a notability for the topic. It would be inappropriate for me to apply a super vote, and close as keep against consensus, so I am withdrawing as closer, and adding my own comment of support for this article having met our inclusion criteria. The arguments in favour of deletion would be that either Direct marketing News and BtoB are not reliable sources, or that the material published in those journals, are press releases. The sources are professional journals with appropriate editorial control which are cited by other news organisations. They are clearly reliable sources. That they are working in a discrete area and with a relatively small readership is also true of most academic and scholarly journals. The reports in the journals are varied, and while some may be press releases, or written by the company themselves (this one says "our business" rather than "their business), other reports are clearly not originated from the company, and some include quotes or interviews which have clearly been originated by the journals themselves. I feel there is enough evidence that reliable publications which specialise in the company's field deem this company to be notable, so this article meets our notability guidelines. That the company is not popular or well known outside its field is not a genuine consideration. If we have sufficient evidence that within its field it is considered notable, and that the field is itself notable (which it is: Direct marketing and Digital marketing), then we should be keeping the article. SilkTork *Tea time 11:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. SilkTork -- Thanks. You summarized my primary points and concerns very succinctly. If anything, I certainly have a new appreciation for the scrutiny by which new articles undergo. Please let me know if there are any other details I can provide. Thanks, --Vcardillo (talk) 01:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Another marketing firm writing a WP article for themselves and aggressively defending it with non-notable sources.--Atlantictire (talk) 14:50, 14 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 speedy delete. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 00:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tanterton Christian Fellowship[edit]

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

Non notable church. No independant sources about its work or anything to distinguish it from the 000s of other churches in the UK NtheP (talk) 20:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Purely promotional page with no indication of notability. StAnselm (talk) 22:12, 6 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 speedy keep. withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 20:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Middleton family[edit]

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

They are all one events of limited notability and they currently all have their own article - except the father, ... anyways - duplicated low notability content about living people that is supported in individual articles - Off2riorob (talk) 20:19, 4 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 no consensus. This article is right on the borderline of our notability guidelines, and there are plausible arguments for keep and for delete. The GNG suggests that a topic has “significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject”. The article has mentions in “reliable sources that are independent of the subject”, though the question of “significant coverage” needs further examination. Though the film might meet the GNG’s definition of “significant coverage” through a directory listing or capsule review, because it is a film, and even the most non-notable film can have a listing or capsule review in reliable sources, the film notability guideline was written to specify that listings or capsule reviews in even reliable sources do not mean much. The weight of the film’s notability rests on Phil Hall’s write ups in Film Threat. Film Threat is clearly a reliable source for our purposes, and it is clear that Phil Hall, who is a notable film critic, feels the film is notable. However, both GNG and WP:NF make clear that more than one film critic writing in depth on the film is needed to meet our notability requirements. The dependence of notability based on the current sources in the article comes down to Buzz McClain’s review for Rovi. Depending entirely on GNG, this review might be seen as enough, though WP:NF explicitly guides against using such capsule reviews as evidence of notability. There has been some discussion in the AfD about which guideline is considered primary – though the intention of the guidelines is not to contradict, but to complement, and expand in detail for some areas. The WP:NF expands upon the “significant coverage” because of the peculiar nature of the film industry in which many non-notable films get a listing or capsule review that could be seen as “significant”, but is in the everyday course of matters, simply a trivial listing. However, when we get to the point where we are having to debate closely the wording of the guidelines, and the article in question has had very significant coverage by a noted critic in a noted publication, then it is better to err on the side of keep rather than delete. An appropriate close in this case is no consensus, defaulting to keep. SilkTork *Tea time 17:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Con Games (movie)[edit]

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

Does not satisfy WP:NF; notable only in its lack of notability. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I made a fairly extensive search for sources using the search links above, and I didn't find a single mention from a reliable source. I think the fact that the entry at Rotten Tomatoes contains no reviews is instructive here. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 21:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have seen the update of the article, and I commend MichaelQSchmidt on his efforts. However, I just can't bring myself to say that this film passes the notability guidelines yet. Let's have a look at the sources: the BFI and the New York Times are just directory listings with short plot summaries. Not enough to prove notability. The phrase "Con Games" only appears once in the book Independent Film Distribution, and passing mentions aren't enough to establish notability. The actual topic of discussion in this book is how to get a film produced, not Con Games itself. The Rovi review is actual critical commentary about the film, but as TransporterMan notes it is very short and definitely falls under "capsule review" - not enough as per WP:NF. Which leaves us with Film Threat. I have investigated maybe a dozen of the diffs/links provided on this page, and editors seem to be evenly split as to whether they consider it reliable or not. While it was a notable print magazine, and seems to have a large online readership, they invite anyone to contribute and writers are unpaid volunteers. Phil Hall does appear to be a respected writer in the field, but it looks like he tossed this review off in a spare moment with little editorial oversight. I say this because of the general quality of the writing: the paragraph formatting is strange, and he uses such phrases as "I recently found it by accident in a cheapie eBay auction", along with some generally unpolished prose. It reads more like a blog entry than a respected film magazine. To me, it sounds like Hall found the film, liked the star, and decided to use his website and book to promote him. All in all, I think Film Threat could just about contribute to a notability claim, but it is not enough by itself. In the absence of other sources, I still opt for deletion. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 13:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Glad you did read the articles and thank you for the commendation. The improvements might go faster if others help rather than sit back and make such someone else's problem. And too, it must be remembered per guideline, that if an authored plot summary includes critical commentary, such as did the one from reliable source Rovi, then it might be considered. The section of guideline that would discount such specifically refers to unauthored summaries that do not include critical commentary. And, as Film Threat offers two seperate articles from several months apart that deal with the film or filmmaker, it just nudges this one over the edge. But you need not agree. Thank you for commenting. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: While this discussion was ongoing, the article was pre-emptively deleted.[13] Perhaps it might be restored so others might offer an informed opinion? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, the article was an entirely unsourced non-encyclopaedic review of the video. It has no indications of notability (straight to video!), no references, is a pov assessment, and contained two negative unsourced BLP comments, which I've removed following restoration. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I wish to thank User:Jimfbleak for now restoring the article he deleted May 9, before this AFD had been closed... as an article folks can see has a far beter chance of being improved than one folks cannot. I can now see that as created by new user User:Gkparks1, [14] it was an unsourced stub. I shall myself see if I can address the article's issues in a few hours and report back. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 13:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hungarian title: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Greek title: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Keep now... and allow continued improvements. While we can all agree that what was first nominated was unsuitable as an article, since the last coment toward deletion above, it has already been markedly improved though sources easily found. Admittedly there is more to do... but it serves the project to allow continued improvents, as delteion is not the best option when with just a litle work something can be improved to serve the project. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 16:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I had a look at the sources mentioned; I was momentarily swayed by the fact that one of them is from the British Film Institute, but it only appears to be a directory listing with no commentary on the actual film. I saw the Film Threat articles in my previous search, and they didn't look reliable to me (although I will admit that I have no great expertise in this area). If there are more references from reliable sources then it might be enough to sway me... — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 16:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Strad and still !vote to delete. Still not notable. Since the standard for retention is "verifiability," not "verified," if you can just point us to the RS you say exist that's probably enough to switch this to a keep even if they're not in the article yet. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also still say delete. Whilst I appreciate Michael's efforts, if this straight-to-video meets the notability criteria, it's difficult to imagine what doesn't Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Direct to video is not some automatic negative, as ALL films are judged by the same criteria, and Wikipedia does not demand that all films be big budget or be financed by major studios or have the same promotion and advertsising budgets as the Star Wars or Lethal Weapon films... and any film that did not have distribution, domestic or international, or lacked reviews or critical commentary in reliable sources might be seen as lacking notability. But since User:Jimfbleak summarily deleted the article yesterday before its issues could be adressed by anyone else, I can simply repeat my thanks to him for restoring the article so that the stub as originally nominated could be improved to better serve the project and I repeat that WORK IS ONGOING. And while some might wish to dismiss British Film Institute or even Rovi, those relaible sources are required by policy mandated confirmation of included information, and such required WP:V does not itself have to be significant coverage. BUT...
there was a strange assertion made above at 16:53, 10 May 2011 that reliable sources were not in the article. At odds with that assertion is the fact that at the time that assertion was made, the article included citations to Film Threat, a reliable source for film reviews and inteviews, long accepted by its peers within the film idustry and by Wikipedia... and that through them I had by that time used two significant sources... one a November 2004 in-depth interview of the filmmaker and a second a January 2005 lengthy review of the film itself. And toward Film Threat, the articles were written by reviewer Phil Hall, a well respected expert within his field.
AND, as the improvements are not yet complete and an editor (me) has expressed a willingness to continue them, I cannot understand the wish by those who themselves have not or will not improve the article, to give it the bum's rush when someone else has picked up the slack. And again, improvements are still taking place... and as noted by some, the article is already in far better shape that when it was nominated. Wikipedia accepts that it is itself imperfect, understands that it is itself a work in progress, and immediatism is not a policy. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NF says that the following are not reliable sources: "Trivial coverage, such as newspaper listings of screening times and venues, 'capsule reviews,' plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides such as 'Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide,' 'Time Out Film Guide,' or the Internet Movie Database." British Film Institute and Rovi would clearly be included in those kinds of sources, BFI as a comprehensive guide and Rovi as a capsule review (and they're both probably not RS on general principle as well, though that discussion is unnecessary in light of WP:NF). Film Threat has been rejected as a reliable source almost always, as far as I can find, the notability of a film depends upon it. See, for example, here and here and here and, especially, here. I agree that the straight-to-video status is not controlling, but it does make it less likely, albeit not impossible, that there are RS which cover it. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC) PS: The New York Times review is also a capsule review which cannot establish notability. TM 21:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With respects, you are unintentioanlly incorrect. The section you quote does NOT state that such sources are non-RS. What the section addresses is WP:NF's consideration of the WP:GNG including "...published works such as books, television documentaries, full-length featured newspaper articles from large circulation newspapers, full-length magazine reviews and criticism..." and excludes from consideration toward notability "Trivial coverage, such as newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews," plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides..." If an authored plot summary (such as the one from reliable source Rovi) has critical commentary, then it might be considered. If it does not, then it would not be usable toward determination of notability, even though perfectly suitable as a citation confirming an article fact.
Further, you are also unintentionally incorrect is your comment toward Film Threat... a site which has long been held as a reliable source by Project Film. Your offered diffs do not support that allegation.. and do quite the opposite.Diff 1 shows how an editor found Film Threat articles to support a keep of an article after which the nominator withdrew that one film from his multiple nomination. Diff 2 shows an editor offering a Film Threat review of one film as "proof" that the filmmaker was notable. Diff 3 shows my own comment about finding a Film Threat article about a puppet-infested film article that had been speedy deleted before the AFD was finished, and my adviso that if more come forward the article might be worth reconsidering.
And so... Film Threat is a reliable source, and has been confrmed as such several times at both Project Film and inquiries at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. So I hope others do not also ignore the two in-depth significant articles used (so far) to cite the article... one a full-length review of the film and the other a full-length interview of the filmmaker... both in accepted WP:reliable sources.
What is also forgotten here, is that ANY fact that might be challenged MUST be verifiable, and such verification when offered in a reliable sources does not iself have to be significant coverage. Policy WP:V and guideline WP:GNG are not the same thing. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note and in response to Transporterman: here are diffs that support the wide consensus that Film Threat is a reliable source for film articles... some of them even as early as 2004 (pre-dating my own arrival on Wikipedia by years): [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34][35] [36][37] [38] [39] [40] and there are many, many more. It can be seen that even in discussions of film articles that were deleted, Film Threat was acknowledged as a suitable reliable source. Two seperate articles in that reliable source, one from 2004 and another from 2005, speak toward notability. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further note. Even if film threat is RS, how does the film meet Wikipedia:Notability (films)? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I sure wish we were discussing a major film, as there is a growing tendency to limit inclusion in this encyclopdia to only those big budget films that have the major names and huge advertsing and distribution budgets... but WP:NF specifically instructs "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." And while more is always better, "significant" has to do with source content and not with quantity of sources. Neither WP:NF nor WP:GNG demand dozens of sources, only that the coverage be significant, reliable, secondary, and independent of the subject, to allow a presumption to notability. That presumption toward notability, and the film (just) meeting WP:NF, has not been rebutted, only denied... and denial is not the same as actually proving the presumption to be false or incorrect. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Response: Okay, let's have the full quote from WP:NF:
As with all subjects, a film should satisfy the general notability guideline.
The general guideline for notability shared by most of the subject-specific notability guidelines and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, is that:
A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
This guideline includes published works such as books, television documentaries, full-length featured newspaper articles from large circulation newspapers, full-length magazine reviews and criticism excluding the following:
(Emphasis added.) The "excluding the following" means that the listed sources are not reliable sources for the purpose of retention of an article about a film. Established consensus thus says that the British Film Institute, Rovi, and NY Times sources are not reliable sources for retention of this article. Indeed, this film appears to be exactly the type of film that the "excluding the following" section in WP:NF is intended to exclude from Wikipedia. Due to the breadth of coverage on the Internet any film which has had a commercial release of any kind — and many which have not — is likely to be listed at IMDB and in the other kinds of sources mentioned in the exclusion: the kind whose existence is recognized, perhaps even widely recognized, but which has not proven to be significant enough to draw substantial attention from multiple reliable sources. While Wikipedia may appear to only be including "big budget films that have the major names and huge advertsing and distribution budgets" the reason is that those kinds of films, whether they deserve it or not, draw substantial recognition from reliable sources. The result is that mediocre blockbusters will frequently get a near-automatic entry into WP while small or indy films will have to run the reliable-source gauntlet. That may not be right or fair, but that's the way it is. As for Film Threat, it is a fact that some articles have been retained and others deleted in which Film Threat was given as a reliable source. In this case, however, even if one accepts for the purpose of argument that it is a reliable source, it is currently the only reliable source and that's not enough to retain this article. The question of whether or not Film Threat is or is not a reliable source needs, however, to be resolved for future purposes, so I'm going to make a inquiry about it at the reliable sources noticeboard. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC) PS: The Reliable Sources Noticeboard discussion is here. TM 14:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Response: Sorry, but that quoted notability guideline section does NOT say that such sites are "unreliable", only that such are unsuitable for deternination of notability. WP:N and WP:V are not the same thing. While the required verifiability of information in an article must be in a reliable source, the source itself does not have to be "significant coverage" simply in order to be determined as reliable for the policy mandated verification of a proffered fact. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC) PS: The Project Film discussion is here. MQS 18:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we must split hairs over terminology, you're correct: the notability guideline section does not affect reliability per se, it affects notability, "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article." And that's what is at question here. The notability guideline says, through the "excluding the following" section, that the listed sources cannot be used to determine notability, that is, that they cannot be used to determine whether or not a film can have its own article. Those sources may possibly be used to help document an article once it has been determined that the article should exist, and may be reliable sources in that context, but standing consensus says that they cannot be used to establish than an article can exist, which is exactly what we're about in this discussion. You're right about the terms, but that argument is irrelevant to this discussion about whether this film should exist. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assuring accuracy of statement is not quite "splitting hairs", but thank you. It became neccessary to address the repeated unintentional mis-quoting of guideline that was then being used to improperly declare a reliable source as unreliable. At no time is it ever required that a reliable source being used per mandated policy to confirm a fact offered in an article has to also itself be significant coverage. Being brief does not equate to unreliability, as WP:N and WP:V are not the same thing.
And to the other issue: The reliability of a source depends on context, and each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. When the topic is a film article, we look to those sources that deal specifically with or about film topics, look to see how they are themselves considered within their field by their peers, and consider if they have editorial oversight and a reputation for fact checking and accuracy.
For information about films, we can look to Film Threat for their established expertise in their field. They are an independent secondary source with the neccessatry reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and have the respected reputation within their area of expertise to be themselves repeated quoted by and referred to by other sources within and outside that field.[41][42][43] We do not look to them for expertise on football or politics, as the reliability of a source depends on context, and contextually speaking, film is their field of expertise. Film Threat is am established reliable source in context to what is being sourced, and the reasonable presumption toward even a weak notability has not been rebutted, only denied. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Reasonable nom on its face, but the improvements in referencing have reflected sufficient coverage to evidence its notability.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The New York Times has noticed this movie and we should do no less. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The New York Times page is just a short synopsis of the plot and nothing more - this isn't enough to make it a reliable source for our purposes. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 13:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, but The New York Times has long been determined as a reliable source. That quoted notability guideline section instructs that use of pocket summaries are unsuitable for deternination of notability, but it does NOT say that such sites are "unreliable". While the required verifiability of information in an article must be in a reliable source, the source itself does not have to be "significant coverage" simply in order to be deterimed as a reliable source for the policy mandated verifiability of a proffered fact. I have seen this mis-iterpretation repeated many times above, but please... WP:N and WP:V are not the same thing. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think anyone's suggesting the New York Times isn't a reliable source in general - that is why I added "for our purposes". I admit that I could have probably chosen my words better, but this doesn't change the fact that the New York Times page is only a short plot summary with no critical commentary. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 06:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry, but when I read your statement "this isn't enough to make it a reliable source for our purposes", I read it as saying that even though it was used for policy manndated verification, it could not be considered a reliable souce simply due to its length... and to that I heartly disagree, as WP:V and WP:N are not the same thing. Had you said something like "as a verifier it does not in itself support notability... THAT would have been a senetence to which I could agree. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to reviewing sysop: This is one of those cases in which the arguments must be weighed, not counted. I would contend that none of the "keeps" are based upon WP policy or guidelines, but all boil down to just "I like it" and should be disregarded. Once the sources are evaluated, only one, the Film Threat source has even any potential to be an adequate source to show notability per WP:NF and one is not enough to establish notability, even if it is eventually proven to be reliable. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Preposterous. My !vote was brief enough that it deserved a more accurate reflection than Tman's stark misrepresentation. It relied on the core principle reflected in wp:notability. I would also note that the view that this is a keep is overwhelming, when one looks at the !votes of the seasoned editors with more than 10,000 edits.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. It is preposterous to assert that other exprerienced editors do not understand policy or guideline when they offer their opionions. And as the nominator cautions against not counting heads, what could be more seen as "overwhelming" by a closer is that all delete votes included a repetition of the nominator's unfortunate and repeated misrepresentation of guideline... and incorrectly repeating that reliable sources are unreliable simply because what they offer per mandated policy might be brief, does not reflect an understanding of policy and guideline. We do not delete based upon misrepresentations. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't the most notable film ever produced. But the WP:GNG is a simple, objective test. Is there more than one source? Check. Are the sources independent? Check. Are they reliable? Check. Do they contain more than a passing mention of the subject? Check. Therefore the GNG is passed. Discussion over.

    It's important that the vast majority of material that passes the GNG should be kept at AfD. The GNG is simplistic and occasionally produces bizarre results, but the benefit of using it is that any editor can tell for themselves whether or not the article's subject will be kept at AfD. In other words, the GNG is what enables good faith editors to write content without fear that it will be deleted. If we start disregarding the GNG and using a scattergun "I don't like it" approach to deletion, then content contributors will be unwilling to write material without going through a committee process first. It's hardly a desirable outcome.

    This line of thought leaves me with a very clear-cut keep recommendation, and props to Michael for his hard work during the course of this AfD.—S Marshall T/C 22:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • I agree with everything you said here - apart from the keep recommendation! The way I approached it was this: Is there more than one source? Check. Are the sources independent? Check. Are they reliable? Check. Do they contain more than a passing mention of the subject? Not BFI, Rovi, New York Times, or the Independent Film Distribution book. This leaves us with only one source, Film Threat, which I think probably just about passes the reliability test. This means that for notability purposes we have at best one reliable source. Was there another source that I missed? — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 07:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Two diferent articles, several months apart, and yes both from Film Threat. So? Guideline does not state that the significant coverage has to be from different sources. Also, the book makes specific detailed comentary about the film and filmmaker. Per the GNG, the book need not be solely about the film and filmmaker, just so as long as they are addressed directly and in detail.. which they are. And note: the authored Rovi summary contains critical comentary, so is not to be excluded from consideration. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I beg to differ. I make those articles two months apart, in the same magazine, by the same author. And WP:GNG says "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." Talking about the same author, the book Independent Film Distribution is also by Phil Hall, the author of the Film Threat articles. Even if we were to count the book as a separate source, the book only has a total of two paragraphs that mention Con Games, and these are concerned with the fact that if Eric Roberts hadn't agreed to co-star, then the film might not have been released at all. It doesn't have anything to say about the film itself. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 10:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My position is different from Michael Q Schmidt's in that I think two entirely separate reliable sources are required. The other one in this case is the New York Times.—S Marshall T/C 11:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you should look at the New York Times page more closely before you consider it an acceptable source in this case. It is just a film directory listing, with no critical commentary at all. Also, the plot summary there is taken verbatim from Buzz McClain's summary at Rovi. A Google search for the first sentence turns up many such pages. This is likely an attempt by the Times to get on the New Media bandwagon, and shouldn't be mistaken for real journalism. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 13:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I may have found the source of the confusion here. Are you under the impression that a source has to contain critical commentary before it "counts" for the purposes of the GNG?—S Marshall T/C 14:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, the phrasing is "significant coverage". Neither I, nor the editors who wrote WP:NF, consider that this type of directory site counts as contributing towards significant coverage in cases like this. In fact, situations like this one are exactly the reason that WP:NF was written. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 15:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is absolutely fascinating how none of the keeps choose to address the issue of what WP:NF says about notability of this film, as noted in the red box above. Calling things misrepresentations do not make them misrepresentations and the true misrepresentation here is the constant appeals to GNG when a more specific guideline applies and directly addresses the issue. If you don't like what WP:NF says, then you are free to seek to change that policy or to seek an IAR local exception here, but I stand by my assertion that what the keeps here are asserting is nothing more than "I don't like it" and should be disregarded by the reviewing sysop. The seven days for this AFD nomination have passed, so the sysop can judge who is misrepresenting policy. — TransporterMan (TALK) 02:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is a misrepresentation. Look at my rationale for my keep. Furthermore -- read wp:nf. Which states: "The general guideline for notability ... is that ... A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." As the majority of commenting !voters on the proposal have indicated, at this point in time the article satisfies that criteria. The "more specific" criteria does not replace GNG. It only adds additional indicia where the general GNG guideline -- the wp guideline for notability which is the dog, not the tail -- does not suffice. Perhaps you have not read GNG? It makes quite clear that if an article meets GNG, that is sufficient ... full stop. And that subject-specific guidelines are additional alternative ways to evidence notability. You seem to think, mistakenly (though energetically), that the rule is something other than it is.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[ec] Though TM may have missed it, the "issue" has been soundly and repeatedly addressed... both before and after he posted his "red box" and continued with an unfortunate personal IAR mis-representation of guidline. If an editor can read, and can understand what he has read, and then has offered either a delete or keep comment based upon what he has read and understood, what is fascinating is his concern that editors well able to read and understand both sides of a discussion have not felt the need to repeat the points I have made or engage when all that need be said has been said. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • On this, I concur with Epeefleche and Michael Q Schmidt. The basic principle is that in very few circumstances can subject-specific notability guidelines overrule the GNG. They are there to clarify and help us interpret the GNG, but they don't get to overrule it.

    There is one substantial exception, which is in geographical articles; Wikipedia is a gazetteer as well as an encyclopaedia so certain categories of geographical location (villages, towns, etc.) are not subject to the GNG. Owing to longstanding custom and practice, high schools and certain kinds of astronomical entity (individual asteroids, minor stars etc.) are geographical locations for this purpose.

    A lot of the purpose of subject-specific notability guidelines is to help distract the kind of editor who doesn't write much content because they'd rather make rules about what other people can write. The subject-specific guidelines help keep them from editing the main WP:N guideline and filling it with bloat. But the fundamental test of notability is always the GNG, irrespective of whatever the half-dozen people who care about WP:INDIVIDUALEPISODEOFOBSCURESCIFITVSERIES or WP:PORNBIO might have agreed between themselves.—S Marshall T/C 11:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was wrong, and apologize for the drama, but still !vote delete — I've checked and discovered that S Marshall's analysis of the relationship between WP:NF and WP:GNG is basically correct. I didn't know that. I was wrong and I apologize to everyone for the drama. Nonetheless, even under GNG I think that acknowledgements of existence as in IMDB and capsule reviews are exactly the kind of sources that the significance element of GNG is intended to eliminate as sources for establishing notability (though they may be used as RS to document assertions in an article). That eliminates all the sources (and I would note that the NY Times source is clearly attributed to only be a repetition of one of the Rovi sources) except Film Threat and one source is not enough to support notability. I apologize again for my error and the resulting drama. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree w/S Marshall. One slight clarification to what S says ... It is sufficient if an article satisfies either GNG or NF. It need not, however, satisfy both. This is reflected in GNG. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:21, 12 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James Murphy (author)[edit]

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

While this author certainly exists, I didn't see coverage to establish notability for him under the GNG or WP:AUTHOR. Reference to one of his books is made in this Chessbase article, [44], but that's about as much as I found. Perhaps I've missed something with a name this common, though, additional reliable sources welcome. joe deckertalk to me 00:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 28 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, Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Tooga - BØRK! 06:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Joaquin008 (talk) 13:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 19:40, 6 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Lesiw[edit]

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

Non-notable film maker lacking GHIts and GNEWS of substance. No evidence the individual has won any awards. Fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. ttonyb (talk) 00:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 28 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, Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:57, 4 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. Rlendog (talk) 19:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Run Wild: Zombies[edit]

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

Non notable proposed game by non notable amateur company nothing on Google except this article. It looks like pure advertising to me? TeapotgeorgeTalk 18:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Errr... What am I advertising??? I am not making money out of anything!! Barrovian (talk) 20:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I declined the speedy deletion on the article, but I suggested an AfD might be appropriate. I can't find any evidence of notability through coverage in reliable sources, and it probably violates WP:CRYSTAL as a game that hasn't even been created yet (and may never be created). -- Atama頭 19:24, 4 May 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) 19:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was only announced last Monday, don't be jealous. Barrovian (talk) 20:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It should be kept, I believe they are releasing the first screenshot next week. Barrovian (talk) 20:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is we need reliable sources independent of the subject covering the game to meet notability guidelines. Releasing a screen shot would not be enough in this case since it would not be independent coverage. If the game gets more attention afterwards an article may be apporpiate but it is too soon at this point--76.66.182.228 (talk) 22:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no secondary sources presented in the article, and zero hits from the custom videogame reliable source Google search. Fails verification and notability. Marasmusine (talk) 07:43, 7 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. Rlendog (talk) 19:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marko Pavlov[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was: Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that Pavlov is a U-21 Macedonian international. This is insufficient to meet WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article looks too small to prove any worth, virtually no info making him significant. Shakinglord (talk) 18:34, 4 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. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nous Infosystems[edit]

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

Does not show notability, and sounds like a corporation "About" page. Jasper Deng (talk) 17:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Offices in five countries, 700 employees and non-trivial press coverage; I can't see the issue here. – iridescent 18:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As per User:Iridescent. Article could be developed but even as it stands there is evident notability. - Sitush (talk) 18:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: The issue is not the actual notability, it's the indication of it. However, it doesn't warrant deletion.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Jasper, "Offices in five countries and 700 employees" is taken directly from the article as it was when you nominated it for deletion, and both claims are sourced. Did you even read it before you tagged it for deletion? – iridescent 19:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I did not believe that showed notability - there are many such corporations.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think that you need to re-read WP:N then. - Sitush (talk) 19:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • (edit conflict) Jasper, please—before you do any more deletion tagging, at least read the first line of WP:Notability. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list", and even a cursory glance at the references shows that this criterion is met. The fact that "there are many such corporations" is among the reasons we have 6,820,440 articles. – iridescent 19:55, 4 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. Owen× ☎ 18:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a dog returns to his vomit, so a fool repeats his folly[edit]

As a dog returns to his vomit, so a fool repeats his folly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is simply a quote (from the bible, but still just a quote). Wikipedia is not one of a long list of bad ideas, in this case, it's not wikiquote. The article is not linked from anywhere else, and it seems unlikely that it will ever be. It's notable, but only notable for being a quote; and is not in my opinion encyclopedic. I call for it being moved to wikiquote and DELETEd here. Rememberway (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The topic is supported by numerous reliable sources which discuss this proverb in detail. Wikipedia contains numerous proverbs and, as these are a good distillation of ancient wisdom, this is the best encyclopedic knowledge. It might also be noted that the nomination seems to be associated with conflict elsewhere and that the nominator failed to notify the article creator. There is thus perhaps an element of harassment in this. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I just don't like it. Nothing links to it. The see-also is unrelated. It's just a saying, and there's nothing really encyclopedic about most sayings. It's also incompatible with WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. There's no way for it to improve. In my firm opinion it would be much, much, much, MUCH better in wikiquote.Rememberway (talk) 17:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is clearly much more than a simple quote, it's an analysis of the proverb, its meaning, and its significance. More to the point, it easily passes notability and verifiability.--Cúchullain t/c 16:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Cúchullain put it well -- the nom's description of this article is simply not accurate. It contains much more, as is pointed out above, is well-sourced, and is notable therefore by wp standards. And of course, nom's admission that "I just don't like it" speaks for itself -- that's not something we heed in these discussions.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's referenced, so what? It's an ISNOT. A well referenced ISNOT is still not keepable. I don't like things that violate ISNOT, but according to you, every article I don't like, should be kept! We don't need that in these discussions!Rememberway (talk) 18:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"IDONTLIKEIT" is not a reason for deletion. Appropriate sufficient references in RSs reflects notability and is reason for retention.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention that this article doesn't violate WP:ISNOT. This article contains much more than a simple quotation.--Cúchullain t/c 18:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't go beyond anything, it just chats about this quote and contains a guide on how the term has been used, exactly like in a dictionary and wikiquote. If this is a valid article, then every referenced quote in wikiquote is also a valid article. But they aren't.Rememberway (talk) 20:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I said the article contains significantly more than a simple quote, it also gets into the meaning and significance of the proverb. If the proverb had a common title I doubt we'd be having this discussion. There's opportunity to go into even more depth, using sources such as this. It easily passes notability and verifiability.Cúchullain t/c 20:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is more than just a simple definition or a simple quote. Has reliable sources covering it. Dream Focus 20:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Interesting saying. I've seen it before in works of fiction. I didn't know it was a quote until I saw this article. 75.45.112.109 (talk) 21:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cúchullain, Col. Warden, and Eppee. It easily passes WP:GNG -- it's well-sourced, it's cited in ancient sources, and has been cited widely even into the 21st Century. We have lots of odd articles, and this fits right in with those. Bearian (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
True, but in spite of all that, it's not actually encyclopedic at all. Not even the slightest little bit. Only the author of it has actually claimed that it is, but he's wrong. And nobody else has at all.Rememberway (talk) 03:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is notable -- wp rubric for encyclopedic, for wp's purposes, as every single editor has suggested. At this point, this is ripe for a snow close. Nobody at all has agreed with the nom, and six editors have disagreed with him.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral before reading the comments here I immediatly thought it was an article about nothing more than a quote. However it seems that wikipedia has pages about other quotes eg. To_be_or_not_to_be, ooh but how I hate to compare the two, even if it is from the bible, it is still a disgusting quote which unfortunately has been used by a couple of notable people and thus apparently gaind a wikipedia noteworthy status. Personally I think it has questionable noteworthyness in an encyclopedia, but if the rubric allows it, who am I to argue. Keetanii (talk) 05:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we reflect all sorts of "disgusting" information on wikipedia. As long as it is notable.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The rubric says we're not supposed to have articles like this at all.Rememberway (talk) 14:06, 7 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. Just short of CSD:G11. Owen× ☎ 18:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Servigistics[edit]

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

Contested proposed deletion. Yet another software company that specializes in service lifecycle management solutions, whatever that means. Article is unambiguous advertising, written in "solution"-speak:

  • ....founded the company with a service parts management solution which is the process of planning, forecasting and aligning service parts inventories, resource and processes to ensure optimal customer service levels with minimal risk and cost.
  • Servigistics' solutions have been tested and proven in some of the world’s most complex and demanding ERP environments.

Not sure what this has to do with erotic roleplaying.

The article currently is referenced to company profiles and press release announcements of routine deals. I also see no evidence of notability for this business in Google News results, only routine announcements of capitalization, contracts, non-notable trade awards, litigation reports, and press release announcements of products or acquisitions. Hint: nothing that contains the phrase the leading strategic service management solution provider is really an independent source. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:23, 4 May 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 Software-related deletion discussions.
  • Delete. Rule 34 notwithstanding, ERP in this context is enterprise resource planning. That said, this is pretty unarguably promotional, although I'm not sure it reaches the standard of CSD G11. Nor can I find any substantive sources that are both independent and offer significant, non-routine coverage. As noted by the nominator, the weasel words are especially resistant to sourcing. Serpent's Choice (talk) 16:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable + advertising. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete. I would be editing this article over the next few weeks so that it follows the wikipedia guideline, inputs are welcome from everyone since i am new to wikipedia. Please help me create this article from a neutral point of view. I have already added references to most of the page(preferably from 3rd party sites).Bond9044 (talk) 03:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC) — BOnd9044 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Owen× ☎ 18:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seo Analyzt[edit]

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

Foreign language article not translated into English within two weeks. Extremely unlikely a third party will be able to translate this and the original author has shown no inclination to do so. Delete. Safiel (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This article is apparently in transliterated Hindi or another Indian language in transliteration. As such, it wouldn't be suitable for transwikiing anywhere. Furthermore, the fact that its title begins with "Seo" makes me wonder if it might be advertising for a search engine optimization service. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC) Struck out final sentence because I really have no idea what this is, per Smerdis's comments below. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It actually appears to be poetry or lyrics; the ends of each half-line seem to rhyme. No idea which South Asian language this might be. Article was created by User:Seoanalyzt, and might be userfy-able; it would not appear to have anything obvious to do with a spam topic. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'll quote myself (a most reliable source...) from PNT: "I make it transliterated Hindi or Urdu, finding the words in a site called 'Hindisms' and also in .pk and other Pakistani sites." Now here's something I didn't find before... Looking for copyvio, for a second time, I've found this: http://www.widescreenplasmatv.org/news/Seo-Analyzt.html One of the word groups is here - as is Seo Analyzt... Starting to look a bit spammish. Looks also as if this site is rather new. Peridon (talk) 21:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looking in that site again, I notice some things appear to have gone, including what I was looking for - a software listing. I can be very cynical at times, and wonder if this article was a failed attempt at placing a sleeper with innocent text, to be replaced later with the spam. It would be interesting to hear from the page creator. In his absence, I'm going for Delete. I can see no legitimate reason for someone with a good command of English to post this. If it turns out I am maligning someone, I will happily apologise. In the meantime... Peridon (talk) 18:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ineligible for prod because it has been prodded at inception on inapplicable grounds, but the usual two weeks we give at PNT are up. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • And we still don't know for sure what language this is written in. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I prodded this article, and I still persist that it's not written in a foreign language at all. The word structure looks like babble-style nonsense as typed by an english speaker, the article subject is the same as the creator's username, and the paragraph structure seems distinctly non-prosiac in any language. i kan reed (talk) 15:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I have to disagree. Many of the words here, if you type them into Google Translate, using Hindi and phonetic typing, do appear to be legitimate Hindi words. For example, the first line translates as "The sad times in life you never will Abqui ... Will Gujaar sequestered life will never love someone else." While this is not grammatical and the words "Abqui" and "Gujaar" are unexplained, I suspect that the text of this article might have been taken from a song lyric in Hindi or a similar language, perhaps with some misspellings or words omitted. This doesn't belong on Wikipedia, but I do believe it is more than just babble. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete It is a Hindi song, possibly by author. No context or pure nonsense. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hindi/ Urdu poetry or song lyric. Does not seem to be notable in any search. Not needed in English Wiki (or for that matter any other wiki due to lack of notability). VasuVR (talk, contribs) 03:01, 8 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. Owen× ☎ 18:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spiess TC522[edit]

Spiess TC522 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not even the most basic information supplied to explain what this article is about, just a table of unsourced specifcations which suggest it might be a car. No context. No reference. No description. Attempts to edit or merge has had dubious accuracy. Falcadore (talk) 13:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Unless significant coverage is found. I found some sources to verify the basic data in the article but no significant coverage most of the information is in blogs and forums. There is also what appears to be a real basic article at pl:Spiess TC 522 GB fan (talk) 13:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.
  • Delete. The one word I think I understood in the Polish language article was prototyp. Inclusion in a Top 50 Obscure Vehicles list does not strongly argue for notability. I suspect this was an unreleased prototype car, which unless it has some kind of significance in history or technologh probably does not rate a stand alone article. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This web site indicates that it was a prototype super car that never went to production. There's info at exotica car enthusiast sites like the one I just posted, but there's nothing in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 18:15, 5 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. Owen× ☎ 18:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"open source architecture"[edit]

"open source architecture" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Open source urbanism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL), (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I prodded this as being a personal reflection or essay. Prod was removed, but article is still basically the same. No evidence of notability. Dmol (talk) 10:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • ....an emerging paradigm describing radically new procedures for the design, construction and operation of buildings, spaces and cities.
  • Open Source Architecture privileges code over mass, relationships over compositions, networks over structures, adaptation over stasis. It transforms its parent discipline, architecture, from a top-down immutable delivery mechanism into a transparent, inclusive and bottom-up ecological system, preferring symbiosis to parasitism. It relies upon amateurs as much as experienced professionals, users as much as designers, overturning historical notions of authorship and myths of the Promethean architect. Like a social network, it recognises the core role of users as well as designers within its infrastructure - wielding humanity as building material - as both sensors and actuators. It is politically democratic, enshrining principles of open access, encouraging - and contingent upon - participation.
Well, isn't that special? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Open source urbanism is a way of thinking about shaping the architecture of urban space in terms of a bottom-up, participatory approach to the evolution of cities. In place of the grand schemes and master plans of modern urban design and planning, open source urbanism explores the aggregation of locally inflected, incremental modulations that have the potential to evolve into larger urban organizations. In some respects, this simply reflects how cities evolve. In others, it extends a set of ideas introduced by architects in the 60s (Archigram, Cedric Price, Yona Friedman, Metabolism, et. al.) that looked toward biological and cybernetic systems for a way out of the oppressive, top-down planning strategies of orthodox modernism. Yet rather than proposing material interventions that are open, extendable and adaptable to changing patterns of use and activity, Open source urbanism shifts the locus of practice from the architectural "hardware" of what effectively became modular space frame structures to be infilled by their inhabitants, to the immaterial architecture of "software" infrastructures and their ability to inform, perform and enact new urban organizations and experiences.
Yeah, man. Groovy. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:08, 6 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 no consensus. Relisting is unlikely to generate any consensus either. There seems to be a strong case for renaming the article, but that's outside the scope of this AfD. Owen× ☎ 12:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jihadi tourism[edit]

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

Article is a neologism without a clearly defined meaning. The topic and article is completely original synthesis. Delete per WP:NEO and Wikipedia:No original research. Less than half of the sources actually use the term "jihadi tourism" and none of the sources directly discuss the term as per the requirements at WP:NEO. 4meter4 (talk) 09:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Search indicates that this term emerges from newspapers for the purpose of acquiring terrorism training. All sources of search indicate this result. This is contrary to the opening sentence of this article (says it means something else); this constitutes neologism. Delete per WP:NEO --Whiteguru (talk) 09:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is pure WP:Syn. Any visits to any place that's linked to Islamic terrorism, whatever the reason, is apparently Jihadi tourism. Paul B (talk) 10:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep You cite WP:NEO. So do I. In particular: "... may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society...". Also per WP:NEO, there is no "... analysis and synthesis of primary source material...", and thus not OR. In fact, seemingly everthing in WP:NEO supports the existence of the article. You state that all sources refer to the second definition, Jihadi tourism for the purposes of terrorist training. These sites use the term to describe the first definition, tourism for the purpose of visiting historically significant sites: [45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58] Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have no doubt that people engage in all sorts of "dark tourism" and other tyoes of tourism, but I can not see an article on "Flower tourism", or one on "Glacier tourism" or one on innumerable other potential types of "tourism" where the rationale is not "tourism" but "interest in a category of events or objects." At best, merge useful information for "Dark tourism" in Tourism. Collect (talk) 11:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Anna, and as the article shows this term is used by the U.S. State Department and MI5. Qrsdogg (talk) 13:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. First of all, this seems to be a notable neologism [59]. Second, this is more about a really existing phenomenon, rather than about wording. As about different varieties of tourism, some of them deserve a separate article (may be even "flower tourism"), but others do not. This depends on sources. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 13:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ... but . This is a well-written article and "Jihadi tourism" is a notable phenomenon that deserves an article. But ... the term "Jihadi tourism" is rarely used by WP:RS to discuss visits to tourist destinations associated with Jihad, it is primarily used by WP:RS to describe "tourists" who are seeking to "latch on to terrorist organizations"[60] or "to train for terrorist attacks." [61] I also see some right-wing media like Fox and the WSJ seeking to broaden this very pejorative term to describe the much more innocent phenomenon of, for example, Lebanon creating a museum to memorialize its own nationalistic POV about its conflicts with Israel.[62] [63] I don't think Wikipedia should be supporting this essentially POV project of theirs by promoting their re-definition of Jihadi tourism. As per the concern raised by others with WP:NEO and WP:SYNTH I would like to see this article describe the phenomenon of people traveling to Somalia or Pakistan or wherever to join terrorist groups. betsythedevine (talk) 14:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I tried to improve it by putting in the suggestions I made here, so the article has changed a bit since being nominated. Although "jihadi tourism" is a new term, the fact that it showed up in Wikileaks suggests it will get continued discussion and exposure, so even if deleted (which I hope it won't be) this article will eventually be reborn. betsythedevine (talk) 20:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - only half the sources used for the article actually use the term "jihadi tourism" and none of them actually discuss the term as per the WP:NEO requirement. Most of the sources are also about the one event, something that occurred at a Mosque in Germany. The term is found in just one book on Google books and that is only a fleeting mention of the term with no discussion. Google scholar gets practically no hits. Looks like a classic case of NEO to me. Gatoclass (talk) 18:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Topic is certainly notable. The fact that you cannot find the exact title term is meaningless considering the number of sources given and describing the occurrence. BelloWello (talk) 05:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: As Anna has showed, the topic has enough coverage in reliable sources. --Reference Desker (talk) 11:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. So far none of the keep votes have actually addressed the sourcing concerns in relation to the requirements at WP:NEO which is a non-negotiable policy. NEO policy says that "blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term are insufficient to support articles on neologisms". None of the sources supporting this article are actually about the term "Jihadi tourism". In a nut shell, the keep votes are 'I like it' comments which show either an ignorance or lack of respect for wikipedia policy.4meter4 (talk) 11:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, that source is not about the term but about events in Somalia. It doesn't attempt to provide a defintion of the term, nor does it discuss how the term has been used, or provide any history on the terms etymology. This is a perfect example of a source using the term but not being about the term. Indeed, not one single source used in this article actually provides a clear definition of the term "Jihadi tourism". How can a source be about a particular subject when it doesn't give a definition of the subject? 4meter4 (talk) 12:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The WSJ reference prove it is a sociological phenomenon, not term. --Reference Desker (talk) 12:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bad argument. First, the term's use in the first example you gave above is as a neologism (and a neologism is a term with a specific meaning); which is also the way it is used in the majority of the sources used in this article. Yet none of the sources provide a definition. Second, it should be possible to clearly define or at least describe a sociological phenomenon.4meter4 (talk) 12:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In reviewing the sources, the only thing that seems clear to me about this term is that no clear definition of it has yet emerged. About the only statement approaching a definition I could find in the provided sources was the statement in the Times of India article which describes the phenomenon as "foreigners and emigrants with extremist impulses [who] scout for terror training in what is now being referred to in intelligence circles as jihadi tourism."[64] Yet the Telegraph story states that MI5 "dismissed a trip by Mohammed Sidique Khan to meet terrorists in Pakistan as 'jihadi tourism'" - indicating that MI5 use the term dismissively to refer to an activity that is not seen as a genuine threat. The MI5 operative said of the term that it is "A phrase that is used in the service then and is still used ... Individuals go to Pakistan to have a look and see what's going on."[65] So, does "jihadi tourism" refer to a genuinely threatening phenomenon, as indicated by the CBS article ("WikiLeaks: "Jihadi Tourism" Worries U.S., U.K."[66] or does it, on the contrary, as indicated by the Telegraph article, refer to the opposite? Meanwhile, it's also being used to describe visits to historic Muslim battle sites. The term doesn't appear to have developed a clear meaning at this point, which is another reason to consider it a neologism. Gatoclass (talk) 07:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I clarified some of those issues in the article, as well as doing a bit of cleanup. Gatoclass (talk) 08:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable topic.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reliable sources have both described the term and used the term; minor details like how to reconcile differences in usage can be worked out by editing the article rather than deleting it. Quigley (talk) 05:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: an article on a notable term (evidenced by cited sources) that is ambiguous and thanks to our editors we now have a/the most useful explanation of it. (Msrasnw (talk) 11:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. — – OhioStandard (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Maybe this neologism belongs on the Urban Dictionary site, but it doesn't belong here. Also, it's yet another article that is being promoted by one faction in Wikipedia's I/P wars to give readers the idea that Muslims and Arabs are - pick any three - bloodthirsty/foolish/bigots. While those characterizations may be true for some very small percentage of the group, it's no less true, in my opinion of its usual opponents. If and when a few established dictionaries give it legitimacy, then we can revisit the issue at that time.  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course any article must avoid calling Muslims, Arabs or other religions and ethnicities "bloodthirsty/foolish/bigots". Where did you find it in this article? Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 17:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The term's obviously in use, but I clicked through all the examples given above, and they appear to all be about the Hezbollah museum being an example of jihadi tourism. I don't see any examples of jihadi tourism being discussed in itself as WP:NEO seems to me to require. (Such as an article that seeks to define it, or an article that gives multiple examples to explore the phenomenon in multiple places or over time). The line I'm particularly looking at is: "An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position". The first sentence of this article seems to me to be an example of this; the author's had to infer a definition that doesn't appear to be sourced. I feel like this article's likely to crest notability requirements in the near future but not quite there yet. Khazar (talk) 17:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Um, yeah. That's what I meant, too... Well okay; that's what I wish I'd said, then. Very careful analysis; kudos.  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:37, 10 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. Owen× ☎ 17:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mandy Max[edit]

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

No indication that this product is notable. VQuakr (talk) 09:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although I generally don't support the deletion of articles on the day of their creation, this product does not pass WP:N. The inventor himself doesn't have an article here, and no reliable sources discussing this in-depth. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails verifiability. There's no sources out there reliable or unreliable that covers a "Many Max" energy drink invented by a "Mandy Ma". -- Whpq (talk) 18:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Whpq. -- Joaquin008 (talk) 19:15, 7 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 good issues raised by nom can be fixed through the normal editing process. Bearian (talk) 16:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of human blood components[edit]

List of human blood components (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Keep Copyright is an insignificant issue because basic facts of this kind are not subject to copyright under US law. The presentation of the facts is a matter of ordinary editing per our editing policy and so deletion would be inappropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I question the saying that such data are not subject to copyright under US law. See 1. While it's not U.S. law, it clarifies a good principle concerning data copyright. And the exact amount of certain chemicals concerned here the determining of which requires a lot of lab works on data selection, calibration etc. is by no means basic facts. The birthdays of George Washington and his succeeding presidents are basic facts, the name and address of people in a phone book may also be basic facts because they require no original work(actually according to U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE REPORT ON LEGAL PROTECTION FOR DATABASES, the yellow pages of telephone directory are copyrightable), while here it's simply not the case. A google answer page seems to point out that the related copyright issues around here is quite complex, but that's not good enough to support the idea that such data are not protected by copyright laws. Since I literally know nothing about U.S. and Florida copyright laws I can only apply my common sense here. Therefore, 1. common sense tells me these data contain original work and therefore cannot be plagiarized; and 2. If U.S. law were in a way ambiguous as to the protection of such form of work, there should at least be a bottom line: if evidence shows that this is a sensitive copyright area, it's better for Wikipedia to maintain a sense of evasion.Kuphrer (talk) 18:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.
  • Keep. The topic is obviously needed. Neither the list of chemicals nor their alphabetical arrangement is copyrightable, at least not under US law; these things are like phone directories and maps. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject meets notability criteria for inclusion. While it would be preferable to cite journal articles from where these numbers must have originated, I don't see a copyright issue for a compiled list of figures. WP:NOTDIR may apply here, but that's a stretch. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think such figures certainly contain some original research. There are different from, say, phone directories and maps and are not simply basic facts. If some researchers have spent years to carefully determine the specific amount of some certain chemical only to find their work to appear on Wikipedia the next day it won't be so pleasant. Only data extracted from a public domain source(which, phone books and maps usually are) can be properly regarded as not protected by copyright law.Kuphrer (talk) 19:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The cited book is available in large part on books.google.com. I don't see a copyright violation. There is no table in the book as shown in the article, as far as I can see. The article appears to provide a concise summary of 280 pages of book content. There are other books one could reference on books.google.com as well, such as Mastering Nutrition with Blood Chemistry: Quick Reference Manual. A search for "blood chemistry" turns up many possibilities. The argument that researchers spending years on some work only to find it appear on Wikipedia doesn't seem applicable; this is similar to mainstream press reporting on work that appears in academic journals. This is not a reason to delete the article. The article could easily have more sources also; the fact that it doesn't is also not a reason to delete. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The argument this is similar to mainstream press reporting on work that appears in academic journals is naive. The article here is by no means similar to press reporting, striping every important figure from a book(which I have not been quite sure which book it is). And its being a probably concise summary can in no way change the question as to whether it forms a plagiarism or not. The point here is the figures themselves are inherently original. If it's not legitimate for it to use any figures in the book as an entity rather than citation, then however concise it is can be of no use. Kuphrer (talk) 18:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, the premise of this AfD nomination, that this article constitutes a copyright violation is naive. If you're making an argument about original research, you may have a point, but that isn't the same things as copyvio. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The cited book only serves as source for this one statement from the article: "Conventionally, a range of two standard deviations from the mean for each component is considered normal." This is indeed found in the cited source, on page xii. All the rest of the article is unsourced and of unclear provenance and reliability, and should be blanked (if the article is not deleted) until content can be provided that can be reliably sourced. Note further that the numbers given (whose meaning is not specified but which I assume to be the arithmetic average in the population) are rather meaningless without giving the s.d., so as it stands the article is a useless dump of figures. Also, in large parts of the world the convention is to give these values as a range expressed in mmol/L, and the conversion from g/cm3, with a different conversion factor for each component, is definitely non-trivial.  --Lambiam 00:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The only way to solve the copyright problem here might be to find a public domain (or some GNU compatible licensing) source covering all the components (not just the most important ones) of human blood, but I doubt if such a source exists.Kuphrer (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, that's incorrect. There is no requirement anywhere on Wikipedia for sources to be in the public domain. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - The missing citations is an argument for cleanup, not deletion. The information here needs to be cited to a reliable source, but there is no need for a public domain source to be used. As mentioned above, lists of data such as above are not subject to copyright. VQuakr (talk) 21:35, 9 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. Owen× ☎ 17:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neon Knights (band)[edit]

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

no real notability shown for this band. airplay is short of rotation. charts are not good national charts. releases are independent. lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. nothing satisfying wp:music. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No criterion of WP:BAND is met. No significant coverage found in reliable sources.--Michig (talk) 20:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Joaquin008 (talk) 19:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:BAND i could only find coverage for a song called Neon Knights by a different band in USA [67]. LibStar (talk) 07:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Important band to Melbourne's underground music culture. Band is independent but there is coverage of band in Australia. Radio play, magazine interviews & independent press notoriety are not lacking. --Vansheboy (talk) 06:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC) — Vansheboy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wifione ....... Leave a message 06:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Xyence[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Subject does not appear to have received reliable, third party coverage. Their "aggressive marketing" as mentioned in the article has resulted in some Ghits, but nothing independent that I have seen. VQuakr (talk) 07:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Is Xyience the same company? It also seems to be in the health-drink business, and the similarity of the name is striking. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete either way. Google Books and Google Scholar turns up nothing that talks about the company in depth, be it spelt Xyence or Xyience. Fails WP:N. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 5 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. Wifione ....... Leave a message 06:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DealTaker[edit]

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

One big advertisement. coverage not good enough for wp:corp, depth of coverage is not substantial. (restored prod deletion). duffbeerforme (talk) 07:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete in accordance with G11. Seems unambiguous to me. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Other stuff exists is not a good reason. Besides, the writing style is quite different. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:44, 7 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. Wifione ....... Leave a message 06:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bamboo Club[edit]

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

There is not one ounce of encyclopedic information here, not one iota of relevancy, but there's some blatant (and, one can't help but note, ungrammatical) promotion. There are no third-party sources worth mentioning (say, on the cultural impact), and the creator has presumably never glanced at WP:COMPANY. Dahn (talk) 07:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no reliable source sets off this club from any other nightclub. I don't see the independent coverage demonstrating notability. - Biruitorul Talk 21:19, 7 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 redirect to List_of_Home_and_Away_characters_(2009)#Claudia_Hammond. Wifione ....... Leave a message 06:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia Hammond (Home and Away)[edit]

Claudia Hammond (Home and Away) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another unreferenced Australian soap character stub. Unlike the previous one, this one doesn't really have anything to source it (a Google search for "Claudia Hammond" "Home and Away" turned up only 747 hits), and is non-notable as it was only on the show for three months Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 07:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:NOTJUSTPLOT. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, this one's definitely non-notable. No major awards, no significant coverage, not portrayed by a famous actor. Should probably be redirected to List of Home and Away characters (2009)#Claudia Hammond as that actually has much more info than the stand-alone stub and a fair chunk of it is referenced (and I guess it could be a plausible search term). Jenks24 (talk) 07:30, 5 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. Wifione ....... Leave a message 06:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GNU/Linux naming controversy[edit]

GNU/Linux naming controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This controversy is difficult to write about while taking a NPOV. There are no reliable sources to claim the existence of minority and majority positions without being controversial with other reliable sources. Blackwidowhex (talk) 05:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, former FA, notable controversy, many sources, no arguments given why the perceived problems can't be solved by editing. —Кузьма討論 11:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • And that something is "difficult to write about" is a challenge to good writers, not a reason to not write. We would have very few articles if we'd ignore all difficult topics. —Кузьма討論 11:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A former Featured Article that is well referenced, relatively complete and well written. For an article to be deleted though AFD the case has to be made that Wikipedia should not have an article on this subject, not that it needs improving, is hard to cover accurately, has POV issues or even WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There is no problem using sources that take one position or the other in the controversy, as long as both sides are clearly presented in the article. From reading the references cited in the article this subject does exist, has been widely discussed in reliable references and is an encyclopedic topic for Wikipedia. No good case has been made here to delete it. - Ahunt (talk) 12:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the existence of this deletion discussion has been made at the WikiProjects that support the article: Wikipedia talk:Version 0.5, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linux, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Software/Free Software and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing in accordance with Wikipedia:AfD#Notifying_interested_people. - Ahunt (talk) 12:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability is not demonstrated since all of the sources used in this article fail WP:RS. News group posts, web forum posts, articles on self-published websites, etc. are not reliable sources. Just because a subject is discussed on the Internet does not make it notable for our purposes. Nanobear (talk) 12:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The difficulty of writing in an NPOV is not for deletion, but its alternatives. More reliable sources are available, such as this one, this one, this one, and this one that give some attention to the debate.Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, we don't need to state the majority and minority if it is unclear. Just their positions. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Crisco 1492. Also the reasons for nomination seem particularly weak ones for a deletion. Diego Moya (talk) 13:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - we don't delete articles because they're "difficult to write about while taking an NPOV", unless someone deleted everything in Category:Politics without telling me. This article is reasonably well written, well sourced with primary sources (but does need some help with secondary sources, which Crisco has made the first step towards above), and as far as I can see doesn't actually have any NPOV issues. I would also dispute the notability claims made by Nanobear. This seems to pass WP:GNG - just because primary sources are used extensively in the article does not mean the secondary sources do not exist. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 13:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This seems to fall squarely into WP:IDONTLIKEIT, given his position of "For every true user that says we want GNU/Linux, there's a 1/2 thug that says no."[68]. Notability has been established with reliable sources. Some of the sources are not reliable for establishing notability, but that is only an issue when none of the sources establish notability, and that is not the case here. - SudoGhost (talk) 15:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My apologies to Wikipedia and to those who may take my comment personally. It clearly was not helpful. I found much anxiety and embarrassment in my lifetime and that moment was one of them. When I said that thug comment, I sensed avoidance by other editors with my question on how to start a discussion for Talk:Linux/Name. I had not retracted the silly comment after getting some help from Welcome editors as I had already thought the damage was done. The future decision on this proposal will have my utmost respect. My views and actions are my own and not of any other person; that is perhaps where I faulted faltered. Blackwidowhex (talk) 00:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kusma. Difficult to write is not a reason to delete. --Falcorian (talk) 18:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear keep Clearly encyclopedic controversy - widely discussed and reported, generally covered rather than pure niche/geekcruft, lasting impact. We are more than capable of describing and characterizing the issue, themes, and stances, without speaking in Wikipedia's voice. "Neutral article is impossible" is a very exceptional claim, almost always one can be, the main exceptions are when the topic itself or all sources are inherently POV. This has coverage in very wide ranging media, including books, academic coverage, legal coverage, and dispassionate third party independent writings in reliable sources. "Notable but hard to write" is not usually a valid AFD reason. I do not agree at all with the nomination reasoning that a neutral article is hard to write, much less that it is so hard as to be almost impossible and require deletion (essentially claiming it's doomed to fail). It just takes care. FT2 (Talk | email) 01:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well-sourced spin-out of the Linux article. No valid reason for deletion has been presented. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Difficulty of writing in NPOV is a challenge to the editors, not a reason for deletion. A former Featured Article with links from many other articles needs a stronger reason than this for deletion. --Novusuna (talk) 18:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close? Seems to be a clear keep. Any uninvolved admins willing (not sure if regular editors are allowed)? Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no rush, it'll be a simple, normal close when it expires in 90 minutes time and someone goes through the expired AfDs. (See also WP:NAC) bou·le·var·dier (talk) 04:31, 11 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. Wifione ....... Leave a message 06:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Full Sail University[edit]

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

The page is written like and advert and an overwhelming majority of the information in the article comes from FS own webpage, which is against WP:IRS. Most of the editors of the site seem to have a clear connection to FS and the article has a history of toeing the line of WP:NPOV. The article should be canned until neutral editors can find sufficient sources to create the article where the sources conform the WP:IRS and WP:V. Jmclark (talk) 05:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - This is definitely one of the least advert-like ones, there are so many articles which are much worse in every aspect mentioned by Jmclark than Full Sail University is. In addition, the "overwhelming majority" is less than half of all the references listed in the article. Full Sail is one of those articles that people wish to know about, but unless you've had some connection (former student, etc) to the school you're not likely to find out a lot about it through newspaper articles. Along those same lines (and this goes for a LOT of Wikipedia articles) unless you've had some connection with the article's topic, you're not likely to edit it. For example, even if I'm interested in researching topic X it is highly unlikely that I would edit the article if I saw a recent news release about it, unless I had a connection to it. "Clear connections" are how, IMO, 1/2[citation needed?] of the articles get updated. →ClarkCTTalk @ 05:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the University has independent accreditation. However, I agree the article is in need of rewrite as it skates close to the line on WP:NPOV --Whiteguru (talk) 10:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - accredited degree-awarding institutions are notable. We don't delete pages for being promotional we clean 'em up. By all means go ahead and get busy with the scissors on any straight lifts from their website (copyvio) and any promotional stuff that is not independently reliably source. TerriersFan (talk) 01:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite from a neutral point of view. Nearly the entire article is based on primary sources but the subject meets notability guidelines easily. History is worth keeping. RadioFan (talk) 01:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as obviously notable, and not going to be deleted. Making suggestions on the talkpage about how to clean up potential problems would be better then nuking it. Blake (Talk·Edits) 22:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per RadioFan. -- Joaquin008 (talk) 19:23, 7 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. Wifione ....... Leave a message 06:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Salt Lake Children's Choir[edit]

AfDs for this article:
The Salt Lake Children's Choir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not indicate why it's notable. Furthermore, its only reference is its own website, and five of its six external links are YouTube videos to songs they've performed. This article signifies pure advertisement if nothing else. Jrcla2 (talk) 03:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Cherbourne music produces 1 unique ghit - the choir's own website - so it's not a notable label. There's some media coverage in the (local I think) Desert News, but that seems to be it. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree, the article reads like an advertisement. Desert News has coverage (local) and the Google eBooks Guide to Salt Lake City has coverage - but then again, that's local. Lacks notability. --Whiteguru (talk) 12:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'd also like to point out that the photograph on the article contains the images of 20 children under the age of 18. Unless they all expressed written consent for use of the image (which I doubt), that should probably be deleted, too. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 5 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. Wifione ....... Leave a message 06:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Los Angeles Dodgers in the Baseball Hall of Fame[edit]

List of Los Angeles Dodgers in the Baseball Hall of Fame (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While interesting, I'm not sure of the need for this list. We already have List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame which notes nearly all this information. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as a list away from the club article it probably helps things to have articles like this in many ways, on the grounds that it limits the length of the club article but is easier to use than the whole list of HoF members. I can see that it may not be notable, and it may be easier to simply direct people to an external site with this detail on. In that case I'd opt for delete, otherwise probable keep. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a perfect example of a "good list." It contains useful information that would otherwise clog down a main page on a team. The list is finite, it is verifiable, it is rationally constructed. The page serves a useful function as a navigational device, providing in-links for less-well-known greats of team history. Bravo. Carrite (talk) 12:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further review, I see that the in-links are not fleshed out. They need to be. Have at it, baseball folk. Carrite (talk) 12:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just linked all the names even though I am not a baseball "folk".--Cheetah (talk) 02:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It doesn't quite overlap the List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame, since that article only lists the team that the player is listed as in the HOF, not all the teams he played for. This article also provides scope to expand beyond the information that is already in this article as it relates to the Dodgers in the Hall of Fame. And, unlike some of the other lists that have been AfDed recently, this topic has explicit, significant coverage in secondary sources, e.g., [69]. Rlendog (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Carrite and Rlendog. Useful adjunct to main article. Wikilinks do need to be finished.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As pointed out by Rlendog, List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame only lists the team which the player was inducted under. For example, Dave Bancroft, the very first player listed in List of Los Angeles Dodgers in the Baseball Hall of Fame was inducted as a Philadelphia Philly. As such this list provides alternate, non-overlapping information from the full list. -- Whpq (talk) 18:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just as a note, the name of the list is misleading, as the majority of the players on it played for the Brooklyn Dodgers, not the Los Angeles Dodgers. They never set foot in the state of California, and as such should be removed, unless the title is changed to List of Players for the Los Angeles Dodgers Franchise in the Baseball Hall of Fame or something along those lines. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 04:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A long enough list to warrant a separate article and it does give info not in the main list. BUC (talk) 11:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've been thinking about this one since I saw it nominated. My question... what is there to indicate that there is any independent notability for being a HOFer with an association with the Dodgers organization? Are we just making a list by parsing two separate conditions (in this case, HOF + at least some tangible association with the Dodgers organization). I mean, this list isn't talking about players inducted as Dodgers, which is fully covered by List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame. But is it really important that say, Gary Carter, a HOF catcher primarily for the Expos and Mets, spent a year in Los Angeles in his twilight? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Dodgers themselves think this is an important aspect of their history, as they include it on their webpage, and independent sources like Baseball-Reference include this information as well. Of course, every team has its fairly trivial cases - Gary Carter would probably qualify in the case of the Dodgers, but he was not a trivial player for the Mets, yet he was not inducted as a Met. And while the Dodgers do pretty well in having their key Hall of Famers inducted as Dodgers, since executives aren't inducted by team, just using the List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame would exclude such key Dodger figures as Walter O'Malley and Branch Rickey. Rlendog (talk) 19:44, 10 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 redirect to Diary of a Wimpy Kid Do-It-Yourself Book. Wifione ....... Leave a message 06:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Wimpy Kid Do-It-Yourself Book Vol. 2[edit]

The Wimpy Kid Do-It-Yourself Book Vol. 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A pretty blatant hoax, much like all the other Wimpy Kid based blatant hoaxes. Speedy deletion was declined for not being quite blatant enough. Unreferenced. Nothing to corroborate it on the alleged publisher's website. Nothing in Google. Given that the book is alleged to be released very soon, why is it not being advertised? Why is it not available to pre-order? Why has it not been reviewed in any newspaper? Clearly it doesn't exist. DanielRigal (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 20:03, 27 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, Baseball Watcher 03:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was aware of the revised and expanded edition but I think it is beyond charitable to suggest that this article is based on a misunderstanding of that. I see it as just another in the long line of Wimpy Kid based hoaxes. I don't strongly object to it becoming a redirect but it serves no purpose that I can see and would probably need to be protected to avoid it being used for more hoaxing. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to assume good faith here. They got the date of the new edition and the number of pages right, so this is definitely a misunderstanding, not a hoax at all, from a relatively new editor who yes, has a couple of scoldings but is learning the ropes around here. I highly doubt anyone is going to type in such a long title for the sole purpose of vandalizing a page that does have correct information. Nate • (chatter) 05:46, 5 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 speedily deleted per A7 by Boing! said Zebedee (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tep suwannathen[edit]

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

Contested PROD, past version deleted under A7. Subject's only claim to significance, placing second in the "Young CDG Writer Awards 2", does not seem enough for notability, though the article appears to meet the GNG. Guoguo12--Talk--  02:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, agree, lacks notability. A7, unremarkable person. He can come back later when he has written something of substance. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:25, 4 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. Wifione ....... Leave a message 06:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International Drug Mart[edit]

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

I believe this corporation fails WP:CORP and does not meet WP:N any other way. The references in the article now are primarily company promotional material. There are currently three apparently non-affiliated refs. One, this local senior circular "article", reads like a promotional piece and is housed on Google Docs. The fact that it lists the company's website and phone number and does not list a reporter's name leads me to believe it (meaning the article, not the circular) might not be independent. Regardless, I submit it does not meet WP:RS. The Express Buzz website might be an RS, but the article is about the company's boss (Pradeep Dadha) and does not even mention the name of the company. The third is a blog post from a cyber-intelligence firm (Cyveillance) that I added. It is probably ok for an article (but it is a close call), but I do not think it the type of source appropriate to establish notability, especially since it is highlighting what its author(s) see as a broader problem, actually focused on the online transaction security providers it mentioned, and seemed to choose this particular internet pharmacy as an example. I have been unable to find much other than press releases in Google News searches or in other searching. Novaseminary (talk) 02:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indented line

I believe strongly that International Drug Mart should remain on Wikipedia. That is because I know from my own frequent travels on business to Chennai (and no, I have no ties to this pharmacy or its management other than being a former customer when I visited one of their stores years ago), that International Drug Mart and Dadha Pharmacies provide a professional and well-run service for their many Indian customers, and more recently a growing number of foreign customers. Have any of you that speak against this pharmacy ever been to Chennai or for that matter, India? If not, how can you make a decision about a reputable business in southeast India that serves thousands of Chennai area residents every day and that you know so little about? And, importantly, some foreign customers are accessing more affordable prescription drugs from them, because they cannot pay the high prices (sometimes 50 to 100 percent higher) that drugmakers command in the US and some other countries. It is well known, and you can find multiple published references over the years that the US drug prices are the highest in the world.

Times have changed in the past decade. Do you know where most low-cost generic drugs sold at Wal-Mart stores today are made: India. Stop by a Wal-Mart or Target store in the US and the pharmacists will admit that if you pry it out of them or if you look at the drug packaging. I promise. They sell the same drugs made at the same plants as International Drug Mart and other licensed Indian pharmacies, but often the prices in India are lower because there are fewer middlemen in India, unlike with WalMart.

As to notability, there is a story here from the Canadian Broadcasting Company from 2009, as well as a monthly Senior Connection Newspaper in Hillsborough, Florida from 2008 I think that tells of International Drug Mart's long-time service to foreign customers, and without any problems with those customers. So, they definitely pass the notability test. Afterall, this is an Indian pharmacy, are you expecting to find English language stories from Newsweek and the Miami Herald? That's not what you will find because they primarily serve Indian people in the Chennai area, and Indians there primarily speak and produce news stories in Tamil and Hindi and other Indian languages -- not English.

Actually, (and I don't think this is the case here) based on my experience, I have found that many people that are most strongly opposed to foreign online pharmacies are typically real-life employees of the FDA and the major drug companies or their lobbying organizations, because they do not want to lose one penny from their billions of dollars in profits. (I used to do work with licensed Canadian pharmacies years ago, so I know this firsthand and from personally meeting with US legislators like Congressman Bernie Sanders of Vermont, in Washington, DC. That was 5+ years ago.) Yes, these companies still make money in India (as Pfizer India, Glaxo India, Wyeth India and others big drugmakers located there prove), but they make a bit less.

One more important note. Cyveillance, the cyber-intelligence firm, will of course say negative things about International Drug Mart or any pharmacy located outside of the US. Why? Because that firm represents the Food and Drug Administration, and the FDA (which gets millions in grant and other monies passed to it by drugmakers) is opposed to Americans buying drugs from any foreign pharmacy, although the US government does little to stop the popular practice. (See Cyveillance press release at: http://www.cyveillance.com/web/news/press_rel/2005/2005-06-13.asp) Cyveillance doesn't want to say anything that upsets their client the FDA, many of whose senior staff are former employees of drug companies as you probably know from the national news stories. Mykjoseph (talk) 00:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This press release on the company's website lists the same PR firm as a contact at the end of the release that Mykjoseph (this article's creator) claimed to work for on this talk page post. In fact, the very same email address is listed on the press release as Mykjoseph listed on this image template and this talk page post. Regardless, the CBC article makes only passing reference to the company and comes nowhere close to the coverage any variation of WP:N requires. And I already addressed the Senior Connection article in the nomination. Novaseminary (talk) 02:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Upon doing more research, I realized that the press release I mentioned above (also available here) bares a striking resemblance to the Senior Connnection article discussed in the nom. I think this further calls into question that source. Novaseminary (talk) 03:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete : No indication of notability in article as it stands (could be forty pharmacies - or only four). No indication given of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • An associate of mine did a small project for them in 2008, nothing since. Not a client.Mykjoseph (talk) 13:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is interesting that the press release that seems to have been the product of this small project served as the basis for the only "article" that has anything other than a trivial mention of the company. Was the Senior Connection "article" written entirely by this associate of yours? Novaseminary (talk) 13:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I told you what I know.Mykjoseph (talk) 13:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Nobody is making any judgment on the quality of the company. However, I do not find any significant coverage about the company that would meet our inclusion criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 18:35, 5 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Rackley[edit]

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

No evidence of notability or existence of reliable sources; ref tags removed by apparently single-purpose IP editor. » Swpbτ • ¢ 02:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete high school coaches are rarely notable. Would reconsider if other noteworthy information surfaces.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No indication of notability. -- Joaquin008 (talk) 19:25, 7 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Sheldon[edit]

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

young actor who spent 3 years in Grange Hill. Apart from appearing in a pantomime in 2006 I can find little at all written about him. Insufficient independent writing about him. Does not pass the basic notability standards. Peripitus (Talk) 00:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 27 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) 00:14, 4 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Famties[edit]

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

Non-notable production team; contested prod (and who issued them a "gold award" anyway?). Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 01:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Biography-related deletion discussions. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 01:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:00, 27 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) 00:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can find no coverage about this duo of producers. -- Whpq (talk) 18:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete gnews reveals no indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 07:28, 6 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Emanuel Grigoras[edit]

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

Non-notable author. Publishes under creative commons using print on demand services. No reliable third party sources. Falls short of requirements of WP:AUTHOR. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 06:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC) Catfish Jim & the soapdish 06:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 27 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, 4 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. This is a recreation of a previously deleted page - [70]. As with the previous page, this one contains copyright material. It may be possible to write an article on this person, however it wouold need to comply with all our inclusion criteria and policies. As the material on User talk:Jenkins.sahlin.e's user page is also subject to copyright, that will also have to be removed. SilkTork *Tea time 18:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rhoda Jenkins[edit]

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

Contested prod: no indication of notability at all. The prod was removed because of allegedly in-depth coverage. But besides the obituary, the only reasonably in-depth coverage cited in the article is the New York Times human interest story "Growing up female in a feminist family" from 1979, which consists of a short bio of the subject. (The other cited article merely mentions the subject in passing.) Typically human interest stories do not, in my opinion, contribute to the notability of a subject for the purposes of an encyclopedia. In this case, the NYTimes article doesn't really discuss any notable accomplishments as an activist: Jenkins donated some money to fund the Equal Rights Ammendment, joined a local NOW chapter, and presented a paper at a women's conference. This seems barely significant. Sławomir Biały (talk) 06:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The current version of the article reads like a memorial, and at first glance I was expecting to endorse the proposed deletion. But a further search for sources reveals a surprisingly extensive amount of coverage about her, as shown at GNews[71][72] and GBooks.[73] The NYT articles are examples (and I do not agree that the first one is mere "human interest" or that the second one is merely a mention "in passing") but as the search results demonstrate there is quite a lot more (much of it behind pay walls). Rhoda Barney Jenkins may not have been a particularly notable architect, but all this coverage suggests that she may have been notable for her contributions to women's rights and history. Or maybe some of this content should be merged to the too-short article about her mother, or in some other way we could preserve the information about her and her distinguished family. At the very least, there is too much here for this content to disappear via the invisible prod process, without some community attention. I'll be interested in other opinions from those who look through the potential sources.--Arxiloxos (talk) 07:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough. It seems based on this coverage that the primary reason these sources mention her is because of her mother and grandmother. She's not notable as an architect, and despite winning a NOW award doesn't seem to be especially notable as a feminist activist. Most of the GBooks hits seem to be acknowledgements rather than nontrivial coverage (e.g., "Rhoda Barney Jenkins permitted me to examine and publish photographs...", "Courtesy of her daughter Rhoda Barney Jenkins..."). She seems to be significant largely as a primary source about the activities of her mother during the suffrage movement. Aside from google searches, is there any actual reason that this person is notable in herself? Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. She seems like an interesting society lady and architect, but no more notable than anyone else in those groups. Her ancestors were notable, but notability is not inherited. --Coemgenus 13:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild Keep If she served as a primary source for historical books as stated above, this does sound notable. Could Sławomir add information on writers citing her as a source for their information? Dimadick (talk) 05:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lordy be, what an ugly mess. This should be rescued and is an obvious keep - exactly the sort of article of interest to women that we need to keep. However, it can be better sourced and fixed up with a bit of incubation and TLC. Bearian (talk) 20:41, 3 May 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, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable given sources mentioned in previous discussion, irrespective of any present quality problems in the article. Chester Markel (talk) 00:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Per WP:NOTINHERITED which states "If a subject under discussion is independently notable, provide the evidence to show that" and "Ordinarily, a relative of a celebrity should only have their own independent article if and when it can be reliably sourced that they have done something significant and notable in their own right, and would thereby merit an independent article even if they didn't have a famous relative.", merge any useful content of the article into Harriot Eaton Stanton Blatch and Elizabeth Cady Stanton. All sources I've found lack "significant coverage" stated in the WP:GNG as "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. I cant find any source that covers her directly in here and here, which are google book results for Rhoda Jenkins and Rhoda Barney Jenkins, which are discussed previously. I cant even find a single source where she alone received significant coverage, apart from this sad news. I'll be more than happy if someone can point a source that covers her accomplishments. Nimuaq (talk) 04:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She won a notable award, and recognition of her peers by being inducted into the Women's Hall of Fame [74] Dream Focus 12:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I cant find her here Search the Hall or on any other source than the paper. Her great-grandmother is honored in 1973 ([75]) I guess the paper meant to become a member of the hall rather than honored by the hall. Nimuaq (talk) 16:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: only sources cited in the article itself are for her parentage (one of them a paid-obit), and notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. This also applies to being inducted into the Women's Hall of Fame for being a descendent of a famous suffragette. No evidence of "significant coverage" has been presented, nor achievements of sufficient significance to qualify for WP:BIO. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed my mind to delete, subject to future re-creation. I am unable to verify that she has actually been inducted into the Women's Hall of Fame, or has gotten any other such honors. Bearian (talk) 20:53, 10 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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grameen Foundation Australia[edit]

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

Does not appear to pass our notability guidelines for organisations: I can only find a bit of independent coverage of it here. Created by a single-purpose account. doomgaze (talk) 10:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - there seem to be a number of references by other non-profits who have received funding or grants or aid in kind from this organisation. --Whiteguru (talk) 08:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 07:33, 28 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) 00:12, 4 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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 19:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Rohrbaugh[edit]

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

Non-notable minor league baseball player. He was released by the Mariners so it is highly unlikely, at his age, that he will be making his big league debut. The references fall under WP:ROUTINE. He spent most of his career in the mid and low minors, which doesn't help his case either. Alex (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 28 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, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone needs to weigh in here. Delete as non-notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:49, 9 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 Todd Rundgren. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 01:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rex Rundgren[edit]

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

Quite a non-notable minor league baseball player. At 30 years old, he is currently a free agent and so it does not appear as if he will be making a big league debut. The references attempt to create notability not because of anything HE has really done--they try to create "notability by association," as his father is a semi-popular singer who had a few top 40 hits back in the 1970s. That's not, in my opinion, REAL notability. That is, Rex Rundgren has not done much to make himself notable through his own work and career (in other words, if he wasn't related to Todd Rundgren, he wouldn't be notable at all). He barely played above the Double-A level (only 48 games at AAA, where he hit .187) and he posted a career batting average of .239. Alex (talk) 18:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because they may have gotten it wrong in the last AFD. Those articles talk about his father as much as, if not more than, the subject. It seems his notability is inherited, which means he fails GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When I read them, they seem to be mostly about baseball. No biography of the younger Rundgren is going to entirely avoid mentioning his father, which is proper and entirely unsurprising, but these are pieces about Rex that briefly mention Todd, not pieces about Todd that briefly mention Rex. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am not convinced by the assertion that because the articles about Rex Rundgren discuss his father, that this is an example of notability being inherited. I have little doubt that he has received more coverage than someone with identical accomplishments but a less famous father. Nonetheless, the articles referenced are largely about Rex Rundgren, and so work towards establishing Rex Rundgren's own notability. As another way to look at it, Rex Rundgren's brother has the same father, but less independent coverage, and so does not meet notability criteria. But although I believe that Rex Rundgren does meet our notability criteria, I am not sure this article says anything substantive about him that couldn't be said as well via a short section within the Todd Rundgren article (which would also appropriately mention his brother). So I would be fine with a merge and redirect, until and unless someone wants to fill out this article with more substantive (and of course properly sourced, etc) information. Rlendog (talk) 16:32, 2 May 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, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - a couple lines to Todd Rundgren. Carrite (talk) 01:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Adding more sources posted from a previous discussion to the article seems reasonable. Rex Rundgren is set to play in the independent North American Baseball League for the Lake County Fielders (co-owned by Kevin Costner) in 2011. He is a very good defensive shortstop, albiet with modest offensive stats. As noted in a previous discussion, Minor League All-Star with AAA experience. epalsla —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.93.18.90 (talk) 03:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, he is set to play in an unaffiliated minor league, which is exactly the reason why he is not notable. Alex (talk) 03:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He's notable for his play in the past, which was covered by numerous high-quality sources, and notability, once achieved, is permanent. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 20:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Added links to articles on MiLB.com and MLB.com and to web page regarding Rex Rundgren playing in the Midwest League 2002 All-Star Game. epalsla —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.93.18.90 (talk) 05:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the main issue here is whether young Rex has notability on his own or if it is inherited from his famous father. I think it is obvious that there wouldn't be sources covering him at all if not for his father being famous, although the sources are covering him, but in relation to his father. So, I'm unsure exactly how much of his notability is inherited and how much of it is authentic. I don't care about how many articles there are with him as a subject, I still feel that as someone we wouldn't talk about if not for his father being famous, it means he's not notable on his own. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:39, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Our notability guide on people states "That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A)" In this case A, Rex Rundgren, does have significant coverage as a baseball player. Thus he seems to meet the criteria covered by the parenthetical clause. Rlendog (talk) 19:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Each article cited here is about Rex Rundgren as a professional baseball player. Each article makes positive comments about his skills and accomplishments, whether defensively, offensively, or length of career. He has been regarded as a shortstop with major-league defensive ability: "Rex has had a reputation of being a very, very good defensive shortstop," 51s manager Lorenzo Bundy said. "A lot of people in the Marlins organization said he could play shortstop in the big leagues, defensively." (Las Vegas Review-Journal). "He's not a fancy guy who makes unbelievable plays, but he's one of the best shortstops in the organization," said [Carolina skipper Luis] Dorante. "He's saved the pitching staff a lot of runs." (MiLB article) These are not contributions that show up in batting statistics, but they do show up on the field and are valued sufficiently by baseball people to result in Rundgren's professional career having now spanned ten years. He was an All-Star in the minors at the age of 22. He played at the AAA level during two seasons. He has established notability in baseball, which is a profession unrelated to that of his father's accomplishments. Media for every sport includes coverage of athletes' lifestyles because some people find that interesting. Rex Rundgren had a unique lifestyle as the son of a rock musician. To be sure, this enhances his notability, but it would be of no interest to sports writers or people who follow pro sports were he not first a notable baseball player. When most of these articles were written, Rundgren was considered a prospect with major-league ability. In fact, he played for the Florida Marlins, competing for a roster spot in their organization, during spring training in 2006 and 2008. epalsla —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.93.18.90 (talk) 17:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either Delete or Merge to Todd Rundgren would work for me. Having viewed the sources listed in the article, they all seem to fall into two categories: 1) articles on MiLB.com/MLB.com, or 2) articles in newspapers local to either Rundgren's hometown (Honolulu), where he went to college (Sacramento) or the minor league team on which he happened to be playing at the time (Las Vegas, Tulsa). Under our current guidelines, I don't believe any of that rises to the level of conferring notability. -Dewelar (talk) 00:05, 12 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Holcomb[edit]

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

Non-notable individual, quick look could find no reliable sources other than the one source already given in the article, which arguably isn't a RS as to this individual. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - most hits involve a documentary about sex workers in Africa which he has been introducing in various venues. A search for "Project Weber" (thinking that perhaps his organization might be more notable and therefore a potential merge/redirect) turns up nothing notable either. SeaphotoTalk 21:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 28 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) 00:06, 4 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Mueller[edit]

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

Neither the article nor a google search establish the subject's notability (WP:BIO). The only third party coverage cited, [77], sounds like advertising couched in the form of an interview with what looks like a local interest website of unclear reliability.  Sandstein  20:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 28 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) 00:06, 4 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 redirect to Playdom. Wifione ....... Leave a message 06:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Social City[edit]

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

Does not meet the general notability guideline. The sources are: a forum, a press release, google, an online vote, a blog, a web stats page, a blog, and a user generated walkthrough. You need reliable sources (not self published, not forums or communities) that are independent of the subject (not the developer, not their press releases, even if republished). Shooterwalker (talk) 22:47, 27 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) 23:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - I don't know the notability of its award, and I agree the article isn't in the best shape, but I truthfully would say Keep if not for this AfD for Café World (which redirects to Zynga). Farmville seems to be the exception for being article-worthy. CycloneGU (talk) 23:14, 27 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, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Shooterwalker, little verifiable notability exists, except for Disney purchasing Playdom. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, to Playdom per WP:PRODUCT; Weak keep if that helps concensus. Gamezebo review and The Game Developers Choice award go towards notability. Some minor sources such as Gamasutra "honourable mention" in the Best Of 2010: Top 5 Facebook Social Games. Doesn't quite have the coverage I want to see for a standalone article. Marasmusine (talk) 19:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from nominator: if it helps to produce a consensus, I would be okay with a redirect. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've summarized the game at Playdom, in preparation. Marasmusine (talk) 12:19, 10 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2011_May_4&oldid=1142637136"