Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 December 16

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< 15 December 17 December >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Seems to be a consensus that the tiger (err, dog) is notable, and the sources seem to confirm this claim. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger Woods (dog)

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

This was a bit of a confusing article when I found it, so I decided to clean it up a bit. And the resulting version didn't look up to much. After some attempts at improving it, I drew a blank, and so have decided to Afd it on grounds of basic notability. I could find nothing remotely corroborating what the article previously claimed, that Tiger is "one of the top show dogs in the United States". It seems from the passing mentions after he failed to win Best in Show in 2009, it might have been different had he won, but he didn't. Best of Breed and Hound Group, albeit in a top show, still looks unremarkable to me, and these feats are not particularly given much attention in the refs beyond routine coverage it seems (by comparison, there are countless breeds and even 7 overall Groups in that show). The one thing you would think would also get coverage, his celebrity name, hasn't really, with only this short LA TImes blog entry paying it any attention. MickMacNee (talk) 23:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I see numerous reliable sources demonstrating the dog's notability, including the major U.S. sources ESPN and USA Today. You removed a lot of prose text and changed it into a list. This is an encyclopedia designed to be prose not lists - so you did the opposite of what you're ideally supposed to do. I saw little fluff material in the article before your removal. Earlier this year, I reviewed this article while it was waiting in the queues for Did You Know and editing out some fluff. Royalbroil 02:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Both ESPN and USA Today sources are about the winner, not Tiger. Their actual coverage of Tiger is a single mention as one of the 6 other runners up, and infact, they both copied that paragraph from the same source. And lists are perfectly fine for this kind of info, I cannot fathom how you can think converting it to prose would be of any help to a reader. MickMacNee (talk) 12:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    winning a Group at Westminster confers automatic notability for show dogs - that's exactly why I think the dog is notable. Well put. It's the only dog show that I ever heard of. Has won "at the highest level of a sport". Royalbroil 12:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm fine with that judgement of dog notability if that's to be it, but I would hope that any such statement is made on a better basis than simply 'its the only show you've ever heard of'. I've heard of Curfts and Westminster, but I don't consider myself a better judge of notability than external sources. MickMacNee (talk) 16:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the version as of a minute ago demonstrates notability adequately. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    How? I found nothing, not one source, that supported the claims the previous version contained. MickMacNee (talk) 12:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom. - BilCat (talk) 04:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the dog has won several major events, including best hound at the most prestigious dog shows in the world--the westminster kennel club. Furthermore, he was widely covered during that time period. Is part of his fame derived from his name? Yes. Which might be part of the reason why Paul Harvey covered him---which is where I first heard of Tiger Woods.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 04:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which one might we be referring to? There are at least a dozen... Dr. Blofeld White cat 12:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which one what are we referring?---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I never said the blog was unreliable, I was merely pointing out that, despite what you seem to be saying here, none of the coverage is because of the name, and the blog entry is the only ref that even mentions it. Everything else looks like routine coverage for any dog with a similar record, irrespective of the name. If that's notability for show dogs, that's fine, but as I said in the nom, it doesn't look remarkable to me, and many other dogs have achieved the same, if not better. MickMacNee (talk) 12:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Several independent references, and the dog won groups at Westminster. Article could do with a decent tidy and re-write - not a deletion. No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Miyagawa (talk) 13:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fine as I said above, as long as we are clear that this will establish a precedent that winning a Group at Westminster confers automatic notability for show dogs. That is potentially allowing a miximum of 6 new dog articles per year, just for this US show. Expand that logic to shows in other countries, and I think this stance becomes distinctly unlikely to be supported going forward, without a better definition of show dog notability. MickMacNee (talk) 12:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete having an interesting name does not make a dog notable, even if the morning news writes a puff piece. winning some conformance shows, even at Westminster, does not make a dog notable. I have a hard time justifying individual articles for even Best in Show, ugh. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • Strong delete - Common example of people mixing up WP:N and WP:RS, which are separate but similar. Reliable sources demonstrate that a topic is notable. This dog is not, and none of those sources suggest otherwise. If they do, paste those sentences below. Shadowjams (talk) 08:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, mostly per Shadowjams. The mentions of this subject in reliable sources are mostly passing and trivial (oh, look, he has an interesting name). Winning awards is often used as an indicator of notability for people and creative products (books, movies), but I'm dubious about the application of that to animals, particularly when the awards were not the top honors at the most prestigious show. --RL0919 (talk) 18:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I'm the one that provided the sources, not Shadowjams. Winning the hound group is a top honor. But the coverage of Tiger Woods is without dispute, there are scores of articles on him (the challenge is finding them through the billions of articles on the real tiger woods.) But MSNBC having an article exclusively on the dog, as well as the Times Herald Recorder, and Golf.com, LATimes, ... those are major sources giving coverage to the dog. ABC News, The DogChannel writes, Tiger has accumulated an impressive show record.[1]. Heck, the dog has made it into popular reference ala the SportsGeek and Paul Harvey. And ESPN covered him because of his name. Here's another story about Tiger Woods in the Herald Tribune BEFORE the Westminster event [2].
    • Lest we think this was his sole claim to fame, in addition to the other finishes I proved above: here is a third place finish at another major event, 2007 results for the Trenton Kennel Club, 2008 results for the Pioneer Valley Kennel Club, qualified for the 2009 American Kennel Club National Championship [3]. A second place finish at the North Country Kennel Club in 2008[4] Won best in breed at the Westminster Kennel Club in 2008 [5]. Won best in breed at Scottish Deerhound Club of America in 2009[6].
    • Some other information, in order to use the "CH" before a dogs name, the dog has to earn at least 15 points at American Kennel Club sanctioned events. In order to win a championship point, the dog has to be the best dog of its breed and sex at a dog show. The CH designates the dog as "champion", the owners can continue to compete them at the national level.[7] Tiger Woods is a champion dog. The American Kennel Club has 34 entries for Tiger Woods in 2009---mostly where he has placed at various dog shows.
    • The notion that there aren't sources for this dog are ridiculous. This dog has competed at the highest level of its sport and won. He has garnered additional coverage because of his name. Yes, his name has played a role in his fame, but you can't discount it.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 08:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can't see anything new provided here that isn't of the same standard of coverage that is already present and has already been discussed. Again, none of the above sources have imo taken any real attention of Tiger because of the name, (and again, they all re-use other single sources). You listing his other competitive records, many of which we already knew from the article, is bordeline original research without providing third party RS assements of it as a whole with regards to how notable that makes Tiger. The single (selected) phrase of "an impressive show record" from www.dogchannel.com is the closest to showing that so far, and even that is just part of what is again routine coverage of the results of the 2009 Westminster show, and not an article about Tiger specifically at all. And it makes it clear that the Westminster Group win is above any of these other feats ("his most illustrious win yet"), so we are back to square one - ignoring the expected but rather trivial coverage due to name dropping, is winning a Group at Westminster the bar of show dog notability? I don't see any real difference either if this bar were re-written as 'any champion desingation (CH) dog is automatically notable'. MickMacNee (talk) 16:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is ample coverage in reliable sources about the subject of this article, a Scottish deerhound.

    See this article from the Times Herald-Record. This article presents information about the deerhound's breed, age, and accomplishments. Although the dog's name may have garnered it coverage in the Times Herald-Record, the article is primarily about the deerhound's dog show accomplishments, not its name. I consider it original research to classify this article as being a "puff piece" when there is no evidence of it being so. The article discusses how the dog was the "winner of the Hound group and Best in Show competitor at the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show" and how it would compete "against six other dogs for the title of Best in Show". The depth of coverage in this article is enough for this source to qualify as the "significant coverage" required by Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

    Additionally, this blog from the Los Angeles Times provides decent coverage about this deerhound. This article verifies that the dog's owner is Gayle Bontecou and its handler is Clifford W. Steele. How does this article establish that Tiger Woods (dog) is notable? It states that "[a] Scottish deerhound has never won best in show at Westminster." Because the Los Angeles Times found it worthy to make this dog the subject of one of its publications, Tiger Woods (dog) is clearly notable.

    This article from Dog Channel provides a paragraph of coverage about this deerhound. The article states "Tiger has accumulated an impressive show record, but taking the Group at the Garden is without a doubt his most illustrious win yet … quite a feat for a 7-year-old dog of a giant breed." Phrases such as "impressive show record" and "quite a feat" establish that this deerhound has notable achievements.

    Winning "Best in Show" at the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show, a prestigious contest, is already a good indicator that Tiger Woods (dog) is notable. Receiving media coverage because of these accomplishments cements this notability. Cunard (talk) 19:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pe2elf

edit
Pe2elf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 23:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obselidia

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

Non-notable unreleased film lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:NOTFILM. ttonyb (talk) 23:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NOTFILM at present though I confidently predict it will have an article and be notable this time next year. Brilliantine (talk) 02:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Hopkins

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

I do not think this person passes WP:GNG. One piece of coverage in a local paper, as far as I can see. The book mentioned appears to have had no substantial coverage anywhere. Brilliantine (talk) 22:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Wizardman 22:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pandeli Çale

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

Delete, individual is completely non-notable, just another signatory of the Albanian Declaration of Independence, part of a series of identical one-line stubs created about every single signatory. Nowhere close to meeting WP:NOTABLE. --Athenean (talk) 22:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no need to keep a one sentence article.Alexikoua (talk) 13:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was deleted as non-notable, utterly lacking in content

NINJU-WUSU

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

Contested prod (see talk page). I can find no coverage in reliable sources to indicate that this meets notability requirements. May be eligible under G4 but I can't see deleted versions of Ninjuwusu to find out. Gonzonoir (talk) 22:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was deleted/userfied. non admin closure TheWeakWilled (T * G) 20:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Final Solution (Book)

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

Refuted PROD. This book appears to be completely non-notable. Indeed, looking at the talk page, I'm not even sure if the book exists. Note that all the references are sourcing the history behind the content of the book, nothing to do with the book itself. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, thanks Joe Chill for adding the template on the article. I didn't forget, but I use Twinkle and it does flub sometimes for no apparent reason--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the author of this article I would like to request to move it back into my user space until I complete some of the tie in articles I wish to write. My series would include, The Final Solution (Jason Bailey), Final Solution (Lawrence Graham), and Final Solution (Richard Peck). The idea of these articles is to compare the difference between the coined term "Final Solution" historically to the fictional uses for it in literature. I understand that the article does not appear notable on its own but I believe when it is included in my series, this topic of comparison will be notable. I will wait until I get your permission before moving the article back to my user space. Thank you. 09:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eraser1 (talk • contribs)

Each article has to be notable in it's own right. This article will keep getting deleted until you show some evidence that the book has attracted the attention of the wider world. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
no reason not to attempt the general article you planned, but it should discuss only those books that are actually notable, and at this point your book is not among them. DGG ( talk ) 18:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He's not planning to write a general article. He apparently wants to write an article like this one on each of the books he names.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eraser1 has moved this article into userspace.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pantommind

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

Non-notable band. Cannibaloki 20:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Hamill (actor)

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

Non notable actor. Has made very few appearances. Looks as if he was a one off in some series playing a minor character in some segment called the The Man Show but doesn't seem viable for his own biography as such.... Can't find any reliable sources... Dr. Blofeld White cat 20:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Hawkins

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

Non notable high school coach WuhWuzDat 20:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Death from a Distance and the Birth of a Humane Universe

edit
Death from a Distance and the Birth of a Humane Universe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability - the article does not state how this is a notable book per Wikipedia:Notability (books). rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Brand new book, so no historical significance or influence. No citations in the article to indicate notability, and searching produced no indication of reviews or other coverage from any reliable source. Even the book's own website doesn't mention anything that would satisfy WP:BK. --RL0919 (talk) 21:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this book. Joe Chill (talk) 23:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete: This book brings to a general global readership a potentially revolutionary new theory of human evolution, behavior and history. This theory was originally developed and published in the peer-reviewed specialist professional scholarly literature where it has been widely discussed (about 30 references to such discussions are below). This book is also notable for making this potentially vital theory accessible for the first time to professional scholars across diverse disciplinary boundaries.

References:

  • Boyd, B. (2008). "Art and evolution: Spiegelman's The 'Narrative Corpse'." Philosophy and Literature 32(1): 31-57.
  • Calcott, B. (2008). "The other cooperation problem: generating benefit." Biology & Philosophy 23(2): 179-203.
  • Churchill, S. E., R. G. Franciscus, et al. (2009). "Shanidar 3 Neandertal rib puncture wound and paleolithic weaponry." Journal of Human Evolution 57(2): 163-178.
  • Cleveland, A., A. R. Rocca, et al. (2003). "Throwing behavior and mass distribution of stone selection in tufted Capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella)." American Journal of Primatology 61(4): 159-172.
  • de la Torre, I. and R. Mora (2005). "Unmodified lithic material at Olduvai Bed I: manuports or ecofacts?" Journal of Archaeological Science 32(2): 273-285.
  • Fields, C. (2002). "Why do we talk to ourselves?" Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 14(4): 255-272.
  • Fields, C. (2004). "The role of aesthetics in problem solving: some observations and a manifesto." Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 16(1): 41-55.
  • Flinn, M. V., D. C. Geary, et al. (2005). "Ecological dominance, social competition, and coalitionary arms races: Why humans evolved extraordinary intelligence." Evolution and Human Behavior 26(1): 10-46.
  • Gavrilets, S. and A. Vose (2006). "The dynamics of Machiavellian intelligence." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 103(45): 16823-16828.
  • Gintis, H. (2000). "Strong reciprocity and human sociality." Journal of Theoretical Biology 206(2): 169-179.
  • Gintis, H. (2003). "Solving the puzzle of prosociality." Rationality and Society 15(2): 155-187.
  • Gintis, H., S. Bowles, et al. (2003). "Explaining altruistic behavior in humans." Evolution and Human Behavior 24(3): 153-172.
  • Johnson, J. A., J. Carroll, et al. (2008). "Hierarchy in the Library: Egalitarian Dynamics in Victorian Novels." Evolutionary Psychology 6(4): 715-738.
  • Larson, S. G., W. L. Jungers, et al. (2007). "Homo floresiensis and the evolution of the hominin shoulder." Journal of Human Evolution 53(6): 718-731.
  • Linquist, S. and A. Rosenberg (2007). "The return of the 'Tabula Rasa' (Kim Sterelny, 'Thought in a Hostile World - The Evolution of Human Cognition')." Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 74(2): 476-497.
  • Mora, R. and I. de la Torre (2005). "Percussion tools in Olduvai Beds I and II (Tanzania): Implications for early human activities." Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 24(2): 179-192.
  • Okada, D. and P. M. Bingham (2008). "Human uniqueness-self-interest and social cooperation." Journal of Theoretical Biology 253(2): 261-270.
  • Rilling, J. K. (2006). "Human and nonhuman primate brains: Are they allometrically scaled versions of the same design?" Evolutionary Anthropology 15(2): 65-77.
  • Rossano, M. J. (2006). "The religious mind and the evolution of religion." Review of General Psychology 10(4): 346-364.
  • Rossano, M. J. (2007). "Supernaturalizing social life - Religion and the evolution of human cooperation." Human Nature-an Interdisciplinary Biosocial Perspective 18(3): 272-294.
  • Shea, J. J. (2003). "Neandertals, competition, and the origin of modern human behavior in the Levant." Evolutionary Anthropology 12(4): 173-187.
  • Shea, J. J. (2006). "The origins of lithic projectile point technology: evidence from Africa, the Levant, and Europe." Journal of Archaeological Science 33(6): 823-846.
  • Sripada, C. S. (2005). "Punishment and the strategic structure of moral systems." Biology & Philosophy 20(4): 767-789.
  • Summers, K. (2005). "The evolutionary ecology of despotism." Evolution and Human Behavior 26(1): 106-135.
  • Wang, J., F. Fu, et al. (2009). "Emergence of social cooperation in threshold public goods games with collective risk." Physical Review E 80(1).
  • Whittaker, J. C. and G. McCall (2001). "Handaxe-hurling hominids: An unlikely story." Current Anthropology 42(4): 566-572.
  • Wilson, D. S., D. T. O'Brien, et al. (2009). "Human prosociality from an evolutionary perspective: variation and correlations at a city-wide scale." Evolution and Human Behavior 30(3): 190-200.
  • Wilson, D. S. and E. O. Wilson (2007). "Rethinking the theoretical foundation of sociobiology." Quarterly Review of Biology 82(4): 327-348.
  • Wood, J. N., D. D. Glynn, et al. (2007). "The uniquely human capacity to throw evolved from a non-throwing primate: an evolutionary dissociation between action and perception." Biology Letters 3(4): 360-364.
  • Zhu, Q. and G. P. Bingham (2008). "Is hefting to perceive the affordance for throwing a smart perceptual mechanism?" Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance 34(4): 929-943.

SonicANS (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. SonicANS, how on earth do any of your links above demonstrate the notability of this book? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 06:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lol SonicANS that was pretty epic, but I have to agree with RHaworth. I hate to use another acronym but- WTF? DRosin (talk) 12:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sorry, but the book has to become notable before it gets its own Wikipedia article. There are millions of articles here, and Wikipedia generally has no effect on increasing interest in any particular book. Mandsford (talk) 14:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete: No historical significance? No citations indicating notability? It appears to me that the two delete reviews are from individuals who are so entrenched in the existing theories as to be willing to ignore over 30 references, multiple discussions in professional literature and positive endorsements from professors and scholars around the globe in order to limit the spread of information that is well researched and could threaten their long held beliefs. How can a large body of research and a well grounded theory about the evolution of Humans as a species have "no historical significance". As for influence, this theory and the underlying research has already influenced several thousand students at the university level, encouraging them to open their minds, question information about the driving forces of our evolution and to build upon (or disprove if appropriate) the various assertions and supporting research of this book. This the type of influence we need!--Divano62 16:12, 17 December 2009
Are you saying that all those articles from 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, etc. made reference to a book that wasn't published until 2009? Mandsford (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete: The book is a recent publication, but has already been hailed by a number of leading scholars in the field for the originality of its thesis and the broadness of its implications. Moreover, the book explicitly articulates the notions of the human knowledge enterprise, on which the very existence of Wikipedia is predicated. Hence, the book has every right to remain as an entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightone5188 (talk • contribs) 09:02, December 17, 2009
  • Comment. I would strongly recommend that the "Do not delete" !voters should review Wikipedia's standards for notability, particularly those for books. The article we are discussing is about the book itself, but the arguments and references being given seem to relate to the subject matter that the book discusses. Maybe there is an article that should be written on that subject matter (Human uniqueness question perhaps?), or there might be a place to use this book as a source for some existing article. But a separate article just about the book cannot be justified if there are no reliable sources (which does not include promotion quotes provided by the publisher) discussing the book itself. It is clear that articles written years before the book could not be discussing the book itself as a subject. --RL0919 (talk) 18:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete: The book should not be deleted because it brings a very thoroughly thoughtout theory about evolution into perspective. The theory is based on many scientific findings and is therefore very credible. If one is to judge credibility based on time lapse of publication, then science can never advance. Furthermore, this book is part of a course that is taught at Stony Brook University which is one of the top 2% of research institutions in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.245.247.82 (talk) 18:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete: This book is a recent publication and it is based on many existing scientific establishments. The author brings a new approach to looking at the human world and it is a theory.There are citations used for all the scientific theories that it incorporates. In addition, the theory has been taught in Stony Brook University for years now, and the scientific community is praising the potential of this theory. It should definitely not be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.245.200.188 (talk) 18:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • One of the authors is a professor at Stony Brook University, so the comments about it being used there presumably mean he is assigning it to his own classes, which is not what is meant when WP:BK refers to a book being "the subject of instruction". Also note that WP:BK calls for the book to be the subject of instruction at multiple institutions, so that one idiosyncratic instructor cannot make a book notable. --RL0919 (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Paul M. Bingham, which already contains extensive information about this book. (actually, it contains an excess of information about the book-- & a good deal of generally promotional language which I am about to remove.) The book may well become notable, when it gets reviewed. I note it's self-published, but in this case the author is clearly notable , and has published 2 mainstream articles in good journals about the theory, so the book may be one of the rare exceptions. DGG ( talk ) 18:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I noticed the self-publishing as well, but did not mention it precisely because the exception appears to apply. A redirect isn't entirely implausible, but 1) as a search term the title is awfully long (perhaps not a big deal but it seems odd) and 2) the redirect would need to be watched to prevent reversion to the full article, because the influx of inexperienced !voters making similar arguments here suggests a particular effort to promote this book by having a WP article on it. --RL0919 (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
see my comments on his bio article, which I have now partially rewritten and considerably shortened--much of it seems to have been written by his students. (I still need to look for citations to his earlier and current work, and will add them.) I will certainly watch for inappropriate additions. Academics are no more immune to self-promotion than anyone else. DGG ( talk ) 19:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Paul M. Bingham. Thank you for all the comments. Those made by RL0919 and DGG have been particularly informative and I agree with their arguments and suggestions. There's been a misunderstanding with the notability requirements and I apologize for my ignorance in that regard. This has been a good learning experience for me and I hope to make more thoughtful contributions to Wikipedia in the future. SonicANS (talk) 19:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - the author seems to be notable, but this book does not appear to satisfy the notability guidelines for books. A redirect could be in order; otherwise, I guess deletion would be appropriate. Cocytus [»talk«] 16:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Icewedge (talk) 21:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vanguard (2011 film)

edit
Vanguard (2011 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No assertion of notability whatsoever. It's a high school project which, holy smokes has been covered in blogs!!!!!111. Ironholds (talk) 20:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 00:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MarineMeat

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

WP:NOTNEWS This is an article about allegations without lasting effects. Dethlock99 (talk) 20:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC) Dethlock99 (talk) 20:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC) FYI, the first AFD was withdrawn before closure. It had not been decided and consensus was head toward delete.Dethlock99 (talk) 20:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This AfD is being debated in an external forum

  • Delete per nom. Insignificant subject without lasting notability. Prev Afd prob shouldn't have been closed given all the delete votes. ViridaeTalk 03:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As I pointed out in the previous AfD, this was the subject of multiple articles in major press sources (CNN and the Los Angeles Times are two we've found so far) extending over several months. It's clearly notable based on the press coverage. Everyking (talk) 04:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The one several months later, as far as I could tell, only said someone was added to those being investigated. "Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article." From wp:PERSISTENCE That would make the L.A. Times article still part of the event itself and not continuing coverage. Dethlock99 (talk) 14:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm, I see nothing improper in closing my own AfD if I withdrew it -what is the point of withdrawing if it stays open? In any case there is already this one, no need for further hassle. --Cyclopiatalk 14:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um, because it was too late by then, as several users had already weighed in to delete. Your withdrawal at that point was improper. Tarc (talk) 14:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. Will be more careful in the future. --Cyclopiatalk 15:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or merge Keep - There is indeed some source along time, and therefore some mention of the incident is warranted, but I'd be happier if someone finds a suitable merge target (which I didn't find). ---Cyclopiatalk 14:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC) - Changed to full keep per MichaleQSchmidt sources search. --Cyclopiatalk 23:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As per my argument above, that is still coverage of the event itself and not coverage continuing after the event. From my searches, the coverage seemed to die off long before the investigation ended. Dethlock99 (talk) 15:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cyclopia, I suggest that you examine the hits from MichaleQSchmidt's search. As I said below, they do not, in fact, show continuing coverage. Dethlock99 (talk) 08:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Was the non-admin close of a separate afd for this a few days ago (running at about 4 arguments for delete against 1 to keep) appropriate?[9].Bali ultimate (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Error of mine. Since I nominated it and I've withdrawn the nomination, I thought I was entitled to close -per meaning of "withdraw". Tarc, above, already made us notice that it probably has been improper. Lesson learned. --Cyclopiatalk 21:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please notify the participants of the previous Afd. ViridaeTalk 21:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. --Cyclopiatalk 21:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Cyclopiatalk 21:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many of those things are difficult to define, but under a conservative interpretation I am doubtful that very many of Wikipedia's subjects would meet such a demanding standard. You have a list of articles you've created on your user page—do you feel they all meet the above standard? Everyking (talk) 23:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Same comment as in the last AFD. Joe Chill (talk) 21:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. WP:NOTNEWS. Groundsquirrel13 (talk) 22:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Opps. Missed the 1st AFD, else I would have opined there. The article will benefit from cleanup, expansion and proper sourcing per WP:ATD. While WP:NOTNEWS is always a consideration for stub articles, the continuing coverage over several years shows it to not be only a simple blip on headlines, with the instigation resulting in more stringent gidelines governing Marine's behaviors. This moves it from news to something more enduring. The CNN cite in the article is only one of many available. My search, shows the enduring nature of the investigation and its subsequent repercussions. I agree with BaliUltimate that the article will benefit from a more in-depth expansion, graduating it from news and reflecting the continued coverage shown in sources from 2000... a surmountable issue whose lack is not cause for deletion. HOWEVER... I do strongly suggest a title change to the article.. perhaps Marinemeat investigation, as the current title makes one think the article would be all about the porn website Marinemeat.com, and it is not. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There has NOT been continuing coverage of the event. If you actually check the 21 hits, you will not find anything out side of the time frame of the initial report. The hits the graph shows are search noise. Dethlock99 (talk) 08:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe Leigh Reisen

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

Contested Prod. Really bad sources, doesnt say what movies this actress stared in, barely asserts notability at all. google search reveals only 2 hits, one of which is to a yellowpage hit for her home care services. As it stands, falls way short of notability Bonewah (talk) 19:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

7 ghits. Wikis, s9 and the home care mentioned above. Peridon (talk)
  • Delete per failing GNG and BLP. Notability isn't even asserted, no significant coverage. Seems like someone misunderstood what Wikipedia is and wrote a little something on themselves. WildHorsesPulled (talk) 00:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bonewah. If there were more details on the movies she starred in, maybe - if she really had the lead role in two films with audiences of millions, that would be notable - but without even knowing the film names, we can't say that she wasn't a bit part. I did search a bit to find out about her, and got nothing more than anyone else here. That "said to be the granddaughter... deathbed confession ... plausible" bit is highly dangerous; we can't say someone had an illegitimate daughter without any sources at all. I'm just going to strike it. --GRuban (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring comment by Saedienyx:

  • This actress worked with Stu Segal productions in San Diego, CA. You can contact them on their website. She is currently working on a film called "Night River's Edge" in Ohio. You can also verify with Active Image Management LTD in Columbus, OH. Item should remain here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saedienyx (talk • contribs) 20:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I refer anyone interested to Stu Segall Productions. I quote: "The studio is used primarily for filming low-budget television series and movies. Shows shot there include Veronica Mars, Silk Stalkings and all six MyNetworkTV limited-run serials. It was built in 1991 and is sometimes referred to as Stu Segall Studios. Part of the facility is used for police and military training exercises." I also quote from the Segall site: "The Studio Diner is now open Visit the Diner!" (the latter part being a link to the Studio Diner which appears to be an open to the public restaurant with a rather interesting menu including 'Sliders' and 'Boob', both of which are unknown to me as foods - must investigate...). I can find no ghit for "Night River's Edge" with 'film'. Anyway, this would fall under WP:CRYSTAL. I quote from the 'Merchant Blog' on http://www.merchantcircle.com/business/Active.Image.Management.Ltd..614-475-4258 "Local modeling agency searching for the right fit models for children's clothing lines and adults. No experience required and no portfolios or upfront fees. We are a legitimate, full service model & talent booking agency since 1996." Peridon (talk) 19:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Slider (disambiguation) - a small hamburger as originally popularized by the White Castle fast food chain and served as an appetizer or small main dish by many United States restaurants since the late 1990s, particularly those specializing in New American cuisine.

--GRuban (talk) 19:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ta for that. How about Boob? (I know it's irrelevant to the discussion, but I'd like to know...) Peridon (talk) 23:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hand Hug

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

Declined an A7 on this article, but I'm unable to find any reliable sources providing significant coverage of this..."hug". Given the claim that it was "created" apparently by the article's creator, I think there's a good chance that this is something made up one day. I will, of course, withdraw this nomination if someone uncovers enough sources to pass WP:V and WP:N. Tim Song (talk) 19:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Apparently no significant references about him. Keeps were admittedly all "weak keep" (and one "very weak keep". Jayjg (talk) 00:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Song

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

I tried to clean this article some, but it appears to be mostly spam, with no real content. I can't see how this biography is notable enough to warrant inclusion. TNXMan 19:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is how I respond to your note, but I'm very confused as to why this article is considered spam. In writing it, I modeled it after Timothy Ferris's page and a few others biographis at Wikipedia. Mike Song is a noted author of two books, and a verified expert in his field, as shown with the multiple references provided. Can you please give me some specific feedback on why this article appears to you to be spam? I disagree. Can I get a second opinion? Thanks! RachelMetzger (talk) 19:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: I agree with your excisions Tnxman, but I think what's left there is a reasonable article. There are a lot of references - I suspect that several of them are trivial or from non-reliable sources, but it seems to me that if an editor has gone to the trouble of finding plenty of references the onus is on the complainer to show that they are not sufficient. --ColinFine (talk) 20:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep None of the citations I read cover the subject in any great detail, but they do mention him in a more than passing way. I hot linked a few of the citations so that others can better assess for themselves. Bonewah (talk) 21:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - pile of borderline passing mentions in articles about which he is clearly not the subject; doesn't meet WP:BIO, in my opinion. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - so far as I can tell, there are no references that are about him. Being interviewed for articles/shows on other topics doesn't count towards notability. We need significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject where "significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail. The subject of this article doesn't have that, so the article goes. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 06:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sei Wee Lim

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

I think this is a hoax. It's never been sourced and I can find no mention anywhere of a swimmer called Sei Wee Lim or Lim Sei Wee. The claim that he won the 100m breaststroke gold at the 1999 SEA games is false; this was won by Elvin Chia from Malaysia.[10] Fences&Windows 19:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Protests of 1968. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 09:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Political uprisings of 1968

edit
Political uprisings of 1968 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pigeon-holing a vast number of completely unrelated events based on the year they happened in? Nuh-uh. The individual events are notable - the events collectively are not. Ironholds (talk) 18:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May 1968 in France : when the events occurred in France, saw the largest general strike that ever stopped the economy of an advanced industrial country,[1] the first wildcat general strike in history,[1] and a series of student occupation protests.

Dream Focus 01:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC) Merge as per infor above. Lets not lose the content on here though. Merge not redirrect. Kurlansky's '1968 the year that rocked the world' is a good source of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Confusedmiked (talk • contribs) 10:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This is "keep" in the sense of "do not delete outright", rather than "keep in its current state". There is no real support for actually deleting this content, but there are valid concerns about the appropriateness of leaving it as a separate article. I suggest efforts are made to either source this article properly or trim and merge it to Therapeutic horseback riding - the correct way forward can be discussed on the talk page. ~ mazca talk 15:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Effects of equine assisted therapy on autism

edit
Effects of equine assisted therapy on autism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unencyclopedic, unreferenced essay. KuyaBriBriTalk 18:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Task Squid

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

No sources found for this website, apart from their own cooperate twitter and facebook accounts. Doesn't seem notable RandomTime 17:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Womanisers in fiction

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

A disputed PROD. Since there is no definition of "womaniser" and absolutely no references provided, this is essentially original research by synthesis. It can never be clear whether an entry belongs on this list without a definitive citation; none have been provided and none seem available. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Article is a month old and the creator did not seemed inclined to provide any sources when they deproded. Without sources the article is an obvious original research and POV violation and with sources the subjective nature of the subject and unmanageable scope of the content inhibits it from ever being encyclopedic. TomPointTwo (talk) 18:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I searched within wikipedia to see if this material was covered elsewhere- it doesnt appear to be. Womaniser, womanizing etc just link to Promiscuity- if you check that its focus is very different to the intended focus of this article.

My point is, this is a notable subject not adequately covered elsewhere (from what i can tell- anyone searching for this sort of topic would have similiar issues to myself). Yes there are massive problems with the article as it is- but they could easily be fixed, new content and citations added etc etc. The article needs to have more analysis at the start instead of just being a list. "The womaniser" is a specific, recurring literary and filmic archetype- focusing on explaining that, with a list giving examples, i think would be very worthwile and not at all "unmanageable" as suggested above. If the original creator is no longer active- tag up the page for improvement and maintenance and see if someone else can take over. Brunk500 (talk) 19:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:DEL - "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. A variety of tags can be added to articles to note the problem. These are listed here. " --Brunk500 (talk) 19:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Minor self correction- after some thinking i did manage to find a wiki article that kind of already relates to the womanizer archetype - Rake (character). While connected, a rake is usually associated with activities (gambling, drinking, inherited fortune) that are not always associated to womanizer characters. In other words, all rakes are womanizers, but not all womanizers are rakes. --Brunk500 (talk) 19:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless some sourcing is added (so far, declined). This is one person's list of all the examples that come to mind when they think of the word "womaniser" (the author's definition seems to be a man who goes from one woman to the next). People on the list are Don Juan (his name has become a byword), Dorian Gray's buddy Lord Henry Wotton (exhibits womanising tendencies), Count Dracula, James Bond ("widely regarded to be the archetypal womaniser") and some of his womanising enemies, the psycho in American Psycho, Bruce (the Batman) Wayne, Tony (Iron Man) Stark, Charles Foster "Citizen Kane" Kane, and any other examples that readers want to add. The days of "this is a stub" (or as a womaniser might say "...a really big stub, baby!") are over. Mandsford (talk) 14:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then has a golden age come to an end. --Nemesis the Fourth (talk) 16:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's more like the age of "nobody takes Wikipedia seriously" has come to an end. Back in its salad days, Wikipedia wasn't the first place that people would look for information, so sourcing was considered optional. Nothing wrong with writing an article about fictional womanisers, but a visit to Google books wouldn't hurt. Mandsford (talk) 18:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody takes Wikipedia seriously today. Hardly surprising really since it's more a glorified online game than an encyclopedia. --Nemesis the Fourth (talk) 20:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the way you feel perhaps you should find another place to pass your free time.TomPointTwo (talk) 20:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per Mandsford. Where the entire article is nothing but OR, both in terms of the incoherent and equivocating organizing concept and the inclusion and analysis of individual entries, you can't clean it up except by completely rewriting and retitling it. In other words, starting from scratch. The creator's comments above also do not inspire confidence in this article. postdlf (talk) 22:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn sources have been found. JBsupreme (talk) 05:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Punchball

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

Delete. Pretty simple here, WP:NFT. JBsupreme (talk) 17:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As above, WP:NFT. also, article seems to give varying, confused definitions of what punchball is - "Punchball is a sport similar to baseball but without a pitcher, catcher, or bat. It is a pastime of football announcer Al Michaels, who often played with former Chicago Bears quarterback Sid Luckman" vs "At the University of Florida, students commonly play a version of punchball which involves 2 players, a pitcher/goalie and the puncher". Article doesn't cite any sources to prove this game exists. Also, a speedball is a speedball, not a punchball. no connection there. AND- how can a game be similiar to baseball, but not have a pitcher? nothing makes sense.

Keep. Article has been cleaned up a bit + has some better references now. I would like to mention however that at [1] and at [2] (those are currently citations 1 and 5 in the article) i couldnt find any actual reference to punchball. If punchball is mentioned in the books featured on those sites (you cant access the books text) pls delete the links and just provide standard book references instead, with page numbers. Also ill add, the original article seemed to go out of its way to declare its subject non notable (a game played by 2 famous people plus students at one college) --Brunk500 (talk) 05:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As to footnote 1, see the last paragraph on the indicated page 194, directly following the quote of Larry McPhail to the subcommittee of the House of Representatives. As to footnote 5, I've traded the textual reference for one in another book that refers to The Boys of Summer, and added The Boys of Summer as a see also. I think the college reference was innappropriate and deleted it, and see that on the talk page I questioned the w famous people reference two years ago. But again, AfD nomination should not be made on the basis of the article as it stands, but on the basis of no sources existing -- wp:before asks the nom to research that first. A quick google check would have indicated the innapropriateness of an AfD here.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up Comment Assuming the article's true and not a hoax, the editor didn't think it up one day, Al Michaels and Sid Luckman did. One question, then, is whether anybody besides Al Michaels and Sid Luckman ever played it. Another question is when did Al and Sid's paths ever cross? Yeh, they're both from Brooklyn, but different generations. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page [11] alleges that employees of Kimberly Clark played the game in the 1930s. It also cites wikipedia, so it could still be a hoax. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This page [12] has nothing about punchball, bu it alleges that Al Michaels met Luckman once, and various references I've seen indicate that Michaels apparently talks about Luckman a lot. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article [13] is a reminiscence about various old-time street games in NYC, including punchball. Near as I can tell, the game was like hitting fungos with a spaldeen and your fist, kind of like stickball without a stick. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. I was the one who deleted that. I didn't take the time to research it, as I thought it more important to respond to this AfD. But if its the case, it sounds like a hatnote issue, rather than fodder for the substance of the article, no?--Epeefleche (talk) 04:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, or a footnote somewhere. Its placement in the article was confusing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully the complaints posted at the top of the AFD have now been addressed. It's a real game, and it's sourced; and its similarity to baseball is obvious. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tx for your kind words. Actually Gould (with whom I was acquainted just slightly in passing -- but enough to view him as a brilliant Renaissance man) was a huge baseball fan. As with George Will, it's not what he was mainly known for, but baseball was a great passion of his (hence the subtitle to his book on baseball). Though not everyone agreed w/him on baseball, as here. Sadly, by the time that came out, he was no longer in a position to provide one of his standard, thoughtful, and witty rejoinders.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Was that book a finished product, or was it assembled from his notes? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a great question. My recollection is that it came out after he died. I have to find my copy to check this, but I think the treatment is more or less different essays, and it may well be that some were reprints of bits he had already had printed elsewhere (in which case, while he might have changed them given the chance, at some point he felt they were good enough to print). But I'm not sure what percentage of the book would fall into that class. If I can find it (or check enough book reviews), I may find the answer, and if so I will get back to you on it.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the book is pretty much what Gould intended, then it seems he was writing more as a fan than as a scientist, and there's no harm in that. A lot of folks thought Cobb was the greatest player ever, for example; not just Gould. I used to think so too, though I don't anymore. But it's just a matter of opinion. By contrast, as I recall, George Will's books were a little more cerebral. But I don't think George was a figger filbert. He was writing more about the human side. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is your answer. See the Editor's note on pp. 21-22.[14] It seems that but for one essay and his intro, all were already published words. His habit was to choose and edit prior essays. Seems he did that, to the extent able until he was too weak to continue. Who knows whether, if healthy, he might have done more. He left it in his office, rather than delivering it to his publisher, suggesting to me he might have done more had he been able. I don't think either author could possibly separate who they were as thinkers from how they thought about the game--certainly, Gould' thinking as to why we don't have .400 hitters any more is such a treatment.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The critic's comment that hitting .400 is overrated, is kind of skirting the question. Gould's argument, according to the critic, was that the extremes have tended to level out. I think he was partly onto it. There was a slow progression of pitching becoming more dominant, which reached its peak (or nadir) in 1968. Even now, I think it's just tougher to be a top-notch productive hitter than it was in Williams' or Ruth's or Cobb's eras. I think someone could hit .400, if they decided to. But at what price? 200 singles? The game is about scoring runs, more than anything. Look at Teddy Ballgame's stats from 1941.[15] Not only did he hit .406, with 37 homers and 120 RBIs, he only struck out 27 times while walking 147 times. Incredible discipline at the plate. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See this (open it and search for "Gould"), for a good SABR treatment of the book.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting review, rather less dismissive than the other one was. I find it funny that Gould kind of puts down humans' tendencies to create heroes, while in other places engaging in gushy hero worship. Gould was supposedly an atheist. I don't think so. He was a true believer in the Church of Baseball. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, default to keep. Jayjg (talk) 00:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dangerous - The Remix Collection

edit
Dangerous - The Remix Collection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This limited-edition album is not notable per WP:NALBUMS. It does not receive significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Pyrrhus16 16:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MJfan9: hey did you click on the sources and links anyway I started off the article someone else expanded it. anyway if you are Michael Jackson fan you should know about these albums. search google anyway of course there are not alot of sources the album is vary Rare and not alot of people know about it. search Michael Jackson albums discography on section: other albums

'sorry for the last post on mytalk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MJfan9 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I searched for "dangerous - the remix collection" and got 234,000 hits on google. I'm not a jackson fan, but anything that is an official jackson release by sony (epic is part of sony) is pretty much notable. I think the articles authors should hunt down and provide additional information, such as albums sold. --Brunk500 (talk) 18:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Google hits are not an assertion of notability. An article must receive significant independent coverage in reliable sources in order to be included on Wikipedia. I see no reliable sources on this album - only links to fansites, ecommerce sites, and file-sharing/download sites. Pyrrhus16 18:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Multipe sites i checked confirm this album sold 22,000 copies in japan and reached 33 on the japanese charts. Couldnt find any really meaty coverage in english, but if anyone here knows japanese i think they could easily find some good information. Also i should add- deleting this because of some difficulty finding internet sources in english i think is evidence of recentism and lack of global scope- what i mean is, if an album was right now in the US charts at number 33, this wouldnt be a debate + internet write-ups would be plentiful(this album came out well before the internet became popular). With some work (by someone fluent in japanese) i think heaps of coverage could be found in japanese music magazines from around the time of the release. --Brunk500 (talk) 06:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Screwed in Houston

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

DELETE. Also including Screwed In Houston which was created on the same day as a duplicate article by the same author. I have searched [16] and found nothing representing non-trivial coverage by reliable third party publications of this subject. JBsupreme (talk) 16:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. similiar experience as above- only links i found were a few scattered words on blogs and the video up on youtube or youtube like sites. I tried to post this earlier with a mention that they say they are distributed by vbstv- which is just basically like a youtube site. i tried to post the link to vbstv but wikipedia tells me its is on the WP blocklist. anyways, i tried to follow the links to play the vid on vbstv but just got an unrelated snowboarding clip instead. Also, only 'credible' external link in the article is to an mtv page, which is about houston but doesnt mention this documentary at all. --Brunk500 (talk) 18:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator; no outstanding delete !votes. Non-admin closure. KuyaBriBriTalk 18:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco Hernández Ortiz-Pizarro

edit
Francisco Hernández Ortiz-Pizarro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Definite lack of reliable sources showing up in Google web search, and Google Books appears to have only two brief mentions. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)Withdrawing per evidence of external sourcing shown below.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I don't imagine 16th-century Chilean history is very well representd on the web, but the article in the "External link" has a note saying "Este articulo -extractado de nuestra obra inédita Francisco Hernández Ortiz Pizarro, Capitán de la Conquista, Fundador de Calbuco- fue publicado en la revista Cuadernos de Caicaen Historia y Folklore desde las Islas N° 2 pp.12-18 Calbuco 1992. " and the next ref implies that he's in Diccionario Biográfico Colonial Chileno, which looks good enough notability for me. PamD (talk) 17:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And is AfD really appropriate 42 minutes after article creation? By the way, note that the article author won't be able to join this discussion for some 31 hours! Ah, perhaps there was a sensible decision not to "Speedy" it while he couldn't "Hango-on"? Anyway, keep this article. PamD (talk) 17:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly -- I figured 7 days would cover the block and whatever time he needed to find better sourcing. Besides, it's not speedy territory, as there is an assertion of notability in founding a settlement. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Influence of Technology on Motion Pictures Industry

edit
Influence of Technology on Motion Pictures Industry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced, unencyclopedic, OR essay. KuyaBriBriTalk 15:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nominator informed me that has elected to withdraw the AFD, with no other arguments for deletion. –MuZemike 02:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UK telephone code misconceptions

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

In the scope of an encyclopedia, this article is far from encyclopedic. Yes it has a lot of references, but the material included is essentially about how one country (UK) changed some of it's telephone area codes, and how some people still misquote them. The article was written in 2005, and the general use of these codes today means the article is now seriously out of date despite updates being performed by IP editors, mostly.

The article also has a number of statements which have not been sourced or tagged for checking, it is marked as possibly containing OR, which is not allowed here, and essentially, this article is not fit for inclusion here.

It is large, longwinded, and unencyclopedic. My gut instinct says "Coat this with something volatile, and strike a match near it." Thor Malmjursson (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination Withdrawn BarkingFish Talk to me | My contributions 02:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep - The article just needs cleaning up a bit, that's all. However, it is a very, very notable issue - and has multiple verifiable sources which are cited. The telephone code misconception is something which affects millions of people on a daily basis - both to a lesser extent (where they simply misquote) and to a greater extent (where the misconceptions cause calls not to be connected, or to reach entirely the wrong person). EuroSong talk 17:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Do any of the cited references describe this as an issue as defined by the scope of the article or is they entirely a synthesized collection of materials describing the various aspects of the misconceptions as seen by the editors? I can't find any cites that actually address this as a single issue. If there are none than this is clearly WP:SYN issue, if there are then the article does not fit the criteria for deletion. TomPointTwo (talk) 18:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Answer The OFCOM reports are cited in the article - currently references #1, #2 and #4. OFCOM is the official telecommunications regulator of the United Kingdom. The misconceptions problem is large enough that the regulator is aware of it, and that they even spent money to commission surveys to measure the scale of the problem. Their findings indicate that the majority (over 50%) of people do not know their own correct telephone number. The population of Greater London currently stands at 7.5 million. Therefore possibly just under 4 million residents of London do not know their own phone numbers. When you include all the other cities in the UK to which the misconceptions apply, this number grows. I do believe that a problem which is large enough to be recognised by the governing body to the extent that they commissioned surveys to record its scale, is certainly a large enough issue as described in the article. EuroSong talk 20:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see, I misunderstood the exact nature of the reports when I first looked through the citations. It would appear to me that this is an issue that is relevant, real and sourceable along with being recognized by relevant government and private parties. With that in mind I can't really say that it is Original Research but it still very much borders on violating WP:SYN. I can now concur that deleting the article is probably not the best response to the issues with citations but I'd urge interested parties to actively search for independent, third parties that have also identified and are discussing this subject as it is presented in this article. It seems that the editors that created this article might simply be trending ahead of the media on this one. Also, keep in mind that wikipedia is not really the place to disseminate data points; it's purpose is to present encyclopedic articles. TomPointTwo (talk) 21:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - you're right that the article needs work at the moment. But - as you correctly said - it should not be deleted! If we deleted all articles which needed issues addressing, then we would have no articles left! With regards to being "ahead of the media" - well, the fact is, telephone area code formatting is not seen as a very sexy topic, therefore you don't tend to get many mainstream media articles directly addressing the misconception issue. However, media articles are not the primary measure of notability. EuroSong talk 22:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is true but it is important to keep in mind that the collection of data points to create a narrative is the definition of WP:SYN. To state the policy page: ""A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article." I understand that the collection of these studies is valuable but the lack of a reliable source reflecting the narrative and conclusions of this article leave it in a precarious position. The article needs to find a source for it's "C". TomPointTwo (talk) 22:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment - The cites at references 1 and 2 date back to 2004 and 2005, are they still essentially relevant, 5 and 4 years on respectively? Thor Malmjursson (talk) 21:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The problem is as big today - if not bigger than it was several years ago. Just because OFCOM's survey was commissioned a few years ago - and they haven't done a more recent one - that doesn't mean that the problem has gone away. If anything, it simply means that the problem has become even more entrenched - given the lack of any reports stating that people have now finally began to understand the area codes. EuroSong talk 22:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - In the first few years after the number changes, the main issue was the dialling of too few digits on local calls, and the call therefore failing to connect. After many years of people having an incorrect belief as to what the area codes really are, and with new number ranges coming into use in all these areas, the problem is now much worse. For the new number ranges within each area, people are prefixing what they believe to be area code on to the new numbers, and dial too many digits. The call now connects to the wrong number. The problem is increasing, and will continue to do so as more new ranges come into use within these areas. On the anniversary of the changes, there is always a huge traffic spike on pages about the changes: [17]. Perception of the new codes is still very low, even as we approach the tenth anniversary of the latest changes. The UK media continue to misquote UK numbers daily, and many websites (even new ones built this week) are quite likely to misquote them. I guess there will be a lot of media activity on the tenth anniversary, with stories about how BT and Ofcom botched the information campaign, when in fact it's the UK media that have spent the whole of the last decade spreading mis-information. The article describes real problems which are not diminishing. (79.73.227.213 (talk) 20:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep but encourage pursuing new sources per Q & A above. TomPointTwo (talk) 21:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge useful, verifiable and notable content to Big Number Change and Delete remainder. WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The article seems to be something of a content fork. Most of it is horribly unencyclopedic, built on original research and synthesis and supported by references to unacceptable sources such as directories and forums. The mainstream sourcing that there is is almost all from the same short period a fairly long time ago - a sign the article may violate WP:NOTNEWS From WP:NOT: A complete exposition of all possible details. Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. This article seems to be merely an attempt to be "a complete exposition of all possible details" regarding the Big Number Change. This is really not a sensible subject for an encyclopedia article at all. Brilliantine (talk) 03:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and edit. The subject of the article is notable. However, it makes a number of claims that are not supported by reliable sources. It may be that the problem occurs in other code areas, but the bulk of the reliable sources (such as the Ofcom reports and press coverage) point to it being a problem most associated with 020. It needs to be edited and claims unsupported (that is, unsupported by reliable sources) must be removed. The inclusion criteria is verifiability, not truth. MRSC (talk) 07:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's of interest to technical historians, and to nerds like me. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that "interesting" is not the litmus for inclusion at wikipedia. Do you have any other reasons? TomPointTwo (talk) 18:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. If I didn't find articles interesting, I wouldn't be here. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No-one is saying something being interesting is bad, it is just not a criterion for the existence of an article. Brilliantine (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, that makes sense. I was just suggesting that if you desire to see an article kept the best way to do so is to advance a position that is inline with the relevant policies, in this case the one on deletion. TomPointTwo (talk) 20:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are thirteen reasons for deletion, and the article doesn't satisfy eleven of them. The other two are very subjective: "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline" and "Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia". It's very difficult to persuade anybody that something is notable or encyclopedic when they've already decided otherwise. But, I can demonstrate usefulness, which might fit either or both. A year or so back I got into an argument with my boss (well, his boss's boss to be exact); his line was "Reading's dialling code changed from 01734 to 01189". My line was "It changed from 01734 to 0118, and a 9 was added to customers numbers. Try going to Reading, and dialling a 6-digit number. It won't work unless you put the 9 in too". Much arguing ensued. If I had been unable to refer him to UK telephone code misconceptions#Reading, Berkshire it could have turned out worse. Now, that is both WP:OR and unreferenced. The article is not. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad that this article has served some purpose in educating your boss' boss! The amount of blind ignorance out there is staggering.
Anyway - I need to comment on the things that have been said so far. I myself was the originator of this article - originally entitled "0207 & 0208". I believe that it is encyclopædic, relevant, verifiable, notable - and educational. However, having said that, I do take onboard the points that have been made with regards to the article having become an "insicriminate collection of information". As a seasoned Wikipedia editor, I understand that the criteria for encyclopædia inclusion include not only truth, but the ability to independently verify the facts from reputable sources. And as it stands, the lists of problems and misquoting with all the other area codes except 020, do not have those credible sources cited. As mentioned above, part of the problem for this is that telephone code formatting problems do not sound like a very sexy and interesting topic for the national media (also, most of the journalists get the codes wrong themselves!) - and OFCOM obviously doesn't want to spend too much money commissioning surveys for every area code around the country.
With this in mind, I recommend that the article be cut down drastically, so it merely sticks to the relevant points with regard to 020. Opinions, anyone? EuroSong talk 16:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it is cut down then it would be a lot better, certainly. I would have to say that I would still propose a merger with Big Number Change in any case, as I don't see why the subject is not capable of being covered adequately in that article. Brilliantine (talk) 18:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would oppose a merge, for the simple reason that the Big Number Change was simply a single event that happened almost a decade ago. However, the ongoing problem of the telephone code misconceptions has itself grown to be a bigger part of daily life than the single event which preceeded it. In addition, the basis of people's misconceptions (in terms of 020) is rooted in the fact that London was split during the 1990s, and in order to provide a proper explanation for the reason for the error, it is necessary to describe the history of all the London number changes. That goes beyond the scope of the Big Number Change article. EuroSong talk 18:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I would favour dividing the properly verifiable material from this article between Telephone numbers in the United Kingdom and Big Number Change. I just don't see any way of showing the subject of misconceptions relating to UK area codes to be independently notable. I am open to other suggestions and have to say I appreciate your willingness (as the article creator) to discuss constructively. Brilliantine (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I do see the point some have made re WP:SYN but this is perhaps the result of the scope of the article being widened from its original name of 0207 & 0208 (or something like that). Some editors originally pointed out that there were also misconceptions outside London, and then the scope gradually crept to include Cardiff etc. and after a while the article got renamed to its current title. However, I don't think that the problem outside London is anywhere as severe as it is within London (just my impression - I doubt I can back that up easily). So perhaps the article name should revert to 0207 & 0208 (or whatever it was), and should have notes regarding Cardiff etc. (but I'm not that bothered). In any case, there is a noteworthy problem as regards London phone nos. - it's quite bizarre that perhaps most Londoners don't know what their area code is!--A bit iffy (talk) 19:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are absolutely correct. "0207 & 0208" was a nice tidy article, written just about the London misconceptions, and well referenced. However, then people started to add the problems with other area codes, and the article was renamed accordingly. I would not object to cutting out all the stuff about other areas - as, although the information may be true, it is poorly-referenced.EuroSong talk 16:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep for reasons already given. Moreover, the article is by no means out of date as claimed - while the sources may be old, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the facts presented are as true and as important (if not more) now as they were five years ago. -- Smjg (talk) 11:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see that User:Eurosong has carried out some of the suggested rationalisation; but an IP editor has made some drastic cuts too, which I think was a bit too far. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - The 2000 Ofcom survey was put in place to monitor the effectiveness of the public understanding of the area code change from dual 0171/0181 areas to a single 020 area. It found a very low understanding; most people incorrectly said that London had two area codes: 0207 and 0208. The 2005 survey was put in place for several reasons. One was to measure whether perception of '020' had increased. Another was to judge people's reactions to the new 3xxx xxxx local number range that was about to come into service. Predictably, most people still wrongly believed London had two area codes. Most also incorrectly assumed that London was getting a "third code - 0203". (86.128.125.222 (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Interestingly, one option that Ofcom had previously considered was to have an 'overlay' code for new London numbers, e.g. continue with 0171 for inner London and 0181 for outer London, and have another code (perhaps 0119, but one was never chosen) as a new area code for new numbers anywhere in London. This was rejected as too complicated, and because it would mean that most calls within London would then have to be dialled with an area code, even for calls within the same street. The single 020 code allowing copious room for future expansion was the solution put in place. When the first additional number range was allocated, the media did their usual half-assed job by getting it wrong. See [18] and others. (86.128.125.222 (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
I'd think it quite likely that Ofcom will do another survey in 2010, and I guess they will find perception to still be very low. A huge chance to raise perception of '020' has been missed with the 2012 Olympic games. The London Olympic games number is misquoted everywhere as 0203 2012 000. It was obviously chosen by someone who incorrectly believes that London does have three area codes. Wouldn't the number 020 3000 2012 have been a whole lot better? We'll never know. I'd guess London was surveyed by Ofcom because: it has the largest population, it is right on Ofcom's doorstep, and it's the most major area that has been split and then recombined (only a decade later). Ofcom did also survey 'the perception of the London area code as seen from outside London' in 2005, and noted similar low awareness. (86.128.125.222 (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Ofcom are only too aware that the rest of the country (in all 02x and 011x areas) also misquote their own numbers. They don't need a survey to tell them that. In those other areas, Ofcom introduced new number ranges without fanfare, and misdialling rates there have also soared. There are millions of misdialled calls per month where people insert unwanted digits when calling new number ranges, simply because their perception of what the area code is, is incorrect. Newspapers rarely report these issues, unless it is a little old lady being perpetually harassed [19] (and even then they incorrectly reported that 'Sheffield gets new 01143 code') or people wanting to call the local hospital inserting an unwanted digit after the real area code part, and end up calling the Reading fire brigade instead [20]. Most other incidents go unreported because no-one has their eye on the big picture, they cannot see that it is a systematic failure on a national scale. The media are also at least partly to blame for public confusion. In their official Style Guide, at least one newspaper incorrectly tells their journalists and editors to use '0207 for London' e.g. [21] (see Telephone). (86.128.125.222 (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
There are many rants on blogs and forums about the general area code misinformation and screw ups, and many more posts where people in 011x and 02x areas report receiving misdialled calls. Those sites are considered 'non-authoritative', cannot be quoted, and so as far as WP is concerned, 'the problem does not actually exist'. (86.128.125.222 (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
The area code misconception is all around you. Some 30 to 50% of all new 'city' (i.e. 011x and 02x area code) telephone numbers mentioned on a daily basis on [a popular real-time social-media messaging network] are malformed, and a Google search for the fake '0207' area code and just today's date already lists thousands of results: [22]. You'll likely watch at least one 'live' UK TV programme this week where a 'new' number is misquoted, and tomorrow you can find dozens more misquoted in the adverts in your local or national newspaper. (86.128.125.222 (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
On another note, BT's area code lists (for all 011x and 02x areas) have been incorrect for the whole of the last decade. I know of at least a dozen people who have informed BT about those errors. Many of those people have informed BT at least several times, and those letters and emails stretch back at least several years, if not all the way back to 2000 itself. Finally, BT amended their lists only a few weeks ago, fixing some of the problems, but also introducing several new problems. A few weeks later they amended some entries again; finally, the London entries are correct, but BT still has errors for most of the other 02x codes, as well as errors for some other areas; see: BT has another go, and fails again. (86.128.125.222 (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
The WP article was originally heavily London-biased, but the problems extend nationwide to all 011x and 02x areas. This is the sort of mentality that pervades many UK businesses: [23]. How the heck do you call '013066' in Coventry anyway? On the tenth anniversary of the changes, next year, there are a LOT of questions going to be asked as to why this mess still continues. (86.128.125.222 (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
There are as many issues with the other 02x area codes (created as part of the Big Number Change) as there are with the London code, though the issues may be slightly different. London numbers added one digit and the two London areas were recombined as one; the other 02x codes added two digits to the local number. So, London 020 is misquoted mostly as 020x and occasionally as 020xx, other 02x areas are mainly misquoted as 02xxx and occasionally as 02xx. There are also plenty of issues with the older 011x codes created by PhONEday, especially now that new number ranges have come into use. Those codes are mainly misquoted as 011xx. (86.128.125.222 (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Reading changed at a different time to the other 011x codes, and so the misconceptions in those other 01xx areas are slightly different: one of those involves people believing the old code added a 1 at PhONEday, but that didn't happen in those other areas. The article currently also addresses the question as to why there are a lot of problems with the 011x area codes (such as 0116 for Nottingham) and not so many problems with the 01x1 area codes (such as 0161 for Manchester), which is a very valid question for someone to ask. (86.128.125.222 (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
The main problems stem from both the PhONEday and Big Number Change events, and the original London problems predate those by several years. Problems continue in all 011x and 02x areas, especially when new number blocks come into use in an area. This is not a problem that is confined to London, and it is not a problem solely associated with the Big Number Change. To limit the article to those two topics would remove more than 88% of the real problems from view. The article needs sections for London, other 02x changes, the Reading change, the PhONEday changes, and a note about older 01x1 codes, because there's different scenarios for each of those. (86.128.125.222 (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
As the tenth anniversary of the Big Number Change approaches, there will be a LOT of media interest in this mess. It's a story that's just about to happen, after a far too long period where far too many people have buried their head in the sand. The problem is, there is nowhere else on the web where can you find the 'big picture' documented in full. There's just snippets here and there. (86.128.125.222 (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Dear 86.128.125.222 - thank you for all your input. However, please remember that this is a page discussing whether or not the article should be deleted: not a page to discuss the phone code misconceptions themselves(!). Your input here needs to be in the context of Wikipedia guidelines in support of keeping the article. And the point is - while everything you said is completely true - there is a sad lack of reliable sources for all the nationwide errors other than for the London code. If you read the rules, you'll find that the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia is not truth - it's verifiability from reliable sources. And the fact that there are no ready reliable third-party sources for the non-London codes means that, although in the information is correct, its present inclusion in Wikipedia is in question. I'm happy to say, however, that is is quite apparent from all the "keep" comments here that a consensus has been reached that there are indeed reliable sources for the London problem - so the article itself should stay (just needs an admin to close the debate). But all the non-London examples still need a lot of work - or removing. EuroSong talk 01:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per A Bit Iffy and others. Further, some of the original nominator's comments are baffling: why does it matter that it is a UK topic? Plenty of articles here are a lot more local than this, but it doesn't make them bad. Nor does its age, intrinsically, nor its subject matter. It has certainly suffered bloat and needs editing down, but I believe that it is essentially a useful and encyclopaedic article. Best wishes, DBaK (talk) 22:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sheldon Pinnell

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

Apparently non-notable dermatologist. I checked Google, Google news, and Google scholar and couldn't turn up any reliable sources which discuss this person's life and/or work in any detail. Googel Scholar did turn up a few papers he has published in reliable journals, but I don't see enough to satisfy the baseline conditions noted at WP:PROF. Based on this, and the likely conflict of interest involved in creating this article, it should likely be deleted. Jayron32 15:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding sources now and wanted to get out the basic info out that I had so far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skincaretruth (talk • contribs) 19:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC) — Skincaretruth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Actually, both of the new sources look a bit better. Its helping. Do you have any more? --Jayron32 22:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Top Gear (series 14). (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 09:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff (car)

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

Contested PROD: Non notable TV car that only existed for one episode and is not likely to ever appear in another episode again, I would like to nominate it under WP:BLP1E but that rationale is for a person, not for a vehicle, hence I would like to nominate it under a similar guideline. Donnie Park (talk) 15:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Top Gear (series 14). Any relevent info can be included in that article, per WP:PRESERVE, however I agree with the nominator that this likely does not qualify for its own article. --Jayron32 15:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge (selective merge) as above. Unless there are 3rd party sources about this it doesn't need much discusssion. Polarpanda (talk) 16:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's a little bit about it already, if you add the name "Geof" it will be a worthwhile redirect target. Polarpanda (talk) 16:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it is a road going electric car, that is a feeble excuse for a keep, plus who is going to draw inspiration from that keep vote. Does this mean we are entitled to have a Wikipedia article about every home made electric car that existed. Donnie Park (talk) 12:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 09:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of public information films

edit
List of public information films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

First of all, this list is more useful as a category than a list, it was originally part of the 'public information films until I removed it and rep[laced it with a category as I doubted the notability of most of the recent PIFs, also much of the famous articles have its own article, hence why I decided it was useful as a category. Rather than explaining why it should exist, user:Jonny99 decided to create an list here rather than bothering to form any discussion like he should.

Also, another reason is that Wikipedia is not a dumping ground of some random recent PIF minus its own article or any form of verifications or notability, which most of these (recent PIFs) have fallen into ignomity within a few years of it being shown on TV. Donnie Park (talk) 14:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notable PIFs should be in categories, this list is more like a dumping ground of random PIFs that everybody else have forgotten or some latest one that everybody else will had forgot about 12 months later. Donnie Park (talk) 16:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They will be in categories but no-one will know when they were made or what they were about, unless they know them already. Suppose you only wanted early examples? Whereas the non-notable PIFs here can be removed via normal editing. Polarpanda (talk) 16:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But then what late examples can the general public remember, I can't think of any, hence why I removed much of it. Donnie Park (talk) 18:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking at the reasons for deletion stated at the top, its clear that this information WAS a
part of public information film before Donnie park removed it (my own assessment is that it looks like
would be a good contribution to public information film- with normal editing). So, i guess if we reach a
consensus to merge, there needs to be some sort of ruling or guidelines given by the admin to make sure there isnt editing warring over this material. Also- whether or not all these PIFS are famous enough to have their own article (an issue raised by the nominator) i think has no bearing on whether they get included as short summaries in a list. --Brunk500 (talk) 17:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will go for a merge, only those with its own article are allowed in, if we can agree on that, I will withdraw this nomination. Donnie Park (talk) 17:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Donnie, you are totally right in imposing a limit to how many examples from the list get brought over to to Public information films. I should have mentioned this before actually- the list is very long. However from my rough count, only 10 of the ads have their own article, and the other 104!! dont.
Most of the 10 ads with own article are from the list of famous PIF's - if you only allowed those the other sections would be gutted (these are recent pifs, detr, fire kills, think, anti smoking, railway safety). how about on top of the ten or so famous PIF's you allow a reasonable amount (4) from each other section- that would be 24 without articles, and about ten with articles. A reasonably short tidy list, and well down from the original list which had about 114 examples. (this is assuming jonny99 goes along with this as well). Obviously im not an admin so this is just a suggestion for you 2 and any admins reading --Brunk500 (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC Magazine ran a series of articles on 20 PIFs in 2006.[24] Should be useful. Fences&Windows 01:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That list only mention those that are highly notable, a lot of these would have its own article, how many of the recent ones are listed there? Well I can't see the new ones qualify unless it have won a major advertising award, especially that list is already a dumping ground for random entries that will be forgotten within several years. Donnie Park (talk) 13:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't look for sources you'll never find them. For instance, I looked for sources on the "Don't Run the Risk" campaign by Network Rail and found plenty e.g. [25][26][27][28] Any entries that turn out to have had this kind of press coverage are fine to retain in the list. Fences&Windows 00:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between classics like Charly and that rail one is that the latter is written in a promotional tome, I don't really feel whether this fit in as reliable third party sources as it is promotional article written as news piece and what about the likes of Charly, Amber Gambler and Reggie Molehusband, they have became classics themselves that they are used in R3PS (reliable third party source - using that abbreviation from now on as I am getting fed up of typing that word in every argument) without having to be used to promote issues. If it does allowed to be counted, then I feel that Wikipedia is totally corrupted, that is if it allows in promotional articles dressed up as R3PS. Lets say, I will go for the first simple guideline: must have its own article; second: R3PS, cannot be of a promotional nature, either that or have won a major advertising award such as the Clio and thirdly, all the classics deserve to have its own articles. Donnie Park (talk) 23:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"I feel that Wikipedia is totally corrupted, that is if it allows in promotional articles." Total hyperbole. Wikipedia will survive just fine if it contains a list of public information films. The idea that this list is promotional is not one I imagine many editors share. The issues with this list can be dealt with be normal editing, deletion is unnecessary. Fences&Windows 22:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge. There are probably some articles in there that don't belong there, but that's a case for editorial discussion. Lists and categories can exist simultaneously and Polarpanda's comment suggests why a list can be encyclopedic. If a list contains the year, title and subject of a film all in a table, it makes for a useful navigational aid that allows people to select films by year or topic rather than searching through the entire category. It can easily be merged because the parent article is smallish. - Mgm|(talk) 13:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as I understand how long the article was getting and thought a List would be a better way of organizing them. While I agree that many individual films here are probably not significant themselves, it's not a reason to remove every example, which is why I saved the last edits in a separate list away from the main article. I would also suggest to Donnie that it may be preferable to keep PIFs that deserve a mention (such as Reginald Molehusband) in a central List rather than taking up several tiny entries. I like the standard of Fences and windows to use external links from reputable sources, in order to validate the impact of a campaign and decide whether to keep it on the list. A Merge, however, would still be acceptable if we can strike down this list into concise examples from each category of PIFs. Jonny99 (talk) 05:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Standard Typographical Unit

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

Term used in one college only. the author cheekily claims: "this article is only created to help the 15,000 new students that enroll to CBS". So put it on the college website, not here! — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 00:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Managed digital allowance

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

Already deleted under CSD A7, G11 and G12 but brought back. Hoping for some consensus. NJA (t/c) 13:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC) NJA (t/c) 13:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: an emerging business practice and management trend. Everybody sing along! You know the words.... Also, it seems that most of the text has been blanked as a copyright violation. A glimpse at the history reveals that it was all an essay of original research, containing texts of the "In today's ever-changing world of the future" type: Today’s enterprise workers are more knowledgeable about technology, and more demanding. Deconstructing this stuff makes me feel young again. A speedy delete as patent nonsense would be justified. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete also bleh, sources dont confirm use of the word, kinda sorta confirm the concept as best as I can figure it out. WP:NEO, or WP:OR you choose. Bonewah (talk) 21:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article started out as a pamphlet from Unisys. I advised the user on how to file it through OTRS, and explained that just moving a few words around doesn't make it not a copyright infringement. As for deletion, yeah, I think it could be deleted as a neologism. Gigs (talk) 02:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just to note that OTRS has not completed. Ordinarily, this would be deleted today as an unverified copyright permission, but I'll relist it for another week to allow the AfD to close. I think this is important, because copyright infringement is handled easily through permission, but permission will not address other issues. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IRMOS Project

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

This is yet another article on an FP7 project, part of a ongoing effort to get articles on Framework Programme projects onto Wikipedia. This article was created by User:Irmos-FP7. As I stated in my prod tag, this IRMOS Project, "Interactive Realtime Multimedia Applications on Service Oriented Infrastructures" is not notable by Wikipedia's usual standards, with no independent third party sources. The Google hits one finds for IRMOS are for Infrared Multi-Object spectrometer instead. Abductive (reasoning) 12:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 01:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Public opinion on climate change

edit
Public opinion on climate change (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems like a POV Fork from here [29] jheiv (talk) 11:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge unless expanded. Reading this Afd I expected this to be a POV fight over a long article. But the article as it now has just one paragraph, so it is ridiculously short to qualify as a WP:SUMMARY-style subarticle at this time. Pcap ping 10:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]

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

The result was no consensus. With a note that several of the keep votes were filed by single-purpose or very new accounts, though this doesn't seem to sway the discussion terribly. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

University College Dublin Law Society

edit
University College Dublin Law Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recreation of previously previously deleted student society which still fails WP:N and still smacks of WP:PROMOTION. Still a lack of reliable refs also. Delete Féasógach (talk) 11:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fallaciousness of such arguments as this is discussed at Wikipedia:Pokémon test. --Bejnar (talk) 21:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. (Shame about the above comment, but anyway). I guess this society is similar to the Oxford and Cambridge unions, but with a bit less history behind it. It appears that it has received some coverage, and had notable speakers participating in debates. Is it a potentially useful encyclopaedic topic? I think so. Quantpole (talk) 16:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per discussion above, but it needs a lot of format repair: citations don't seem to be how they should be. Can this be fixed? Bearian (talk) 16:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral This is full of puffery. The Law Society is a student society of the University College Dublin Law School, on which we don't even have an article. "Established in 1911", well yes, there will have been a student law society for as long as there's been a faculty of law there - big deal. "4,500 members"? - well, since the source is a deadlink that's unverifiable - but many student societies have inflated numbers by counting every enrolled student within certain classes as a "member" of the appropriate society - even if they never attend. I was a member of several. Some famous speakers? Big deal. I'll bet Mary McAleese also speaks to church groups too occasionally. The question is, were these significant and highly reported speeches - or just stump speeches from politicians doing the rounds? Show me some media reporting and not just the inevitable press release. "Mooting" competitions? All Law faculties do those. Illustrious honorary members? Do they do significant things, or is this just a nod to alumni of the faculty? We need some verifiable sign of notability here. I could be convinced to keep this - but the keep voters need to do some work to verify something from independent 3rd party sources.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think this is an exception to the general rule about student societies. (I say this although I have almost always !voted delete for them). It has a major role in an important university. DGG ( talk ) 17:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non notable student society. Snappy (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of the "keeps" above seem to address the lack of notability. At best this society deserves a line or at most two in the article about the University College Dublin. It does not appear to be independently notable. DGG says it has a major role at the University College Dublin, but the sources do not support that statement. While it is very true that a number of notable people have appeared at their functions, that in an of its self does not make it a notable student society. Note that the "media coverage" is The University Observer which is a student newspaper distributed throughout campus of University College Dublin fortnightly. There is no significant independent media coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 21:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I should note that "press mentions" and "significant coverage" are not the same thing. Please read the notability guidelines and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. --Bejnar (talk) 21:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This society hosted an event this year, spoken at by 8 mainstream Irish politicians including an ex Prime Minister, attended by a capacity crowd of 1500 as well as press from the Irish Times, Evening Herald and RTE. I realise most of the debate on this society is not by Irish people, and maybe you don't understand the importance of people involved to the nation of Ireland. But this society does play a significant role on the central stage. I'll search for more sources, however I do know a history is currently being compiled by a third party. As for the above comment, I'd note that 2 of the sources on the page are the Irish Times and Evening Herald, which are mainstream press, the Mao article which is referenced from the UCD home page can be found also in the IrishTimes by simply putting in an IrishTimes search for UCD Lawsoc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.232.72.7 (talk) 03:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. Important role? How exactly? What official role does it play in the University? Yes it may host an important talk once or twice a year but I don't think that it warrants it's own article.109.78.180.163 (talk) 17:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This discussion appears to be based on unfair criteria. This is a student debating society, not just a faculty society. The scrutiny which is being applied to this entry (which I will concede is fair in terms of sources and citations, they do need to be improved) should also be applied to all other student debating societies listed on wikipedia such as the UCC Philosoph, TCD Phil & Hist and UCD L&H. They all do exactly the same things as this society in terms of events, guests and debates. The reason some of the sources are from the University Observer is because the membership numbers are quite obviously not going to be reported in the national news. Deletion of this article would also create a number of deadlinks on the World Universities Debating Pages and the Irish Times National Debating Championship Pages.—Preceding Scipio88 comment added by 87.232.72.7 (talk) 11:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scipio88 (talk • contribs) [reply]
  • Keep The Society, its founding and a lot of its history are referenced in the Irish Times archives: http://www.irishtimes.com/search/archive.html?rm=listresults&filter=dateasc&keywords=legal%20and%20economic%20society - unfortunately this is subscription only so cannot be referenced. I note that the late Tom O'Higgins (former Irish Chief Justice) devotes a chapter of his autobiography ("A Double Life") to his involvement with the Society. Surely this represents sufficient notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Conghaile (talk • contribs) 12:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Much more notable than e.g. Northern Council for Unity.Red Hurley (talk) 19:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Golden Secondary School. Yes, this is the wrong venue, but consensus to merge is clear. No point closing this procedurally to have another discussion just to repeat what has been said here. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 09:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Alternate School

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

To quote the article in its entirety: 'Golden Alternate School is a program within Golden Secondary School that provides additional services to "at risk" students.' That's it. Seems to me that this a classic case for deletion and merging into the Golden Secondary School article (which itself needs some extra text), but not being au fait with the Canadian educational system I nomnate in the hope that others can give more expert opinions. Emeraude (talk) 10:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - as far as I can see the word 'murging' doesn't hitherto exist. However, I think that it is a delightful word which should be given a meaning. I suggest that we adopt it and define it as 'the combined act of merging and redirecting an article'. TerriersFan (talk) 16:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As nominator, I confess to ignorance of the process - apologies - but it seems there is consensus on merging as a solution. Perhaps someone with the know-how will do this. I also support the above suggestion: 'murging' rhymes with 'purging' and is clealry a linked concept. Emeraude (talk) 17:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is that the subject passes WP:ATHLETE. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 09:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Ferguson (football scout)

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

Fail to see notability. All coverage is passing mention of name in coverage about other people (not inherited) or simple club profile stuff which, if it were an actual footballer, would be dismissed as standard non-independent coverage not implying notability. read some of the refs provided.. "Robson recalled that, knowing Van Nistelrooy from his period as PSV manager, he had told Martin Ferguson - an Old Trafford scout - to recommend that his brother, Sir Alex, buy the forward" and "Ferguson's brother and chief European scout Martin watched the Sampdoria star playing against Palermo towards the end of the season..." DNQ as "significant coverage" ClubOranjeT 10:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fails WP:GNG. Jayjg (talk) 00:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Lawlor

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

Fail to see notability here. All coverage is passing mention of name in coverage about other people (not inherited) or simple club profile stuff which, if it were an actual footballer, would be dismissed as standard non-independent coverage not implying notability. ClubOranjeT 10:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, Yes, The Telegraph and The Guardian meet notability guidelines (which is why they have an article). This article, however, is about Jim Lawlor, who does not have significant coverage in said reliable sources, and nor do said sources assert he is notable, only that he exists.--ClubOranjeT 10:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know this line of debate, I was about to write what was next (significant coverage) yesterday. It always goes something like this: no reliable sources >> reliable sources argument debunked >> significant coverage >> significant coverage argument debunked >> (fill in the next argument) I could care less about Soccer, and so I won't travel this well warn argument path today, maybe others care too? Would you support a merge/redirect to Manchester United F.C. instead Club Oranje? Thanks. Ikip 15:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joint Directed Action

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

Article about a non-notable doctoral thesis, aparrently by the author of said thesis. There is no evidence this is anything other than original research. I42 (talk) 08:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am new to this page so I hope this is the right procedure. I wish to contest the deletion of Joint Directed Action as the purpose of this article is to describe the meaning of Joint Directed Action as well as its research origin. The definition of Joint Directed Action is published in a doctoral dissertation (with both an ISBN and ISSN number) and as this is peer-reviewed research and as such has passed a rigorous non-biased research review I cannot see how there exists a conflict of interest nor could be described to be original reserach without a foundation. The purpose of this article is to define the notion of Joint Directed Action. Chrmau (talk) 09:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Sorry but Joint Directed Action is thus far supported by just one source and it's the original research in the dissertation. Being peer reviewed means the new theory has been accepted in that field of academia, but inclusion in Wikipedia is based on notability which is much different than peer review. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 11:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even though peer-reviewed, this is not notable. Wikipedia is not for things that you made up and that have "not yet become well known to the rest of the world." Reviewed or not, (1) you made this up, and (2) it is not well known to the world. --Glenfarclas (talk) 11:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm forced to agree, unfortunately. Somebody made up everything, so I discount that a bit - the concept has to begin somewhere, and an apparently well-researched and reviewed paper is a good start. Fair enough. But the critical issue here is that the concept is not (yet) notable, in that it has not been discussed by third parties unrelated to the subject. If other journals or publications take up the thread of this paper and discuss it, then it gains some notability. While I do not doubt the author's good faith or her abilities, the fact remains that this article is essentially "This is so, and I can prove it because I said so in this paper too", which doesn't meet our criteria for verifiability. As an aside, I'd be interested to read the paper, as it sounds fascinating - but an article here is probably a bit premature. Sorry. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ilario Lamberti

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

The played did not played in professional level (Serie C2 or above nor Coppa Italia. He is a non-notable player Matthew_hk tc 07:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Magic Bullets (book)

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

Page created by blocked sockpuppet account with proven COI with subject. Non-notable, and only sources I could find for article were from commercial seduction community websites DRosin (talk) 06:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. A vast majority of the "keep" votes rest upon exceedingly weak and irrelevant arguments, but given the lack of endorsements of the nomination, I can't reasonably justify deleting. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ejabberd

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

This is a non-notable software product. The only provided references are extensive notes from the developer site about each minor version update. Wikipedia is not a software directory and all articles need to be notable as referenced by multiple and significant reference by independent sources. Miami33139 (talk) 06:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. He's been writing code for 7 years, and it's the only free XMPP server written in Erlang listed on List of XMPP server software. 7 years of writing Erlang! My head hurts already. If you wipe out this work, you ruin that part of the free software portal, and you'd have to want to wipe out all of those other pages as well. Perhaps he writes better code in Erlang than he does Wikipedia articles, but your reaction should not be scorn and ridicule; it should be an effort to improve the article. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 06:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : You are a strange person for remove all wikipedia articles ... before remove an article, learn the subject, it is not the first time that we are this problem ! — Neustradamus (✉) 06:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sources are not independent as required to demonstrate notability. Sources by the creator can be used, but only after the software has passed WP:WEB, WP:PRODUCT or WP:GNG guidelines. - Mgm|(talk) 11:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can remove links which here since a long time ... but this server is known, you can look the number of page on Google, it is not a little software, but people who know only Microsoft is not good because you use only propriotary software like Windows Live Messenger ... — Neustradamus (✉) 13:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We are into specialist software territory here. But there are 11 Gbook [36] hits. It is quite subjective what exactly constitutes significant coverage (an unfortunate property of WP:N) but the mention is certainly more than passing mention. To me it's significant coverage. We can then add the about 70 hits from Gsholar [37] - at least indicative that this software has some footprint in some circles. I like the idea of using Wikipedia as the most comprehensive global reference works, nothing short of a repository of the knowledge of the world, and I believe this is how Wikipedia was originally conceived, before the WP:N tail began to wag the dog. It is therefore relevant to ask if a deletion of this factual article in any way could possibly improve the encyclopedia? Deletion can no doubt give personal satisfaction and peace of mind that some guidelines and the WP:Notability (software) essay are uncompromised and untarnished, but Wikipedia is not this kind of rigid cleric bureaucracy. It is possible to find remnants of the "repository of the knowledge of the world" view in the editing policy WP:EDIT, which says that we should attempt preserve information and consider merges (was this considered here btw) and even WP:N says that For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort. It's not the first resort. I believe the delete !votes are weak (if not myopic) as they only consider the present sources of the article, and did not attempt a broader search for sources, before opting for deletion. Power.corrupts (talk) 09:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mr Miami strikes again. Well, ejabberd is used by many less and more known hosts after the original jabberd software didn't scale, see Peter Saint-Andre's blog entry about that[38] related to Peter Millard "one of the Jabber/XMPP protocol's creators and designers" (!). If that doesn't count then I don't know what does. This is way over the line, justified only by blatant ignorance of the Jabber universe. Are we playing politics in here ? This "decision" doesn't bring many people happy. It's interesting, what purpose does it serve ? Following the guidelines in favour of deletionism ? The "inclusionist" word in your page is a joke, see the Wikimedia definition[39]. bjfs discuss 10:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ejabberd is one of (if not the) most popular XMPP servers currently in deployment. If the article needs to be rewritten to include more sources that is one thing, but deleting the subject altogether seems unreasonable. To anyone knowledgeable about the XMPP community, the idea that the notability of ejabberd is in question is simply absurd. If Ejabberd is not notable enough for a wikipedia article, then I'm not sure what is. - Darco (talk) 17:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "To anyone knowledeable about the XMPP community" We are supposed to source articles so people do not need specialist knowledge to understand it and judge it. You have not addressed the need to source this to reliable, third party sources. This subject is so extremely popular should be easy to source. Please provide them. Miami33139 (talk) 21:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The ejabberd server is probably the most prominent open-source project written in the Erlang (a major functional programming language) and is a major topic of presentations at Erlang conferences (in fact, two ejabberd developers have won the "Erlang User of the Year Award, Alexey Shchepin in 2006 and Mickaël Rémond in 2006 -- see http://your-bear.blogspot.com/2007/11/erlang-user-conference-2007.html for a list of awards). The ejabberd server is very widely deployed on the XMPP server network, and according to Facebook will power their upcoming XMPP-based chat service, see http://developers.facebook.com/news.php?blog=1&story=110 for details. Deleting this article while keeping articles about lesser-known and lesser-used codebases like Djabberd and iChat Server is misguided. If anything, Wikipedia might consider merging the article into the article on Erlang (if the latter were updated to provide longer descriptions of various software projects instead of mere links). Given the importance of ejabberd on the XMPP network and in the Erlang developer community, the software appears to be quite notable. - Stpeter (talk) 17:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non-neutral since I'm working for ProcessOne, the makers of ejabberd. First let me say it is completely OK to have a strict policy about products notability. However, voters might want to consider that ejabberd is widely used by:

Nyco (talk) 17:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. While there isn't a single in-depth article about this software in a mainstream source (the FSM post is not by a regular columnist), it has non-trivial mentions in books both on the language (Erlang), and the prootocol (XMPP). Further, the creator of this software got an/the award at an Erlang conference (they didn't seem to give any other awards besides "User of the Year", not even the usual "best paper"). Pcap ping 20:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Deleting the ejabberd article is on par with deleting the Apache, IIS, Sendmail or Postfix articles: it is a major server for an important Internet protocol User:The Barbarian (talk) 21:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)— The Barbarian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • As originally reported by Miami33139 and Mgm, the initial article had only as references links to the project site. — To address this claim, the article has been expanded during the last seven days to provide references to different, multiple, significant, reliable, third party and independent sources that show notability including, but not limited to, research papers, books, patents and a list of notable deployments (all of them sourced and verifiable, of course). — I sincerely hope that the expanded article will satisfy Miami33139, as he pointed: "I want the articles to be on things that are actually important, not some project written in some guys basement, put on a download site, and blogged about. Adding sources is about meeting our minimum criteria, verifying the information to be true (or close to true), and maintaining quality. I am glad to see that some deletion attempts fail." Miami33139 quote. — Therefore, I kindly invite Miami33139 and Mgm to analyze all the new material, verify sources if they want, and update their considerations according to the expanded article. In case of some trouble, an extended deadline is mandatory to allow other visitors to continue improving the article until satisfaction is reached: it's worth mentioning that this article didn't get a 'notability' tag before being nominated for AfD, and according to a Miami33139 quote, "properly sourcing articles can take several hours". — PD: Oh, and I imagine now the article needs formatting and redaction improvements. Badlop (talk) 03:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What we fail to understand is that the world is increasingly an online world. An increasing number of things are going to be referenced through online sources only. And yes, if the software powers some of the largest sites in the world, as noted by User:Nyco above, then yes, it is notable. And if the article talks about something that general public doesn't understand, then so do all specialized articles (can you really say you fully understand Turkish_phonology, for example?). And now that the source list has been greatly expanded, including references to two books on the subject, I believe, the discussion can now be closed Dmitriid (talk) 09:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. --Alex.ryazantsev (talk) 21:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Oof. It's always a shame to happen upon a talk page like this... After reading through the comments I think it is quite difficult to argue with the fact that Facebook and LiveJournal exclusively use ejabberd as their XMPP server. To me that places its level of notability not on par with, but certainly close to something like Apache. Miami, I've read over other articles you've proposed for deletion and I don't necessarily disagree with your methodologies and interpretation of WP:N. However, I believe you are simply not familiar enough with the problem ___domain to make a fair assessment on the notability of this article. 216.26.96.33 (talk) 02:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 00:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Rensen

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

Not a public person, no direct reference --> links only show general frontpages and no personal profile. Neither is the person refered to on any site. Mixcompetition is only a funbased competition according to the site, certainly not a high level volleybal competition. In general nothing about this person related to the given subjects can be found online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.113.169.180 (talk • contribs) 09:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AFD: Note: this is not my AFD, I'm good-faith submitting it for the IP who wanted it. tedder (talk) 06:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Army Navy

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

Non-notable minor band. An IP removed the seconded PROD, but I can find no significant coverage whatsoever for this act, just some local California blog interviews at LAist and the OC Weekly blog. That's not nothing, I guess, but then I read the Popwreckoning.com interview, which starts, "Earlier in the week I got a phone call from Army Navy front man Justin Kennedy. . . ." So given the prevalence of interviews over objective articles, I'm guessing this is the result of some aggressive self-promotion. Glenfarclas (talk) 05:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What football game? Did England lose to Scotland again? Well, what do you expect?--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 06:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Borock means the Army-Navy AMERICAN football rivalry. Dalekusa (talk) 14:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nexcore Framework

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

Fails WP:GNG. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating Nexcore Mobile Platform on same grounds. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nexcore Mobile Platform (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan Tech student life

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

This is a "Wikipedia as free webhost" style entry: a largely non-notable list of clubs, activities etc., aimed at Michigan Tech students, complete with wording that makes it clear this isn't aimed at an encyclopedia audience:

one of the many things we are proud of is our very own, student run radio station

And remember, if they don't have [a religious group] for you, you can always get a group of six people together and start your own group

Come out and support your huskies!

Most, if not all listings are not notable, anything that is notable can be added to Michigan Tech. Hairhorn (talk) 04:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, okay, but this isn't a city-wiki, it's an encyclopedia, this entry falls into several of the "what Wikipedia is not" categories. If someone wants to post a city-wiki version of this page outside of wikipedia, then fine, post the link at Michigan Tech, there is no call for a separate entry. Hairhorn (talk) 06:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You think of this as an encyclopedia; the author of the page looked at it as web space they could edit. That was their error, perhaps, but not one that deserves the scorn and ridicule of the deletionists. It would be better to point them to a page like University_of_Michigan#Student_life and note how it could be improved to be in that style; or, perhaps, to reference a system that they could plop this onto that would let them built it out. Insulting them by saying things are "not notable" is unproductive. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 06:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope nobody was offended. However it is the job of an encyclopedia to give basic information to the general public world-wide, not to inform college students of services offered at their own college.Borock (talk) 06:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's the job of an encyclopedia like Wikipedia to give extremely detailed, relevant information; that includes a lot more than your "basic information". Again, rather than being deleted, this article should be seen as a source for improving existing pages, e.g. bringing WMTU-FM about the radio station up to date, improving Michigan Technological University#Student life, identifying the styles that will bring things into roughly encyclopedic format. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 07:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, it's a mistake to confuse deletion with a personal attack. Hairhorn (talk) 15:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Zhang

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

Apparently non-notable author. Looked him up in a several different google searches, couldn't find ANYTHING. Lots of other Stephen Zhangs, but not this one. Unless someone else can turn up reliable sources, this should probably be deleted. Jayron32 04:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technically speaking

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

Deletion process begun by an IP, who said "Considering that the article has numerous (pre-tagged) issues, that it has remained a stub for quite some time, that its relevancy and importance seem very low, and that I have never heard of "technically speaking" as anything than a turn of phrase, I suggest deletion. 94.220.240.23 (talk) 02:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)". Article topic is a webpage on the NSF website on how to give good presentations. Abductive (reasoning) 04:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Myth of the islamic golden age

edit
Myth of the islamic golden age (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A highly non-encyclopedic article that takes its material solely from Islamic Watch, a web site that does not meet WP:RS requirements. Concerns regarding WP:COATRACK and WP:CFORK also need to be considered. Absent of information culled from reliable sources, there is nothing to merge or redirect. Warrah (talk) 04:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete because of WP:COATRACK, WP:CFORK, and WP:SYNTH. According to the author, he created this page because "Islamists" kept removing it from Islamic Golden Age, i.e., there was no consensus to include it. Anybody willing to try merging this info back in is welcome to try, otherwise delete. --Glenfarclas (talk) 04:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I thought that there might be some saving of this perhaps renamed as criticism of or merging but no, I have read the article, and in my understanding it is in no way even resembling any part of a wikipedia article.--Kiyarrlls-talk 04:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with extreme prejudice, burn till left as a smoldering cinder, stomp on the ashes. Totally WP:OR, any relevent criticisms can be included in the main article. This does not seem like a good idea in any way. --Jayron32 04:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's definitely a coatrack, and not a contentfork (which is ok)<was thinking of summary/spin-offs>, but a POVfork (which is not). Anyway, I had suggested the merger (and cleanup of the quotefarm). Reading it more carefully, I'd say merge about one sentence about the archaeological evidence (or lack thereof) and redirect it to Islamic Golden Age. (Otherwise, if the consensus is not to do that much, and just delete it, my feelings won't be hurt.) LadyofShalott 05:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I should have said POV Fork. And I'm serious that if anyone wants to merge it back in they should do so; I just don't think the creation of this article is the right response to the apparent consensus against the inclusion of the information in the main article. --Glenfarclas (talk) 06:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 06:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 06:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Completely based on unreliable sources. The one book in here is self-published. The rest of this is sourced to islam-watch.org, a site that cannot be described as "reliable" by any reasonably person. Any actual reliable sources that exist about this should go in the Islamic Golden Age article. nableezy - 07:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: inherently POV. Critical engagement with the concept has a legitimate place in the Golden Age of Islam article (and edit warring about it on that article would be a matter for discussion there), but does not warrant a separate article (and most of the content here doesn't constitute critical engagement). Gonzonoir (talk) 10:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as OR and SYN, and not very accurate SYN at that, written because nobody would accept this nonsense in the main article. The IGA refers to the economic and cultural growth of Islamic Near East , Africa, and Europe, not the fall of the Roman Empire in the West & its decline in the East, or to the development or lack of development in the Christian part of Western Europe. The O'Neill book used as the principal source is self-published, and essentially unknown, being held in only one US library (btw, the author is not the Pulitzer prize winning science journalist, who won his prize in 1937 and died in 1953). Nothing mergeable from this article, and no need to redirect. Bat Yeor's controversial views are discussed in the article on her. If they are thought relevant to the main topic, rather than just Fringe, they should be added properly. DGG ( talk ) 10:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just adding my vote for what it's worth. I agree completely with all of the delete votes above and their justifications. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 11:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow/Speedy Delete. Per the above. This is an embarassment. CAn someone please come along and put it out of its misery?--Epeefleche (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, was going to suggest merging what content could be preserved but the sources are bad. While the website linked in the footnotes is not an RS, I noticed at first that those pages are actually based on a published book. But it turns out the book is self-published through a self-publishing company, and when I searched Google Scholar I found no evidence that this person has ever published anything peer-reviewed on this topic, so I don't see any indication that his opinion is worth reporting in this article. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete incoherent as written, coat-rack and original research that appears to claim that their weren't learned scholars in the Islamic world and powerful societies in this period with far-reaching impacts. Well, there were.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. NBeale (talk) 20:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Put this article out of its misery. This is essentially copied and pasted from Conservapedia. Let them post their speculation over there. They have six sources against the Golden Age. We have hundreds of sources actually about the Golden Age.- JustPhil 00:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Switzerland – United States relations and Pakistan – United States relations. First of all, whether the articles are interesting or not has no bearing on their notability. That said, it comes down to whether the sources establish notability. Any diplomatic missions should be mentioned in the bilateral relations article, not here. And any notable event that occured should have its own stand-alone article, but does not automatically confer notability upon the building. However, the articles do have content with sources that are useful (albeit impertinent to the Consulate-General itself, save the primary source), so a merge would be the ideal solution. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consulate-General of Switzerland in Houston

edit
Consulate-General of Switzerland in Houston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Consulate-General of Pakistan in Houston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deletion Review was closed as Overturn to AfD. Link to discussion: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_December_9#Consulate-General_of_Switzerland_in_Houston_and_Consulate-General_of_Pakistan_in_Houston_.28closed.29 (X! · talk)  · @186  ·  03:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Trivial information. I can not imagine why a person would want to write an article on this when there are so many other more interesting things in the world. Borock (talk) 06:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Trivial information. I can not imagine why a person would want to read an article on this when there are so many other more interesting things in the world. Emeraude (talk) 11:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Diplomatic missions between important nations are notable, and the articles are cited with verifiable sources. It's trivial, sure, but then so is an egg slicer, and I just removed the PROD from that one the other day. Also, I've seen so many articles about species of slugs and moths and villages in India while patrolling new pages that I actually thought this was a pretty refreshing read. --Glenfarclas (talk) 12:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-read the article. All it says is the consulate of Switzerland rented an office in Houston, then moved to another one, then closed down. I think an article on an Indian village or a species of slug is about 1000 times or more more important than that, and probably more interesting as well. Borock (talk) 16:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please know that I am an American partly of Swiss ancestry and am very pleased that our two nations have good relations. I would love to read an article on Swiss-American relations over the years, but I don't care about what office addresses their consulate in Houston rented. The information is not even useful since they are now closed down. Borock (talk) 16:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Borock, on Wikipedia notability is forever. Whether something exists now or no longer exists, either way it was there. Just because a person is dead doesn't mean he or she is less notable than an equivalent person who was alive. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article should be on the crime itself (if that's notable), not the office were it took place.Borock (talk) 04:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Switzerland article does not meet WP:N. There is no indication that his topic has merited significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. The one independent reference listed only verifies that the consulate existed, and provides no other information. This should not have its own article. The Pakistan article has more idependent sources, but these still provide only trivial coverage, essentially verifying that the consulate exists but not providing any significant coverage of the consulate itself. Therefore it also fails WP:N. Karanacs (talk) 14:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The issue is whether this particular consulate-general is notable enough for its own article. It isn't about whether the article cites to reliable sources. It isn't about whether it's well-written. It isn't about whether the nominator said something "snarky". Mention it in the article called Switzerland – United States relations where it would be relevant. From what I see, it sources to its own website and an article in the Houston newspaper. There's no indication that this was ever notable anywhere else. Mandsford (talk) 14:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And as for the other one, no indication of notability for Pakistan's mission office in Houston. Mention that one in Pakistan – United States relations absent some showing of importance elsewhere. Mandsford (talk) 14:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie Rico

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

Article appears to be a WP:HOAX - the search term ("ronnie rico" snowboard -facebook -myspace) yields 5 gHits[44], which seems extremely low given the stated release of the CD was 1997. However, given the number of gHits on just Ronnie Rico, it is possible that it existed. If that is the case, it surely lacks WP:RS. Checking other sources such as archive.org was also a bust. Should this article be deleted, though, I would argue that it be done without prejudice. There is another Ronnie Rico [45] who may at some point meet WP:GNG. In the interest of full disclosure, I put the {{unreferenced}} tag in the article from a public computer. Vulture19 (talk) 03:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 01:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi UFOs

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

This article came up a week ago during a routine sweep through the black project template pages. Its just enough outside the norm that I feel an afd is warranted, so here we are. Proposed grounds for deletion are WP:FRINGE and WP:OR. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This may be something of an esoteric subject, however there are many similar articles on Wikipedia and stories about Nazi UFOs are common enough in science fiction and fringe theories as to make having an article on the subject worthwhile by virtue of notability. IrishPete (talk) 16:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hypofocus

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

The article is OR; the term is not used by reputable sources, as the article itself admits. Looie496 (talk) 02:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I'd been going to suggest merger into Attention Deficit Disorder, but I don't think there's enough verifiable material here to save. I have found the term in a single reliable source, this paper (which is reproduced in a book), but it's a single passing mention and does not elaborate on this as a specific condition: the usage suggests it's a generic term. Other Google hits are for usernames and imprecise references in blogs and discussions: since the subject isn't covered by reliable sources it fails notability criteria. Bits of the article (not to be confused with "hippofocus", an obsession with elephants? Characterized by a fascination with QVC?) smell hoaxy to me too. Gonzonoir (talk) 11:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: that the page was created with a bunch of maintenance and issue tags dated Jan 09 suggests to me that this may be a recreation of deleted material, but there is nothing in the deletion log for this title. Gonzonoir (talk) 11:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The fact the article states "The term hypofocus is not in common use among academics, and rarely appears in peer-reviewed articles. However, related terms such as "science" are widely used." suggests to me the author was perfectly aware of the rules, but trying to bend them with a bad argument. I can't see how science is a term related to hypofocus or how it would determine its notability if it was related since it can't be inherited by mere association. The connection needs to be a lot stronger before it is considered inheritable in our music and film guidelines for example- Mgm|(talk) 11:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 01:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Bernard (American football)

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

Non-notable former high school coach and current div. I-AA (FCS) defensive coordinator. I can find no significant independent coverage that would indicate his individual notability. Glenfarclas (talk) 02:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: Actually, he does pass notability since he was a head coach at a D-IAA (FCS) school. I have no idea why this is up for deletion actually. Also, there is ample precedent for head coaches of only one FCS school being notable. Under the nominator's rationale, dozens of one-gig head coaches would have to be eliminated, which dually destroys the breadth of the WikiProject College football's goal of a complete head coaching list and screws up a myriad of college football head coaching navboxes. Jrcla2 (talk) 02:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. A definitive close is made impossible in part by two things: the prevalence of SPAs, and the batch nomination. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talend, Talend Open Studio

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

Non-notable tech business. Speedily deleted twice before as advertising. Current version shows some essentially trivial announcements circulated in IT-related sources ([46][47]) but the first looks like a recirculated press release and the second is in fact a blog. Other sources are all IT industry related, not enough to confer general notability. Not sure that claiming to be the first commercial open source vendor of data integration software is a sufficient claim of historical or technical importance. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after reviewing the sources again, I see lots of press releases hyped up as "articles" and also passing mentions. The relentless focus of the SPAs doesn't help their cause. ThemFromSpace 07:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Talend as it fulfills notability criteria. Also, ETL tools are gaining importance in the software industry these days. Talend (as a company) has Talend Open Studio (TOS) as an ETL tool, which has a nice use base (I can not comment on the numbers). Also, Talend Integration Studio, which is a licensed version of TOS, used for team development is gaining foothold in the industry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vabhian (talk • contribs) 07:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Talend Open Studio into Talend leaving a redirect, per WP:PRODUCT: "Information on products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy." This seems to be Talend's only notable product, and Talend is not very long. The guideline seems pretty clear on this one. --Glenfarclas (talk) 12:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Talend as it fulfills notability criteria. I agree with comments above by SCCasey. I am really concerned that if we start removing younger and smaller vendors, or ones regarded as niche, that we go against the very spirit of Wikipedia. The only information is then about big established companies - the ones who least need it. Wikipedia is an important source of information for people trying to find out about young companies who may have less media coverage. We are restricting such companies potential by restricting their coverage, and I think that has uncomfortable legal considerations. Stating that tech press and blogs are somehow less worthy than general press shows ignorance of how the media actually works. Tech press drives coverage and opinion in general press, and is usually better informed and earlier informed about new tech trends. My job as a tech analyst involves briefing journalists that work for general press. Nether do we just want to know about people/companies that have some great historical importance. We need to know about those we're currently talking about or are emerging. Wikipedia is new media, not Who's Who or the Encyclopaedia Britannica. It fulfils a very important role in being current and wider ranging in the knowledge it contains because it's not restricted by heavy editing, page count or publishing deadlines. If Talend get deleted then there's a large number of minor actors, celebs and so on that should go because they don't fulfil your worthiness criteria either. --Telesperience (talk) 16:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)— Telesperience (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I can't say I disagree, except perhaps with the "apparatchik" label. Letting people push their essays as guidelines in AfD got us here. And to a current arbitration case on software AfDs. Maybe User:Ihcoyc should be a party too, albeit for a different essay... Pcap ping 17:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pyramid archaeology

edit
Pyramid archaeology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete. See also prior discussion at Talk:Pyramidology#Article rename.

This stub was recently created in a good-faith attempt to differentiate btw esoteric/pseudoscientific/non-mainstream claims about pyramids (ie, pyramidology), and academic archaeological research on pyramids (ie, this stub). Problem is, the scientific study of pyramids—either singly or as a class of structure—is not a recognised or separately defined (sub-)field within archaeology or any other discipline.

While there's obviously plenty of academic research conducted on pyramids, this is in the broader context of investigating an archaeological culture, time period, engineering/technical development, etc.

While individual archaeologists might have expertise & career-long attentions to particular structures or groups of structures, there are not really "pyramid archaeologists" per se, as a class.

Any archaeological knowledge about individual pyramids or pyramid groups/types that wikipedia might record is best covered (is already covered) in the various articles—Egyptian pyramids, Nubian pyramids, Mesoamerican pyramids, etc, plus the many articles on individual structures—or at pyramid itself.

Any info in this pyramid archaeology article would be redundant with these others, & as mentioned there is no discipline or methodological approach peculiar to the archaeological study of pyramids to warrant an article on a subfield and its techniques (excepting the pseudoarchaeological, and for that we have the common term and article pyramidology). I see no prospect for useful/non-redundant expansion of this article, & the subject lacks a real-world definition; therefore propose delete. cjllw ʘ TALK 00:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Blizzard PPC

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

Non-notable computer hardware Orange Mike | Talk 21:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not only that but there is only one source. Most of it seems like original research.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 22:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to some Amiga hacks article, or a section in some Amiga article legacy computers with their unique busses still had third party expansion options. they were very limited (and expensive), so they tended to be notable within that community. this is completely unlike the commodity hardware market for home computers today where expansion products are disposable. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guillaume Bresson

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

Emerging artist, but has not attained a sufficient level of notability per WP:Creative. Two solo exhibitions, both within the last two years; let's give it a few more years and we'll see. Lithoderm 20:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 14:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Theatre Workshop Scotland

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

Request for a speedy deletion was made based on notability, and contested. There is one news article listed as a source. I am of No Opinion at this time. CitiCat ♫ 18:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more references and information now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahrafilms (talk • contribs) 10:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quiet Internet Pager

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

Unable to locate multiple instances of significant coverage in reliable sources to indicate notability. Only good piece of coverage I can find is the one Softpedia review. Cybercobra (talk) 00:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The several Russian reviews in reliable sources convince me this is notable. I would Withdraw the AfD, but cannot as there have been Delete votes. It would be nice if someone were to actually add the sources uncovered in this AfD to the article itself. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The DRV closer specifically stated: "Any editor who wishes may list it at AfD". The only sources as to its popularity are what appears to be an unscientific user poll (and therefore not useful for notability determination) and a statement from its corporate owner that it was its "most popular service", which since it is only a relative measure is not that useful (and the characterization of it as a "service" does not instill confidence in the reliability of the information). I can't speak as to the rest of your comment as I was not involved in the previous AfD. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Direct link instead of given above: [56] Maksa (talk) 19:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Vivarium. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heat Mat (Vivarium)

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

This is in that blurred area of Encyclopaedia vs Dictionary. I see this article as a dictionary definition that has no place in an encyclopaedia. Your mileage may vary. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect into Vivarium. I don't think it's expansible as an independent article, but the material there's verifiable and would fit into the Vivarium piece fine. Gonzonoir (talk) 09:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect because the article is too short and not particularly notable enough to stand alone; the material works better in Vivarium. I don't think this is a WP:DICTDEF case though, because although the article is a stub now one could imagine it being filled out with the history of heat mats, heat mat controversy, etc. etc. It's as much a potentially encyclopedic topic as Aquarium, I should think. --Glenfarclas (talk) 12:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William Natbony

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

person of questionable notability, part of a series of articles created by this same editor and his obvious sockpuppet WuhWuzDat 15:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, non-notable person being spammed by suspected sockmaster. --SquidSK (1MC•log) 15:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No prejudice against a redirect. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Unified WWE Tag Team Champions

edit
List of Unified WWE Tag Team Champions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This lists offers nothing new. There is no actual title, it's just 2 separate titles held together. Both title already have their own history lists here on Wikipedia and the article on the unified belts has the same info already as well. Prod removed by an IP (who I suspect is the same user that reverted me when I turned the article back into a redirect because the IP hadn't edited in 4 months). TJ Spyke 00:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable and the World and WWE Tag Team Championships have seperate title histories and this would make it easier to see the each reign.--Zack Ryder Fan Give him a page 00:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Both title history pages note when the titles were unified, so this page offers nothing that those 2 don't. If anything, this page is LESS useful because you then have to go to another page if you want to see who held each title before WrestleMania XXV. TJ Spyke 00:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yah but if they want one of the titles specifically they can go to that page and not this page.--Zack Ryder Fan Give him a page 00:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Like TJ said, it's a unification of two existing championships, and has not been treated as being a seperate title. The page is an unnecessary re-creation of content that is available in two other pages. It could possibly recreated in a year or so if it doesn't look like the belts will ever be un-merged. -- Scorpion0422 00:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said before this would make it easier for people to look at the reigns when the titles are unified so it should be kept.--Zack Ryder Fan Give him a page 00:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above. There is no article for unified WWE champions or Unified any other champion to my knowledge. Sephiroth storm (talk) 02:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My explaination is right.--Zack Ryder Fan Give him a page 02:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This would make it easier for people just look at champions when the titles are unified.--Zack Ryder Fan Give him a page 21:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC) Also as I've said before if they want one of the championships specifically then they'll go to that page.--Zack Ryder Fan Give him a page 21:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both articles for the individual titles state the titles were unified, and both list of champions specify that the titles were unified. Each of these articles conveniently links to the other. If anything, List of Unified WWE Tag Team Champions should redirect to one of the lists, possibly List of WWE Tag Team Champions. HAZardousMATTtoxic 22:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it has to be a redirect, it would idealy be Unified WWE Tag Team Championship as redirecting to one of the lists would have show an unequal bias towards one of the two championships, when they are clearly both currently treated as equal. And to Curtis, a bit of friendly advice. You do know that this is a discussion, not a vote? Making two keep votes isn't helping your stance on this. --  Θakster   23:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm okay with redirecting it to the article for the unified titles themselves. I didn't even realize that article existed. HAZardousMATTtoxic 01:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm right but nobody else thinks I am show me the rule that says that I can't create this article.--Zack Ryder Fan Give him a page 01:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, considering there's already two existing, notable Lists that have the same information, WP:REDUNDANT should apply. HAZardousMATTtoxic 01:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yah but this is not the same.--Zack Ryder Fan Give him a page 02:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then explain, succinctly, clearly and plainly, how the information in List of Unified WWE Tag Team Champions is different than the information in the other two list of tag team champions. Thus far you haven't made an argument that it adds anything new. You've said that it links back to the lists for the individual titles (which again brings WP:REDUNDANT into question since the other two articles have not only the same information, but much more) and that you think you're right. HAZardousMATTtoxic 03:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It gives information about when the titles are unified the top part is also different and as i've said before this list make it eaiser for people to check reigns when the titles are unified so it's plainly different.--Zack Ryder Fan Give him a page 21:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Also why don't you just put the information in Unified WWE Tag Team Championship in the pages for the World Tag Team Championship and WWE Tag Team Championship?--Zack Ryder Fan Give him a page 21:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The other two lists clearly state when the titles where unified, therefore, until those two lists say otherwise, it is listing unified title reigns. The information does not need to be in three different lists and should stay in the two that are notable and established. Please consider everything that is being said by all parties in this discussion. HAZardousMATTtoxic 21:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know it does but my past explainations say it all.--Zack Ryder Fan Give him a page 21:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, your past explanations do not convey much other than "I'm right, so do it". I'm not going to repeat the same information that has been already repeated by multiple parties. HAZardousMATTtoxic 21:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yours do to.--Zack Ryder Fan Give him a page 21:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've said all I need to say regarding this, as have others. I'm done. HAZardousMATTtoxic 21:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page is useful that's why it should be kept.--Curtis23 (talk) 21:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see why its useful or notable, if WWE.com maintained the Title History in one page rather than 2 I'd understand something like this being maintained on the Unified Tag Team champions page, but since WWE.com maintains this in 2 separate lists it's an obvious Delete. Afro Talkie Talk - Afkatk 22:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duh it does they both have different title histories.--Curtis23 (talk) 22:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which was the point I was trying to make, WWE recognizes it as 2 separate title histories theres no need to recognize it as one, and if you're gonna treat everyone's comment which is against your viewpoint like crap without providing any real or proper arguments don't bother commenting. Afro Talkie Talk - Afkatk 00:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All wrong it's not cruft you just don't believe in what's right.--Curtis23 (talk) 00:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is redundant and not needed here, that's what I (and other editors) believe. ArcAngel (talk) 03:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Looking at the three list articles, it would appear that every new "champion" from now on would have to be entered in three different places. This is not sensible. The canonical solution would be to identify whichever previous title is the more notable, rename it to the new title, then curtail the other list at the point in history where the titles were merged, with a note saying "For champions since the merger, see (name of article). Sussexonian (talk) 12:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The more notable title is a no-brainer - it's the World Tag Team championship as it has been around the longest. The WWE Tag Team championship was created for Smackdown in 2002, IIRC, so it doesn't have much of a history. ArcAngel (talk) 13:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 14:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Kaplan

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

person of questionable notability, part of a series of articles created by this same editor and his obvious sockpuppet WuhWuzDat 15:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The dude's a billionaire. Perhaps he didn't hire someone who can write a wikipedia article very well, but he did manage to score millions from George Soros back in the day to search for silver. This page doesn't deserve to be deleted; it needs a good copy editor, but not to be wiped out. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 07:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 14:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oushadhi

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

Does not appear to demonstrate any notability. A medicinal manufacturing company in Kerala seemingly associated with the State. Being founded in 1941 does not make it notable, IMO. SGGH ping! 14:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Oushadhi, as an Kerala government owned company, had played an important role in the Kerala health sector. As a company promoted by Kerala government, it provides medicines to the poor and needy people in a marginal rate. This has kept big multi-national medicine companies from charging high price. There is no government in any part of the world which have a medicine company under thier control. This shows government of Kerala's effort to secure the medicine supply to the Kerala people. So in that context, it plays a big role in Kerala economy by giving needy medicines.

So please don't delete it and just see through the lens of Kerala economy, but not on a corporate angle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpullokaran (talk • contribs) 15:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you quantify such claims with reliable sources? If so, it might make a difference. SGGH ping! 15:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you actually search the gnews? Salih (talk) 16:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This actually gets 54 hits from Google News, not zero. Just click on the news link at the top of the article to confirm this.

The main reason why there were no articles in news is because the government don't allow companies to sponsor any programmes or advertising. The company is accountable to the Kerala people and any penny spend on advertising is much of waste. Because Ayurveda is a service and people want to have faith in it. It is very easy to sell a soap or detergent in a market by advertising. But you can't sell a ayurveda product in a market with out much faith. Most of the ayurveda companies in Kerala is decades old. They have a histoty of 300 years. Jomy Jos Pullokaran 16:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpullokaran (talk • contribs)

  • Keep. The Google Books, News and Scholar links at the top of the article lead to many independent reliable sources, satisfying notability guidelines. Is it really too much to expect deletion nominators to take a few seconds to look at the search results that are spoon-fed to them by the AfD templates before they save the discussion page? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you know what WP:AGF means. SGGH ping! 15:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Avenged Sevenfold (album). Wizardman 16:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Little Piece Of Heaven (song)

edit
A Little Piece Of Heaven (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:MUSIC. 7107Lecker Tischgespräch, außerdem... 13:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was it released as a single though? Popularity is subjective... Orderinchaos 14:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was, before it was included into an album to which I can't seem to remember.7107Lecker Tischgespräch, außerdem... 00:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Being released as a single is just one way to demonstrate notability; a song does not have to be released as a single to have an article. Rlendog (talk) 23:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 22:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DargonZine

edit
DargonZine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(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)

Multiple unresolved tagged issues since creation in June 2008. Original research by member of website. No reliable sources. Non-notable. Seregain (talk) 05:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Doesn't predate the internet, but from the early days of the internet, where quite a lot of notable things had no conventional RSs. This one, however, does: It meets the basic requirements of having an ISSN, and being listed in Ulrichs, as a full entry , which confirms the basic information in the article and is a RS, for it. It's even in worldCat, which is a free resource: [74] -- and 21 WorldCat libraries have chosen to catalog it, which is not all that common for ezines. What's more, there's a reliable signed short review in a selective publication, which I copy here, "Magazines for Libraries, (Jan 12, 2009; ISSN: 1080-9910) "DargonZine is the product of the "Dargon Project," a "shared world" of amateur writers who author the fiction featured in this electronic resource. Many authors write with regard to a common milieu, sharing settings, and characters. Stories included in this e-zine are related to Dargon, a fantasy world that is predominantly human, at a late-medieval technology level, where magic is relatively rare. The concept is novel, and the stories are usually compelling and entertaining. Access is entirely online and free at www.dargonzine.org. (Donovan, Carrie)" (MforL is to some degree the equivalent of Choice, though not limited to academic titles.) DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any online publication can get an ISSN free of charge, so that's not evidence of notability. That blurb is mostly a paraphrase from the site's "About" page. And simply being a result in Worldcat is not evidence of notability, either, since it probably got listed through some form of automated web search. Most significantly, since the article was created by a member of the site, it may also be an attempt at self-promotion. - Achissden (talk) 06:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: In short, this looks like a traditional SF APA-zine, just posted online, the likes of which have populated the SF world by the hundreds over the years, very, very few of which have ever passed any verifiability or notability bar.  Ravenswing  10:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even if we decide to give this some sort of free pass on not having any reliable sources because it (almost) "predates the internet", (which has "bad idea" written all over it if you ask me) that doesn't explain why it still has no reliable sourcing or notability in the years since then, as according to the article it's still going on. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unless a magazine gets in the news because of some scandal, the most indepth and detailed coverage will happen at its inception from people who report on its creation. After that you'll only notice passing mentions from authors who have published with the zine. Compare it to new books. They'll rarely receive indepth coverage long after their release unless the book becomes a classic. - Mgm|(talk) 11:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I don't think you'll get any disagreement that obscure publications have difficulty attracting attention from reliable sources. I just don't see anything in WP:V exempting them from its provisions because of that. That policy is quite unequivocal: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."  Ravenswing  15:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Any project with continuous online existing archives over 20 years is notable for that regard only; the more remarkable that it has kept continuous operation since the era of BITNET. You deletionists might not care for the style of the work, but frankly there's not many online collaborative efforts you can point to with the same tenure and thus it's valuable and encyclopedic to note its ongoing existence. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 07:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, mostly per DGG, and because claim to be longest running ezine appears to be verifiable. Candidate for substantial cleanup rater than deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the claim appears to be verifiable, why hasn't any reliable, non-trivial third-party bothered to try and actually verify it? I suspect that if the site member hadn't created the article, it wouldn't exist today. And in fact, to quote from the Talk page, the creator wrote "Well, I'd like to try and defend the inclusion of DargonZine in Wikipedia." Seems like even then, the person knew it didn't belong. But regardless, it still fails the other notability tests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Achissden (talk • contribs) 20:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Culliney

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

Prolific author, but does he meet the WP:GNG? Polarpanda (talk) 19:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has published three Sierra Club books, a very popular and well-received line of books in its pre-internet day. Google books search shows enough references in popular literature and in magazines like Nature to support notability, although this is an article that probably requires print resources. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Apparently, there's also a businessperson by this name who isn't from Hawaii. Anyone looking for sources, shouldn't mix them up. I have insufficient information to make a decision. - Mgm|(talk) 12:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. copyvio Cirt (talk) 01:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Los Rehenes

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

Notability has not been established. Eeekster (talk) 03:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Portaneo

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

Promotion for non-notable company and product. Article was written by single-issue user who is the CEO of the company [75]. I was unable to find any significant third-party coverage. Haakon (talk) 10:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Huskies starting running backs

edit
Washington Huskies starting running backs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Indiscriminate list of statistics inappropriate per WP:NOT#STATS

      • Comment - Even though right now there is little more to the article than a list of stats, the topic has scope for an article to be written about the list that would make it more than a statistics guide and would be appropriate here. Rlendog (talk)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Tree Golf and Country Club

edit
Crystal Tree Golf and Country Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, unreferenced. Can't find any sources Mattg82 (talk) 01:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Thanks, Eastmain, for adding references, but I don't feel those sources, though reliable establish notability. What makes this golf course special enough for mention in this encyclopedia? A sex-discrimination case in the early '90s? Given the huge number of people and organizations who are named as defendants in lawsuits every year, I don't think so. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Every golf course is unique (except, perhaps, those that blatantly copy more famous golf courses). This one was designed by Robert Trent Jones, Jr., who appears to be a notable architect of golf courses. – Eastmain (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Now seems more notable, but notable enough to keep ? erm not sure, but if this discussion fails to reach a consensus I won't relist it for deletion. Mattg82 (talk) 22:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most coverage seems incidental – there is more focus given of the associated residential developments within the gated community. Sources that directly reference the golf club in a non-trivial manner do not seem to be readily available. Having a notable designer does not generally mean much as far as golf courses go, and the mascot incident is nothing more than trivia. However, it has hosted some Illinois PGA events, although I guess they are fairly minor in status. In all, insufficient to establish notability. wjematherbigissue 23:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A not-remotely-notable sex-discrimination case from 1993 doesn't make this club notable, and I find it telling that no author has updated the lede to say, "Crystal Tree Country Club is a golf course notable for being sued for sex discrimination in 1993." I don't think anyone will, either. I agree with Willoughby that "[t]his is a kind of advertisement masquerading as an article." If this country club is notable, every country club in America is. --Glenfarclas (talk) 13:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Merriman

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

Individual is notable simply for operating a Ponzi scheme, which itself is a dubious claim to notability, but seeing as how it's the ONLY thing the subject is notable for...... fuzzy510 (talk) 00:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merle Michaels

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

No significant coverage and doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 14:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Tabercil (talk) 05:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

O-Pearl

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

No significant coverage and doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 11:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google is not a suitable measure of notability, as WP:BIO says "The adult film industry, for example, uses Googlebombing to influence rankings, and for most topics Google cannot easily differentiate between useful references and mere text matches." Tabercil (talk) 01:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. Tabercil (talk) 01:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harmony Rose

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

No significant independent coverage and doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 10:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 19:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Bolam

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

Non-notable composer. IMDB does list some credits, but nothing that would make hum particularly noteworthy. Personal web site lists many more credits, but this is not an independent, reliable source, and it doesn't match up with the IMDB listing very well. No other sources found. I just don't think he clears the notability bar. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I could've accepted this if there was some more detail, but as it stands, we don't even know if he wrote the theme tunes or just incidental music for the shows listed. - Mgm|(talk) 11:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're suffering from "young article" syndrome here. Never fear, I am a musician and will do my best with the article. Obviously because he is notable! That's the way I see it...Philip Howard (talk) 11:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And why is that? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to take one example only, he wrote the theme tune to the TV cookery programme that has been on in the UK every day for the last 15 years (not counting repeats) - it's something that probably everyone in this country has heard many times. I'm not sure if it's been exported to your part of the world ("Ready Steady Cook", it's called). There's plenty of other credits too, particularly in the last year. I'm just looking for some references. Should be done soon (it takes a lot longer to write them than to template-delete them!) Philip Howard (talk) 17:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have now completed the revamp of the page. Are you happy with the notability yet? (I'm not claiming it's perfect, but just let's discuss whether you still think it should be deleted)Philip Howard (talk) 22:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC) PS TV music (and a lot of film music) is frequently poorly credited so that has been the main problem in finding references for this.[reply]
Not yet, though you're making progress. References 2, 4 and 5 do not mention Bolam directly, so they unfortunately aren't much help. I understand the problem with music being poorly credited in the UK (not so much here in the USA), but we still have to be able to verify your claims somehow. Keep trying. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further to the above, I have added references now so if you'd cast your eye over it that would be great. Thanks for your attention so far! Philip Howard (talk) 01:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Much, much better. At this point I think we definitely have sufficient references, and I'm inclined to withdraw the nomination to delete. I think notability has been proved here. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that's great. I'd be in favour of that! What do we do next?Philip Howard (talk) 08:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please could you let me know what I have to do next? Do we need more votes on the deletion or can we just remove the notice? - Thank you very much. Philip Howard (talk) 21:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An admin takes it from here. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 23:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, can you suggest a way to make a difference in appearance between "external link that is just a link" (e.g. for something that has no Wikipedia entry) and "external link that refers directly to the subject of the article" (reference)? Or should all ext. links look the same? I'm not sure of the correct procedure. Actually I will check the Help section too. Philip Howard (talk) 11:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - has done lots of things which suggest notability, although I'm concerned that despite the good efforts of Philip Howard to find a wide variety of references, all we seem to have are listings or very minor mentions. Warofdreams talk 01:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roots, Stems and Branches

edit
Roots, Stems and Branches (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found this article while random article searching. I tagged it and tried to find ANY sources of any kind. Completely fails notability. -WarthogDemon 04:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. There is clearly no consensus to delete. Whether to keep or to merge can be decided on the talk page. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Odyssey

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

Co-nomination with the article Windows Neptune.

WP:COI disclosure: I have trivial amounts of code that is probably present in these demo projects. I don't know how ten year old code presents a conflict other than a wish for historical accuracy.

The policy reason to delete this is lack of notability, and lack of sources. This article has one single third-party source. That is not enough to base a Wikipedia article on and we have a lack of both verifiability and truth here.

The second reason to delete is that it is just plain wrong. The article contains several more statements that are completely unsourced and unremovable because of the efforts of people involved in a fan forum. The single source for this article, Paul Thurrot, is a somewhat reliable source in the context of Microsoft Windows, but not really. Paul Thurrot is like an über fan site. This is an instance where he is not reliable because in this timeframe of publication, what he says is speculation. Paul Thurrot publishes two kinds of speculation: his own, and what he is leaked from inside Microsoft. What is leaked isn't reliable either because he is fed misinformation on purpose. (Remember that COI disclosure? I'm a better RS than Paul Thurrot. I've edited and been published by Microsoft Press about Microsoft Windows, but not about this article.)

If you remove anything unsourced, you are left with one sentence. If you look at that sentence from the position that it was speculation you are left with nothing. There is a proper place for what little public information exists about this project, it is the article Development of Windows XP. Unfortunately, trying to enforce a redirect is blocked by the efforts of a fan forum where a handful of people trade old Windows releases on BitTorrent who then write about their entirely original research "findings" on Wikipedia. Ars Technica even wrote an article based on the OR in Wikipedia - that is the horrible situation the OR policy is designed to prevent, we risk basing further references on stuff that first appeared, wrongly, in Wikipedia. The proper thing to do with these two articles is Delete, redirect, and protect SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 03:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

all versions of windows are notable. Some of our articles on software have been in practice based upon personal knowledge as a tacit exception to WP:V's requirement of WP:RSs, in acknowledgement that for this limited set of topics, the people here are the reliable sources. I know it's in a sense IAR, but it still helps the encyclopedia's purpose of providing knowledge. DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a version of Windows. It's an internal technology demo that got leaked. There is nothing notable about it. Take a stable build of the core, add some experimental code for an unfinished feature, give it a code name and show it to a CEO. This happens several times during the beta process. This one was leaked. Are you seriously advocating that we have entirely original research articles based on speculation from people who downloaded the build from peer-to-peer networks? That is what this is. The authors of this article aren't people with special knowledge. In fact, I am here, I do have the knowledge, and I am saying there is little to no factual basis for these articles. That's why the OR and RS policy exists. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Also, I strongly disagree with DGG's suggestion that Wikipedia is somehow improved through the proliferation of original research concerning software -- "the encyclopedia's purpose" is not merely one "of providing knowledge", but of providing accurate and credible knowledge, which cannot be assured without reliable sources. Andrea105 (talk) 05:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No real harm except it is completely unsourced and contains information that is total conjecture. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 06:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep SchmuckyTheCat, please note, that I have daily contact with a few official Microsoft Beta Testers, four of which have been such already at the time, when Windows Neptune, and Windows Odyssey, were released. They can assure you, that Windows Neptune was planned as the successor to Windows 2000, and Windows Odyssey as the successor to Windows Neptune. The version numbers were 5.5, and 6.0, respectively. They even have Builds for it. My contacts each have at least two Builds of Neptune, and two of Odyssey.

Also, as for sources, the articles are sourced by the screenshots inside them. To consider those screenshots un-reliable sources, would mean essentially, that you think, that they're fake, which can be considered as a personal attack at the users who uploaded them, since you call them fakers, and frauds, basically.

The screen-shots come from BetaArchive.co.uk, which is the top internet forum for Operating System Alpha's, and Beta's, and the screen-shots were made by a reliable user of that forum.

Also, there are on-line available Microsoft anti-trust law-suit documents, which further prove, that Windows Neptune (spelled NepTune in those documents), was planned to be the successor to Windows 2000. Also, even a Service Pack was planned for it, codenamed Triton. Again, mentioned in those documents.

And to prove, that Odyssey was supposed to be NT 6.0, there are the sources by Paul Thurrott.

So I think, that there are more, than enough sources available on-line for these two articles. Also, SchmuckyTheCat, you have made mistakes about Windows before, such as when you claimed, that Windows 3.2 Simplified Chinese had for Workgroups features, which Wengier Wu from the China DOS Union later successfully proved wrong, so I would kindly ask you to refrain from labelling yourself as an expert, when you made such an elementary mistake before. - OBrasilo (talk) 01:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you have friends who were external beta testers. I was in the CORE OS group. I saw every build. There are builds with my name on them. Screenshots aren't sources. The issue here is sourcing and you haven't shown anything except Paul Thurrot, who was there for PR leaks - not exactly reliable. I'm not saying this demo never existed, just that it isn't notable. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

3 verifiable sources in article: http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/windowsxp_gold.asp, http://www.winhistory.de/more/nept.htm (in german), screenshots at http://neosmart.net/gallery/v/os/Neptune/ more outside of article: http://www.activewin.com/faq/neptune.shtml google gives many results to good sources There are multiple external verifiable sources on this topic. 174.112.211.143 (talk) 02:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Winhistory.de is a user forum. It is not a reliable source. Digg points to the Wikipedia article. That is not a source. Screenshots are not sources. Activewin is a usergenerated site, not a source. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
    • Which is Paul Thurrot, one single source already referenced, who was manipulated by people inside the company. Wikipedia cannot write articles based on one source like that, and this single source would still result in the Odyssey article being deleted and the Neptune article cut by 80%. The entire existence of these articles cannot rest on one source. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Win-history de isn't a forum. It has a forum but it's different. Microsoft also has discussion forum, but that doesn't make Microsoft themselves a discussion forum.

As for an user-generated site - someone tested it, and published a site about Neptune, Wikipedia then can use this site.

So it's YOU here, who rejects any site about it, as un-reliable. If Microsoft posted their own article about it, you'd say it's un-reliable. If an independent source tests Neptune, and post their own site about it, you say it's un-reliable. So what kind of sources do you want for it? It's an old OS, no major publication will talk about it anymore.

Also, I mentioned the Anti-Trust lawsuit documents as a source for it, which you clearly ignored.

You also consistently ignore my comments about your own unreliability for judgment and writing articles on Windows. You couldn't even get the features of Windows 3.2 Simplified Chinese right, and you're expecting us to let you have your own way with two articles of something more important?

And again, how many sources are there for Windows Nashville? Yet, you have no problems with that staying, but you have problems with Windows Neptune, and Windows Odyssey staying. Taking double standard, are we?

Not to mention, you worked for MS, so you're involved in the company, and might be trying to cover up facts about Neptune, and Odyssey, hence your insistance on having the articles converted to mere redirects. Now, it's up to YOU to prove it's not so. - OBrasilo (talk) 21:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with/redirect to Development of Windows XP WP:Verifiability != WP:Notability. The article is poorly sourced, perhaps, but that alone is not a reason for deletion. The fact is that any 'insiders' are probably breaking confidentiality agreements, which is illegal. The second fact is that these insiders have a conflict of interest. This does not necessarily mean these editors cannot work on the article, but it does mean that they have a bias towards its notability. Here-say is not verifiable, and constitutes WP:Original research. Again, however, this is not a reason for deletion. Any Windows product is notable. However, what should be looked at is what is done with other codenames. Windows Longhorn redirects to the Development of Windows Vista. Likewise, these two should redirect to Development of Windows XP (as should Windows Whistler now that I look at it). The material on the page should be moved into that article. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that is exactly the outcome I proposed and have been trying to accomplish for about six months. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Floydian, Windows Nashville for one, doesn't redirect to Development of Windows 98. And there's a big difference between Longhorn, and Neptune/Odyssey. Longhorn became Vista, and had the same version number as Vista. Neptune/Odyssey were a separate line, with different version numbers, then scrapped (NOT merged, except for tiny fragment, such as the bug report thing) into Windows XP.
So, merging these articles into Development for Windows XP would reduce the projects, which were separate, also having Builds compiled after Windows XP already released, to mere minor Windows XP pre-Alpha's. And you'd need a very good rationale for why you want to do that.
Also, user SchmuckyTheCat avoids mentioning, that he himself isn't un-involved in the issue, having apparently worked on said projects. So I'd like you to pay attention at his actions, because while they might look like good faith clean up, they might actually be vandalism in an attempt to cover up facts which his (present, or former maybe) employers, Microsoft Corp., would like to remain hidden from the public.
And the fact, that he reacted above, the way he did, just shows, in my humble opinion, that he IS hiding something here, or else, he would have had no reason to behave the way he did to me just above.
SchmuckyTheCat, stop asking for sources, when any source, which mentions these two codenames, seems to be automatically un-reliable for you. - OBrasilo (talk) 17:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of sources to verify the existence of these codenames and their place in Windows development. Looking over Windows Nashville, one thing that separates it from others is that it was never released or merged into Windows 98 (Which was being programmed separately), however, it could just as well be merged into the [Development of Windows 98]], as it is a rather short snippet of information. Odyssey and Neptune served as the base for what would become Windows XP, and are thus an integral part of its development. Neither article, however, is large enough to justify being a unique article at this point in time. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, as is. They were two of the most important Microsoft Windows projects ever made. I worked for MS, I worked on them & its not just random mock up code but real OSs. And there are plenty of sources for it, including Mr. Thurrott who is one of my best friends.
And user obrasilo above mentioned the MS anti trust lawsuit documents too, so we have two reliable sources (mr. Thurrott and the anti trust lawsuit) to base the articles on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lin Godzilla (talk • contribs) 23:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think, SchmuckyTheCat aside, that so far the discussion is headed towards Keep. TheGreenMartian (talk) 03:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kunena

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 02:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Vast disagreement over whether the sources constitute "significant coverage." US News is indeed significant; even if it's "only" four paragraphs, that is obviously not a trivial mention. The other sources are quite on the borderline. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flashflight

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

This borders on a CSD A7, but AfD is free, so why not. This article, such as it is, has had nearly 3 years to shape up (and I have waited for quite some time before coming here - see edit history), yet it remains nothing but a blatant product advertisement, frequently edited with what appears to be a clear vested interest. No sources are cited, much less reliable ones, and thus no notability is established. In short, this is yet another unsourced advert for some gimmick product. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no indication of notability besides it being a product that can be purchased. I share the nominator's concerns that there may be an element of promotion to the article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per the links that DGG points to. Mentions in the International Herald Tribune are, I suspect, about the best you're going to get for a toy, and certainly seem to me to satisfy our standards for significant coverage in reliable sources. Gonzonoir (talk) 11:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These are not significant sources. USNews, four paragraphs. Not significant. IHT, no mention at the link provided, and source paragraph does not read likely to lead to significant material. Wired, not about the product described in the article. The rest - gift catalogs. This is not a notable product, no sources are provided in the article, and these additional mentions are not significant, or even relevant. Miami33139 (talk) 16:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article in the IHT appears to be a syndicated piece from the Associated Press, and you can read it in full here. The AP are still a reliable source, and I'm happy to take them as establishing notability. I'd also take the USNews's four paragraphs of coverage as much more than a trivial reference. Gonzonoir (talk) 22:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So the IHT (AP) article is two sentences about the company attending a toy convention with thousands of other people, not the Flashflight product which this article is about. This also explains that the Wired article is about something entirely different and probably a different company altogether, direct evidence of non-notability. If four paragraphs in a capsule review now pass for notability every different flavor of Campbell's soup at your local megamart can have its own article. Miami33139 (talk) 01:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify what seems to be going on with the Wired article. I don't think it covers "something entirely different", and it isn't about a different company altogether. The article refers to the sale of Spokelit, which appears to be a variant Flashflight line manufactured by Playhard, who are the same company referenced in the AP article. The article talks also about its sale through a third-party retailer (Safety Smart Gear), which I guess is where the suggestion that this is a different company comes in.
To respond to your other points, I'm not sure how an article could constitute "direct evidence of non-notability" (at best it would be absence of evidence, not evidence of absence). And generally speaking (and heh, who thought we could get so heated about a frisbee?) I want to say that I am swayed toward Keep as much by the volume of sources (see DGG's links) as by the length of coverage in each of them. So many single-paragraph references in so many magazines, newspapers, and so on, while none alone would be enough to convince me that the subject is notable, persuade me by their cumulative weight. Gonzonoir (talk) 09:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I ask you to please think about that. We live in a world that is both information rich and commercially exploited. There are thousands of newspapers, magazines, tv, radio, and websites out there and all of them have these throwaway mentions of toys, gadgets and things to buy. There aren't always distinctions between paid placements and advertising in these kinds of mentions. Cumulative weight of extremely minor mentions makes just about any product ever sold, and each brand and each packaging variation, "notable" and that is not what the word "notable" means. Miami33139 (talk) 18:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do appreciate your point, but I see a qualitative difference between the level of coverage this particular product is attracting and the throwaway mentions in the GNews link you just provided. The search you linked to returns four absolutely incidental references. For Flashflight, I'm instead seeing explicit discussion of the product in the links above, and here (a full, focused article) in ColoradoBIZ magazine, and here on MSNBC, and here in a local paper, and here in The Southern, MSNBC again (for a product variant), here in another paper (NB, it's the same company - looks like Playhard is owned by Nite Ize), and here in Spanish, and here (in Hebrew) in Israeli broadsheet Haaretz. For me this is breadth enough to make up for lack of depth in coverage. But I'm glad I'm not in the closing admin's shoes. Gonzonoir (talk) 19:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep The links DGG cites are in fact significant and independent coverage in reliable sources, and are not catalog listings, since the publications do not offer them for sale. Barely satisfies WP:N, though more sources with deeper coverage would help. More information about the developers, about their company would help in writing an article that was more than a product description. Edison (talk) 17:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm pretty sure there is an element of self promotion happening on Wikipedia with regards to this subject, but we can always protect/block if we need to. JBsupreme (talk) 17:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak delete The coverage is not quite enough for me. The USNews article is the only proper in-depth coverage that is relevant to the article subject. I'd like a little bit more - without that, I don't think WP:GNG is passed. Brilliantine (talk) 01:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin: This bears a good deal of direct scrutiny. I would like it noted for the record that claims have been made about the article subject being reviewed and otherwise non-trivially covered in reliable sources and that these claims are being directly refuted. A non-party to this AfD should examine the sources closely. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ http://books.google.com/books?id=M7F4yExH0ygC&pg=PA194&dq=punchball&lr=lang_en&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&num=100&as_brr=0&client=firefox-a&cd=341#v=onepage&q=&f=false
  2. ^ http://books.google.com/books?id=C9apQfriaa0C&pg=PT51&dq=punchball&lr=lang_en&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&num=100&as_brr=0&client=firefox-a&cd=35#v=onepage&q=punchball&f=false
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_December_16&oldid=1234119250"