Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 December 26

< 25 December	27 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sixgunlover Records

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

I can't find significant coverage for this record label. Joe Chill (talk) 23:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 23:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also can find no coverage of this label. As such it fails WP:NOTABILITY RP459 (talk) 18:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't know if there are any specific notability guidelines that are appropriate here (I can't find any) but it doesn't seem to meet general notability guidelines since there appears to be no significant coverage in reliable sources. There are 3 hits on gnews, but none look significant. --Beloved Freak 12:10, 1 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 Boldly redirected and closed-Since the merge has already taken place, all that's left is to re-direct it to the merge target. I see no point in leaving the afd open, therefore the close. NAC. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

E-verify

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

Relevant information from this article has been merged with a more complete article on E-Verify and therefore, this article, is no longer necessary Isprawl (talk) 21:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is basically the wikipedia equivalent of a transitional fossil. CuddlySatan (talk) 21:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and redirect to E-Verify. Following an article merge a redirect must be left to ensure the history reminans visible (see Wikipedia:Merging), and "Other capitalisation" is a normal basis for a redirect anyway. EALacey (talk) 23:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and Redirect as per EALacey Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 23:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Merge and Redirect This article with the lower case v is the result of a typo/ spelling related article fork. The article with the upper-case V is the way the actual program lists itself. Unnecessarily confusing and and misleading. Scott P. (talk) 00:16, 27 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 as it is obvious that this article is not going to be deleted any time soon. Take any merge/redirect discussions to the talk page, please. Tavix | Talk 20:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulfarouk Umar Muttalab

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

The subject of the article does not satisfy notability requirements and should be redirected to the NW 253 page. raseaC^{talk to me} 23:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. That's like saying D. B. Cooper should be merged into whatever airplane he hijacked. I'm not saying the article is currently encylopedia-quality, but it could be WP:BETTER and should be. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 23:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. People who may become famous or infamous from a single famous act merit inclusion in the pantheon of persons who have, in any way, changed or created history. While they may be inextricably linked with their act(s), the people themselves necessarily have a noteworthiness worth spelling out. Cesium_133 (talk) 07:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that while we're improving things, his father Umaru Mutallab's article should be improved. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 23:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Yes, as he only caused a "disturbance" aboard the plane and no one was killed, I say redirect. fetchcomms☛ 23:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I redirected Jasper Schuringa for the same reason but this one is far less cut and dried. Clearly a lot more information about him will come out as the story develops and there is almost certain to be a trial. If we get rid of the article now then we may well end up needing it again later. WP:ONEEVENT gives some examples of when people should and should not have articles. None of them fits this case perfectly but it feels like this is more like the examples which should have articles. Creation of the article may have been premature but, unless the story changes drastically over the next day or two, I see this as comparable to Richard Reid (shoe bomber). --DanielRigal (talk) 23:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Delete, treat the same as Richard Reid Happy Happy New Year (talk) 00:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)— Happy Happy New Year (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep of course, this is already one of today's top search in Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, agreed with Happy Happy New Year; treat the article like Richard Reid ThreeOneFive (talk) 02:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I agree with Happy Happy New Year et. al.; treat the article like Richard Reid; perhaps he'll become "Abdulfarouk Umar Muttalab (pants bomber)" Dr Smith (talk) 03:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect there isn't a darn thing on this article that can't be cleanly kept in or isn't already on the main article. Reywas92^Talk 03:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is work to be done and events are still early. Deletion would be unwise or premature. Dheppens (talk) 03:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Shoe Bomber got his own article apart from the incident he is known for, that sets a precedent. Erxnmedia (talk) 04:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect All information can be and is covered in the incident article. This isn't nearly the scale of the shoe bomber. Let's avoid this BLP POV fork, especially when his motivations are unclear. If he isn't even linked to al Qaeda he's just attacking alone and definetly cannot compare to others. Grsz¹¹ 05:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Northwest Airlines Flight 253, alot of the same information on both pages, other stuff existing should not come into play. This man may get a trial but until events unfold for now a redirect is best in order. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 06:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Shoe Bomber (or delete both) DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 06:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. That is an illogical and irrelevant argument. Grsz¹¹ 06:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep In the past Richard Reid was allowed to get an article. I believe that this is the same scenario. Currently we don't know that much about Muttalab, but as time goes on we would get more information. Any article that is under the media's eagle eye do not make a good AfD discussion. The Nidal Malik Hasan article, the Fort Hood shooter, was also taken to AfD, but was later allowed his own article. See that AfD for more information. Lourie Pieterse 09:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As more biographical information becomes available, readers will come here looking for a summary of it. There's no need to bury it in the article about the attack itself. We can merge them later if having two articles seems inappropriate. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 10:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the above keeps. Evidence is mounting that the authorities believe it likely that he had an al Qaeda connection, and an al Awlaki connection (the second being consistent w the Fort Hood bomber, etc.).--Epeefleche (talk) 12:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The situation should at least be allowed to develop, as more information will continue to come to light. -m-i-k-e-y-^talk 12:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per all Keep comments :). --SkyWalker (talk) 12:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is suitably famous/infamous far beyond most single event BLPs. New bio details will come out, there may be a trial, and the media circus will certainly continue around him. Let the flight article specifically cover the incident and this article the rest. Joshdboz (talk) 12:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above 92.20.111.198 (talk) 12:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - for now; we don't let an article stay and then merge it, we merge it first. This guy is not yet enough for his own article imo, should be merged into the attack article. ceranthor 14:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is suitably famous, and terrorism needs to be covered, not ignored out of political correctness. Yaf (talk)
- Comment Wikipedia isn't here to make known people who have done such things, we have WP:BLP that applies to even these types of people. This is a largely irrational and inappropriate reason to keep the article. Grsz¹¹ 16:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep - per Joshdboz. This guy is already known, and will only become more widely known as the case develops. More information and intelligence will surface about him, and this article would be the proper place to put it. People are getting a little too trigger-happy about deletionism around here. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 16:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep. A merge is plausible but that is not what AfD is for. An article with this title needs to remain at a minimum since it is one of the most plausible direct ways to navigate to this event. Given the amount of coverage this is getting, it should be easy to sustain an article about the principal individual. — brighterorange (talk) 15:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This person will continue to accrue reported biographical data due to the high-profile nature of the crime, investigation, and its current significant and continuing changes to airline and airport security procedures. His background, motives, recent history and actions are extremely important to this significant event and should not be trimmed to avoid undue weight if it exists only within the Flight 253 article. The event is highly significant and the individual's role is highly significant, and so doesn't fall within WP:ONEEVENT. Revelian (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Merge -Merge into the main article. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is nearly identical to the Richard Reid precedent in Wikipedia. Much more biographical information about him is already accumulating in the public record about Abdulfarouk Umar Muttalab apart from the terrorism incident, so I don't need to repeat Revelian's points. For those urging delete or merge, a quick look at WP:SNOWBALL is advised. patsw (talk) 17:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or alternatively Merge but do not delete per all precedents and what has been said above.--Centrism (talk) 17:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWikireader41 (talk) 17:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:BIO Has significant 3rd party coverage, this individual will generate continued press for the next few years up until his trial and likely beyond. RP459 (talk) 18:51, 27 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. based on WP:N concerns JForget 01:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HairMax LaserComb

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

Non-notable product, paid editing spam. Brandon (talk) 21:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect to Baldness treatments. It's hard to call this spam since it's critical of the product. The product has received quite a bit of press coverage; LA Times CNET NY Post. Pburka (talk) 21:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objections to a redirect to baldness treatments, where the product was already neutrally covered before the creation of the article. This seems like the best option. Brandon (talk) 20:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am the primary author of the article on the HairMax LaserComb. For the record, we do not understand the reason for this deletion. The original article without the extensive biased deletions, was factual, had footnotes that could be verified as to source and was not opinionated in any way. We believe that there was an alleged conscious effort to alter the article to bias the content against the product.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Namllits2002 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC) — Namlilts2002 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The original article was paid editing spam. Since then editors have made the article more neutral but I'm not convinced the product is actually notable. Brandon (talk) 19:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notability does not appear to have been established, and the tone of the comment by the primary editor above seems to confirm that this article was created by an organization closely involved with the product rather than a disinterested individual. --DAJF (talk) 14:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it, it's a good article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.225.135 (talk) 07:39, 26 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) 22:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing here to establish notability. Google search reveals the company's own website and a few blog comments. --MelanieN (talk) 03:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
Delete. Notability does not appear to have been established after all this time, and the article is being used as a promotional vehicle. --DAJF (talk) 05:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of pastebins

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

none of these websites have a wp article. too much text to dump into the pastebin article. there is no reason for wp to have this table. we ain't a general review site to create tables comparing nn websites. this belongs on some other wiki. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 19:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NOT, WP:OR, and WP:N. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Good list of pastebins for users searching for one, no reason to delete. After all, this is a comparison list. -- Jordan "Eck" Samuel (talk) 05:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - this user has made significant contributions to this article. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note - Indeed, it is everyones job to do so. This is wikipedia, not half-arsepedia.-- Jordan "Eck" Samuel (talk) 00:30, 27 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) 22:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Excellent list of commercially available pastebins. Deletion is not dependent on whether their exists an article on these pages yet. No article does not automatically mean non-notable. Ikip 19:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included on the Pastebins page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
Keep The AfD nom reason amounts to just not notable, which while false, is also one of the many arguments to avoid. Despite the laundry list of "reasons" stated by Blaxthos above, this AfD nomination is not backed up by any of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines.
The notability guideline does not limit what can or cannot be included in a particular article. The notability guideline only helps determine if a specific subject should have its own standalone article. WP:NCC states: "The notability guidelines determine whether a topic is notable enough to be a separate article in Wikipedia. They do not give guidance on the content of articles, except for lists of people. Instead, various content policies govern article content, with the amount of coverage given to topics within articles decided by its appropriate weight."
This particular article has lots of references and uses two citation methods; inline citations and embedded citations, so Blaxthos's claims of WP:OR are obviously without merit. While inline citations are preferred for some things, embedded citations are commonplace in comparison tables and lists and work extremely well for those particular uses. This article is not unique in its layout or structure, see Category:Computing comparisons for an overview of many of these articles on Wikipedia. I seriously doubt someone would nominate similarly structured articles such as List of neutrino experiments for deletion.
I'll also point out that Blaxthos has shown up here strictly due to his personal conflicts with Eckstasy. (See [1] and [2])
--Tothwolf (talk) 19:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kin Yang-Song

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

Verifiability concerns. I can't find any mention of references backing up the existence of this group, and established histiography does not mention it (rather it refers to groups of Koreans in Soviet Russia as the first Korean communists). Another article Park Seong in the same series was deleted some time back. (i think there might have been more, it would be good if an admin could check deleted edits of the creator of the article.) Soman (talk) 09:47, 19 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) 22:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom, without any 3rd party coverage this article fails WP:NOTABILITY RP459 (talk) 18:56, 27 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) 01:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EAbsinthe.com

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

Originally this was an internet shop. It is now not a shop but just an information site with links to a much smaller shop.— Preceding unsigned comment added by BryonyM (talk • contribs) 18 December 2009

Step 2 of the AfD nomination process (listing of article heading and links) was not completed correctly. It has been manually corrected. KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It sounds like the nomination rationale is the business' current status as defunct. I have not yet tried to determine notability, but a business that was once notable does not cease to be notable if it becomes defunct. If this business was never notable, that's another, more valid argument for deletion. KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:42, 21 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) 22:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 23:32, 26 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 to delete. While there is substantial and well-argued support to delete this material, this AfD has also attracted editors who have made diligent searches for sources. The validity of those sources has been challenged, which led to a lengthy discussion on the validity of the sources. Some of the points raised in their defence I found to be spurious, but additional sources were subsequently supplied, so I have not needed to parse that argument in detail.

This discussion is now some ten days old, and still shows no sign whatsoever of reaching consensus, either on the strength of numbers or on the merits of the arguments. I have closed it accordingly. NAC by—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 13:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doon Theological Journal

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

This article on an Indian journal lacks any secondary sources attesting to its notability. Deprodded. Abductive (reasoning) 07:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This journal appears to at least be recognized in the scholarly theological community. It does garner some Google Books hits despite having only been in existence since 2004. As with other scholarly journals that have come up at AfD, I looked up the journal on three university libraries' catalogs, and two of them do subscribe to this journal. I believe the journal should be given the benefit of the doubt as to notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that there are 300,000 journals currently in existence. Shall we give them all the benefit of the doubt? Abductive (reasoning) 23:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many of those publications are not scholarly journals. And of the ones that are, I'm only suggesting to give the benefit of the doubt to the ones that we can find in university library catalogs and which garner some Google Books hits. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Google Book hits are citations for the articles that appear in the journal, not the third party analysis required to write an encyclopedia article. Abductive (reasoning) 03:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Archiv fur Reformationsgeschichte. Archive for reformation history, Volume 36 (2007) includes items from this journal.[3] John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a listing in a government database, and hardly constitutes a secondary source. Wikipedia is not a catalog. Abductive (reasoning) 01:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. it's a listing in a library catalog to indicate the title being referred to by the reference from google books. But one citation does not prove notability, and 3 subscriptions do not prove influence. I'll need to look further: Theological journals are particularly tricky, due to their usually very small circulation, and anything published in India is difficult to document. They have a very large university system, and publish many journals and books, but have no national database for publications or even a union catalog to determine how many Indian libraries have copies. DGG ( talk ) 06:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is Archive for Reformation History. I don't have volume 36, so I can't see whether it is cited within an article, or evidence of being abstracted in the literary review supplementary issue. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:50, 23 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) 22:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 03:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Worldcat shows at least 18 holdings in North American Theological schools. Figuring similar stats for India is almost impossible. -SpacemanSpiff 03:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a recognised academic journal. There is no discussion at the article's talk page and so the proper deletion process has not been followed. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I followed WP:BEFORE. This journal might be recognized by primary sources, but has nada in secondary sources and therefore must be deleted. Abductive (reasoning) 08:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, you didn't. For example, the folowing step has not been followed: "Read the article's talk page ... If there is no discussion then start one, outlining your concerns. Then watch for responses from interested editors." Colonel Warden (talk) 08:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why should I do that? There are no secondary sources for this journal, and no amount of discussion can change that. Abductive (reasoning) 08:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't know that because you haven't tried. Your doctrine that the lack of secondary sources means that the article must be deleted is false. Per WP:BEFORE] and WP:PRESERVE, alternatives to deletion should be considered. It may be that there are Indian language sources or sources not searched by Google. Because you have failed to engage with the article's editors at the article, proper discussion and consideration has not been performed. AFD is not cleanup and should only be used for hopeless cases after ordinary editing methods and discussion have failed. If we wanted a bot to go around deleting articles without sources, we could soon have one. Your services in this regard add no value and so are not required. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've rarely seen an AfD with such a talk page discussion first and as far as I am concerned, proper procedure has been followed here. In any case, I don' think that the absence of a talk page discussion is a valid "keep" argument and the article's original editor has been notified and can participate in this discussion. Concerning the other "keep" arguments above, I am not too impressed with the Australian listing. Somewhere (I don't find it right now I'm afraid), DGG has posted some comments on that list and they strongly implied that being listed did not mean much in terms of notability. As for the reference that John Vandenberg found in the "Archiv", as DGG says, one reference is not enough for notability. --Crusio (talk) 08:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that talk page discussions do not occur as they should, not because they are not required nor because it would be unhelpful but just because tools like Twinkle do not support them and so drive-by editors would have to exert themselves to start and follow a discussion. In other words, we get reflex button-pushing because it is easier than proper engagement with the topic. But Wikipedia is not a first-person shooter. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel Warden, you are usually so good at finding sources, why not with this one? Abductive (reasoning) 09:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The editors above have conducted good searches and seem reasonably satisfied with the results. I have looked enough to endorse their conclusion so that we may speedily close this overdue procedure and move on. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources do you mean? One editor said "It's a recognized academic journal" without apparently any base and without explaining what "recognized" in this sense means. John Vandenberg found one "sources", and one citation does not really mean anything much. --Crusio (talk) 10:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see below. John Vandenberg has it covered and so the article is coming along nicely. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The lack of secundary sources is a significant problem, per WP:V. --Crusio (talk) 08:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What facts in the article are in need of verification? Do you dispute anything which is stated? Citations are only required for details which are controversial or might be disputed. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a search engine. If people want sources, they can use Google themselves, so cutting out the middle man and getting an up-to-date listing. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is that lack of encyclopedic content, such as might be provided by secondary sources, that is the problem with this topic. Abductive (reasoning) 09:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a stub and marked as such. As the journal is comparatively new, we can expect the entry to grow over time. We have no pressing deadline to meet or word count to satisfy. Deletion would just disrupt the natural process of slow accretion. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And with that argument, we can speedily close every AfD currently in progress. --Crusio (talk) 10:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've added two more refs, the first being a review in Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, and the section is a mention in a list of resources, broken down into regions. It is included in Theological libraries all around the world, many of which are not in Worldcat.[4] John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:34, 27 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. JForget 01:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Homing Beacon/The Landing Beacon

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

A non-charting song isn't notable. ArglebargleIV (talk) 04:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 18:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~. A non-charting song can be notable, provided it satisfies WP:NSONGS, which states that a song must first meet WP:N. I'll let others help in determining whether the following (there may well be more, but these are the best I could find) constitutes "significant coverage": [5][6][7][8][9]. Gongshow ^Talk 19:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Big thanks to J04n for adding the sources into the article. Gongshow ^Talk 07:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

well,

Atleast even if the artical doesn't meet the standards (which it does), we could atleast merge it according to WP:NSONGS. MarthsBullet (talk) 16:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and here's some more "coverage" [10] MarthsBullet (talk) 03:42, 25 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) 22:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The independant, third party, reliable sources found by Gongshow have been incorporated into the article, meets WP:GNG. J04n(talk page) 23:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taking off "youtube as source" I put it on originally, but wiki can't use youtube as a source... All we need to replace it is something that says the song was uploaded on 7/6/09... I'll look for something 63.198.113.60 (talk) 05:26, 27 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) 21:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WIZ-DOS

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

Minor, non-notable element in an SF/fantasy series. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. As per WP:FICT and WP:PLOT, plot elements of fictional works ought to have real-worls contenxt and impact. i see none here. WP:N requires coverage in relaible independant sources. i see nothing but primary sources, trivial mentions in fora and wikis and wikipedia mirrors -- these are not reliable sources, and even if they were, they do no more than summarize the primary sources (the books) -- there is no analysis at all. Some of this content could be merged into Rick Cook if desired, and I wouldn't object to leaving a redirect. DES ^(talk) 16:04, 26 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) 22:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've searched and all I can find is mentions of it in universe, and none of those show any real-world notability or impact. This would be a great article for a Rick Cook or Wizardry wiki, but real-world notability doesn't seem to be there. Given that this is a relatively modern series (we're not talking 19th century here), if there were real-world notability it should be easy to find something online. --NellieBly (talk) 02:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Rick Cook. Uncited, non-notable trivia. --EEMIV (talk) 20:51, 28 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. JForget 03:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Breast caressing

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

Contested PROD that I had to bring here. A user with a long and dedicated history of breast editing has put a lot of effort into this instruction manual. It is, however, only that. Some of my favorite passages include breast-to-hand-size ratios for full effect, and "required breast size" for specific techniques. Steamroller Assault (talk) 22:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as blatant violation of WP:NOTHOWTO (and possible original research). EALacey (talk) 22:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Steamroller Assault and EALacey, as violation of WP:NOTHOWTO and original research. He seems to have *uuhhhh...* conducted a lot of research in this area. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not a how-to manual and no original research. Somehow breasts have turned into WP:BOLLOCKS! A few good WP:GNOME edits by the author to other unrelated articles, though. I suspect a number of sex-related articles are similarly afflicted, as with the edit I had to make to Mummification (BDSM) diff after stumbling upon it. I don't know that I want to investigate further. Шизомби (talk) 23:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Even enjoyable original research is still original research. The existence of a Wikipedia article, like the caressing of breasts, depends upon overcoming another person's objections. Mandsford (talk) 00:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. And in the words of Louis Armstrong, if you need to be told you're never going to know. --NellieBly (talk) 02:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete any useful sourced content could easily be added to the main article. however, i dont see any here. bye bye. and perhaps the user who created this could work somewhere less troublesome. start small, and gentle, work your way up to bigger things, let WP get used to you... oh, i think maybe thats bad advice here.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Preserve.:

This is article is well sustained, it is not instruction but encyclopedic article and no deletion should be applied. Selecting adequate pictures is in process. If needed the article can be expanded with little more information. Merry Christmass!
Smart Sage (talk) 15:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article was revised and edited numerous times last night and the intentions which were - to remove typos, to improve style and to enrich the content, were completed.
What is left is of course to be seen zillion times all over the world for the encyclopedic sake.
You are free however to add or edit what you consider in it, as well as I am.
Merry Christmass!
Smart Sage (talk) 15:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per everyone except the article creator. Edward321 (talk) 02:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per comments above. But, what happened here? On December 28 somebody (76.100.202.245) deleted about 80% of the article's content, leaving little more than a stub. Is that appropriate during an AFD discussion? --MelanieN (talk) 03:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

Deleting article content during an AfD can be done: Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#You_may_edit_the_article_during_the_discussion. Deleting unsourced nonsense in particular makes sense, especially when it is clear the owner of the article did not have and does not care to add sources. Шизомби (talk) 04:34, 1 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Thomas (actor)

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

No references, and I cannot find any sources that support the subject's notability. Therefore, does not meet WP:ENTERTAINER. Singularity42 (talk) 21:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've searched LexisNexis for this actor's name appearing in the same article as the names of his productions. He's mentioned in several theatre reviews, but the most substantial comment about him is "Gareth Snook and Simon Thomas bring actorly depth to their roles" (Clive Davis's review of Make Me a Song in the Times); otherwise he's just named as having played a part. The recent role in Doctor Who is very minor. EALacey (talk) 23:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom and Lacey Shadowjams (talk) 08:48, 29 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Council of Chiefs

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

All the content is present on the Chief Illiniwek page, it is orphaned, it has no sources, and has no content. CuddlySatan (talk) 21:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This minor student organization is discussed at Chief Illiniwek. Additionally this organization is only a group of students at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and is not recognized by the University. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 02:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this mess. It is contradictory, unsourced, and unverified. The sources consist of a nonworking link and a reference to Facebook.

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wytheville hostage incident

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

Just another run of the mill hostage incident. No one died, and nothing Earth changing came as a result of this. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Wytheville, Virginia. This is inappropriate for an independent article (WP:NOTNEWS), but the article about the town would be improved by more information about historical events. EALacey (talk) 23:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, delete. It would be disproportionate for Wytheville, Virginia to include more than two or three sentences on this story, so there's no real need for a merge. EALacey (talk) 23:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are currently 28 news stories cataloged at Google News referring to "Wytheville hostage" over a span of three days. This constitutes significant coverage in mainstream media sources assumed to be reliable per WP:GNG. (Current sources include the New York Times, Atlanta Journal Constitution, CBS News, and other known reliable outlets.) Cnilep (talk) 01:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By today's standards, 28 sites could be all the newspapers in New England. A hostage incident is likely to garner attention, but since nobody died, it really isn't notable. I'm not arguing that people need to be killed in order to make something notable, but most, if not all of the hostage incidents that we have here include a death or two. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Minor local story that is almost the definition of WP:NOTNEWS. 28 articles in Google News does not prove notability; for comparison, there are currently 189 articles in Google News about the extremely minor and totally unencyclopedic snowstorm that hit here yesterday. [11]--NellieBly (talk) 02:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yeah...I created this article, and I left some comments on the talk page as to my views. I noted that I wouldn't oppose deleting it if no more information came up, but given that there are still stories coming out about it at Google News, as noted by Cnilep, it would seem that interest has not gone away, and it would be premature at best to delete the page. And there are still major sources running stories on it. Link to a New York Times article on the incident, posted the 25th-http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/26/us/26hostage.html?_r=1. C628 (talk) 19:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Let's see how things develop. The story is certainly much more than a couple dozen articlces now, numbering in the thousands according to Google. -- Yekrats (talk) 04:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a sad story, but not notable. Luckily, noone died. Bearian (talk) 05:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's news, not an encyclopedia article. Shadowjams (talk)
Weak delete despite the NYT story cited a little above. Relatively trivial news, none the less. !If someone had been killed, I would have voted otherwise. There may be some political implications, but I do not yet see them discussed. My suggestion from this and similar discussions, which have been yielding inconsistent results, is we need to re-consider the meaning of NOT NEWS, and the criteria being used for it. DGG ( talk ) 23:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. Unanimous; article is on main page. JEN9841 (talk) 21:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cookie (cockatoo)

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

A rather trivial article about a non-notable bird. Appears to violate WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ONEEVENT too. WossOccurring (talk) 21:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article has a number of independent reliable sources sufficient to establish notability. MikeWazowski (talk) 22:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article contains multiple non-trivial mentions in reliable sources. Surprisingly, the bird passes WP:GNG with, er, flying colours. --NellieBly (talk) 02:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. - independently sourced my multiple news outlets. Note WP:TRIVIA applies to trivia sections - and not entire articles... nor is it a substitute for WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Madchester (talk) 03:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per others above.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems fine to me. We have articles on the oldest people; I don't see why we can't have articles on the oldest animals, as long as there is enough material to work with. And in this case, there are many more sources that have yet to be incorporated into the article: [12] The bird has been the primary subject of newspaper articles since 1994, if not earlier, so I don't see how NOTNEWS or ONEEVENT applies. Zagalejo^^^ 08:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. - independently sourced my multiple news outlets as noted above. World's oldest psittacine. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and speedy keep – the article is about a cockatoo in its 70s: this is not an event, so WP:ONEEVENT doesn't apply. It's not a news story, so WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply. As far as I know, WP:BIO redirects to Wikipedia:Notability (people), and since cockatoos aren't covered by Wikipedia's notability policy on human beings, that's irrelevant. Out of interest, what would be considered a "notable bird" if not this one? Anyway, the nominator hasn't supplied any other rationale for deletion, and—with the utterly irrelevant link to WP:TRIVIA—this was a bit of a pathetic move, actually. ╟─Treasury Tag►sheriff─╢ 14:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - all my reasons for keeping are covered above. Freikorp (talk) 19:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep multiple sources.Perry Rimmer (talk) 19:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are multiple sources and a 76 year old cockatoo is certainly notable.KMDelvadiya (contribs) 21:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons stated. This bird is certainly one-of-a-kind. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 21:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lets snowball this. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable, multiple sources, oldest of the species, is cute (lol), and so forth. Speedy-close, please? --an odd name 21:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is on Wikipedia's main page, so the ugly deletion banner makes Wikipedia look very bad!!! Keep this and end asap. Nationalparks (talk) 21:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly well-sourced, I doubt that one could call a bird that is the oldest of its species un-notable, an nominating a DYK for AFD reduces presentation. --TheGrimReaper 21:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep User who proposed deletion is mis-interpreting the "trivia" criterion, and the user is incorrect when judging the article to be "non-notable." Analogdrift (talk) 21:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP Passes all notability requirements. And Cookie rules, may he live for many more years.(User:Misortie)--58.141.104.92 (talk) 21:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per above. Connormah (talk) 21:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why was this even nominated? fetchcomms☛ 21:52, 28 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Country Rose

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

Prod removed. A small residential neighborhood is not WP:NOTABLE. Reywas92^Talk 21:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Reywas92. Article creator also seems to have piped Florsheim Shoes to Florsheim Homes as the developer of the neighbourhood. Odd. Wexcan Talk 17:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A "neighborhood" of 91 homes is not a neighborhood; it is barely even a development. Pure spam. --MelanieN (talk) 04:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elmo (Electronic Mail Operator)

(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) 21:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unambiguous advertising: You could call it a Mail User Agent, but it offers much more than traditional MUAs... - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage in secondary sources and not maintained since 2004. Pcap ping 07:40, 29 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 Nomination withdrawn Speedy keep as there are no other users advocating deletion. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Bruggere

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

An unsourced stub on a businessman who failed in his attempt to get elected to the senate in 1996 and has apparently not run again. Article has sat in this condition for two and a half years. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC) Nom withdrawn. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. —Beeblebrox (talk) 20:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agreed, this article is poorly sourced. Many sources exist, however; I'll work on bringing it up to an acceptable level, and be back with my !vote after doing that. -Pete (talk) 20:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even if Pete doesn't clean it up, there are plenty of news articles and book mentions to meet WP:BIO/WP:GNG. tedder (talk) 21:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He'd be notable just at founder of Mentor Graphics; the senate race is extra. Take a sad song and make it WP:BETTER. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 22:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since Beeblebrox' nomination, I've added a good amount of detail, and about 10 sources. This guy's main claims to notability (the founding of Mentor Graphics, his role in establishing the industry of electronic design automation, his very narrow loss running for an open U.S. Senate seat) were all before the widespread availability of news and other media on the Internet, so research has been a little bit slow. But I think at this point, his notability is clearly established, and there is a reasonable amount of completeness and balance in the article. I'll keep working on it, but I think (hope) we're past the threshold of a clear "keep" at this point. -Pete (talk) 02:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good Pete, thanks for the work. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 03:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- on political grounds alone. He was a major-party nominee and lost a close race for a U.S. Senate seat. Kestenbaum (talk) 14:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - even if there were not now a ton of sources, we never, never delete an article because it is unsourced and hasn't improved in 2.5 years. We only delete if the topic fails all notability guidelines, which always includes actually searching for them in a good faith effort before nominating for deletion, see our Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. Aboutmovies (talk) 00:14, 29 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 Close as wrong venue. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nwflight253.jpg

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

This is a bad fair use rationale. This is a high interest news story and the AP makes money by selling images exactly like this. They are loosing out on potential revenue. The picture depicts the whole plane in relatively high resolution. If this were three or four months from now, fair use would make sense. But currrenlty, this jeopardizes the merchantability of this image. I3409234 (talk) 20:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree...Too high resolution for an image to be fair use. Spikydan1 (talk) 21:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This should be a FfD, not AfD. fetchcomms☛ 21:29, 26 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 -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Devil's Child

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

Notability hasn't been adressed since being raised in 2007, and the subject does not seem notable Lissajous (talk) 19:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - appears to have received coverage from independent, third party sources - [13][14][15][16][17][18]. AFD is not for editorial problems. WossOccurring (talk) 21:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just checked the first two of the references you've put here - neither of them seem to mention the subject. The later references are to online databases of films, or links to vendors of videos which unsurprisingly include the subject film but wouldn't seem to comprise "coverage". Lissajous (talk) 00:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have begun improving the article and invite assistance. My own WP:BEFORE has found multiple reviews of the film from 1997 through 2004, most panning the film for its being a poor quality rip-off of Rosemary's Baby... but WP:GNG does not demand positive press. A film can meet WP:N by being crappy as well. And in further meeting WP:NF, the film has had commercial re-release in 2005... 8 years after initial release, and had been aired as recently as 2008... 11 years after initial release. Its a keeper. A pity that it has not been improved since 2007, but so what? If a concern can be corrected with normal editing, per guideline an article does not then somehow merit deletion. Far better to fix it than toss it because no one else did so. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Added additional other-language-title searches. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The reviews found and incorporated into the article by MichaelQSchmidt (New York Daily News, Chicago Sun-Times, The Washington Post, and The San Diego Union-Tribune) confirm notability. Kudos to MichaelQ for doing the requisite legwork. J04n(talk page) 22:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw from AfD Motivation for deletion no longer holds - Thanks for the contributions made, and kudos to Schmidt, for the improvements made to the article. Could an Admin close this now as a keep? Lissajous (talk) 07:25, 28 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ISlate

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

This article is only based on rumours and speculation. If/when Apple releases a table called "iSlate" this article can be recreated. Andareed (talk) 19:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the post to segment the facts from significance of the mark. rabhyanker (talk) 19:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing notable - to quote the article "This trademark would otherwise not warrant mention but for the notoriety it has recently received" notoriety based on rumour and speculation - Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation.. Lame Name (talk) 21:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Numerous notable sources have provided great amounts of insight into this tablet during its 7-year-long development timeline. Either keep the article or move it to Apple Tablet, the name most sources ascribe to this product. White 720 (talk) 01:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An article about tons of rumors around a product with a launch date is notable. Rumors come from high profile news organizations such as Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, etc... The article needs to be clear that it is about rumor. If that isn't done then it should be deleted. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 12:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has many reliable sources and is becoming more notable every day. —Terrence and Phillip 14:01, 27 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. JForget 03:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth "Izzy Bell" Warrenton

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

Only notability is that she was related to Ida B. Wells. username 1 (talk) 19:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She is the mother of Ida B. Wells, but has no claim to notability on her own. Notability is not inherited. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 02:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All the references are about her daughter, not her. Reverse inheritance isn't going to do it. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:07, 27 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. JForget 03:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OpenI

(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) 18:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 18:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, also unambiguous advertising: a Business Intelligence application, designed for web-based use.... an out-of-box solution for building and publishing reports.... - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Besides a blip of media coverage when this was announced (and the wiki article created), there's nothing in google news archive. Pcap ping 07:27, 29 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 SNOW keep. Consensus that the article should not be deleted is overwhelmingly clear; other discussion can continue elsewhere. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Going Rouge: Sarah Palin An American Nightmare

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

Non notable book. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 18:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 18:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. References in article indicate signficant coverage satisfying the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and suggest early snowball close- Sources aplenty showing the GNG is met and then some. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - these "references" are mostly blogs and do not demonstrate how this subject is notable. There has not been signifiant coverage of this text, nor credible reviews. As such the article should be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sites like Entertainment Weekly, New York Daily News, and The Guardian aren't blogs. Joe Chill (talk) 18:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The first is a blog entry, the second only address the subject as part of a larger story, the third source is about is not a review. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Entertainment Weekly is not a blog and the third reference is significant coverage. There is no rule that reliable sources for books have to be reviews. Joe Chill (talk) 18:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Significant coverage-not a blog, significant coverage-not a blog, significant coverage-not a blog, significant coverage-not a blog, significant coverage-not a blog, significant coverage-not a blog, and significant coverage-not a blog. Joe Chill (talk) 18:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:BK. None of the references are blogs. Joe Chill (talk) 18:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note The book doesn't meet these requirements;

The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. The immediately preceding criterion excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book. The book has won a major literary award. The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement. The book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country. The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is him/herself notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of work would be a common study subject in literature classes. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Due to the above standards, the article should be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or merge. Most of what is quoted from is pre-release hype, which I'd discount. But parodies of major works by candidates for high office should be notable, if not individually then at least collectively; this work already rates such a paragraph sized treatment in the main entry for Going Rogue. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 19:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the sources and notability are not sufficient for an article - a merge might be a better solution. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- First you say they are blogs. Then you say it's not enough coverage when it is according to WP:BK. All of the sources are newspapers. Joe Chill (talk) 19:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here's more reliable sources with significant coverage. Joe Chill (talk) 19:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- These references are mostly blogs, other articles mention the book in passing and/or comment that it exist. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Major newspapers are not blogs! Not being a review doesn't mean that it isn't significant coverage. Joe Chill (talk) 20:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: How are Entertainment Weekly, Salon.com, New York Daily News, Huffington Post, MSNBC, Politico.com, Publishers Weekly, San Francisco Chronicle, Los Angeles Times, The Nation, and NPR blogs? Joe Chill (talk) 20:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and suggest early snowball close. Plenty of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. For example, the Today Show staff writes 24 paragraphs about it [19], Roll Call writes about 700 words on it [20], etc. Clearly this book meets WP:GNG as these sources are not simply self-published, personal "blogs" or a "mention [of] the book in passing and/or comment that it exist". Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 20:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly worth keeping What on earth is wrong about the article? It has plenty of reasonable enough references. Cousin Kevin (talk) 23:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ism schmism, may we take your "Thanks" as read? I sense that we've all been thanked quite enough already. -- Hoary (talk) 01:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the notability guideline. It's bad. Quote from above: The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is him/herself notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of work would be a common study subject in literature classes (my emphases). First, what's so special about literature classes? Charles Darwin, for example, is about as historically significant an author as I can come up with. Yet unlike such dreary scriveners as D H Lawrence and Ezra Pound, his work would not be studied in literature classes. Indeed, I suspect that this paragraph is written by some well-meaning person who is blissfully uninformed about literary studies or further education: why else talk about study of the author's life in "literature classes"? -- Hoary (talk) 01:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the notability requirements listed above are standard. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you answer my above question? Joe Chill (talk) 02:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't know which is sillier, the notability requirement or your compulsion to thank. -- Hoary (talk) 02:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Clearly WP:notable, mentioned in multiple Wp:RS and referenced. Per the above overwhelming consensus, discussion should probably be closed. Redthoreau -- (talk) 03:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep good refs, and the writers contributing are significant political writers. this is not a joke book. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:BK by a mile. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 06:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong KEEP. Passes WP:BK, WP:V, and WP:RS. This is a serious work of political writing. This book (ISBN 0757315240), a New York Times bestseller, should not be confused with a book by the same title that is a coloring book (ISBN 0615332773). This book is edited by two senior editors at The Nation. Further evidence of its seriousness are essays contained therein by Gloria Steinem, Naomi Klein, Eve Ensler, Frank Rich, and Robert Reich. The book has received coverage in Publishers Weekly, MSNBC, New York Daily News, and The Guardian, among others. — Spike Toronto 07:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This book is not a parody. The only thing about it that is satire or parody is the title. — Spike Toronto 07:05, 27 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 RMS Titanic in popular culture. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of films about the RMS Titanic

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

Meager, incomplete, too-short list. These individual films are covered more completely in other articles and templates. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If it's incomplete or too short, this can be fixed by editing. Unless a more complete list exists, I don't see a good case for deletion. If such a list does exist it would be helpful to identify it here.--Michig (talk) 18:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with RMS Titanic in popular culture; both articles are incomplete, it would be WP:BETTER to moosh them together than to delete either one. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 18:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Such a Merge looks like a sensible approach.--Michig (talk) 18:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with RMS Titanic in popular culture per Michig. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 19:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and no merge to a pop culture article. I can't say that I understand the nomination. The events of April 15, 1912, have been the subject of many movies, even more so than December 7, 1941 (Pearl Harbor) or November 22, 1963 (JFK assassination). The nominator suggests that there are more films than the fifteen that are referred to here, hence the trinity of meager, incomplete, too short), which is a reason to add. Still, fifteen films out of the last 97 years is a lot. Under no circumstances should this be merged into the mostly stupid "in popular culture" article. Instead, the serious film section of that article can be merged into this one, rather than sharing a stall with the list of hilarious references to the disaster in SpongeBob and The Simpsons and Zack and Cody, etc. Mandsford (talk) 20:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support this approach as well, if the commentary from the "in pop culture" article was merged in with this one; better to give some context for those films that simply a list of names. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 22:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested above. There is already a list of films in that article. That seems like a better place for this list. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 02:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested above. Titanic as a cultural touchstone is notable, but it's hard to see how twisting the untimely deaths of over 1,500 people into a Nazi propaganda piece or a trite, hackneyed melodrama (IMHO) is really any less "stupid" than a mention in Spongebob Square Pants. All are parts of pop culture; there's no need to have separate lists. --NellieBly (talk) 02:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to RMS Titanic in popular culture per suggestions above. Oh how I despise X in Popular Culture articles. :( JBsupreme (talk) 19:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to RMS Titanic in popular culture. Much as I dislike IPC articles, it does already exist and there is no valid reason for two of them, nor is the list so long that it cant cover it in both. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This belongs as part of RMS Titanic in popular culture, not out here on its own. --A1octopus (talk) 13:16, 31 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 SNOW delete as a hoax. Jclemens (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hunni Bunnis

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

Suspected hoax. I can't find a trace of this band or its music outside Wikipedia. I am also nominating Hunni Bunnis Discography. It is largely copied from Pink's discography. The rest is unverifiable. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Either this is a hoax or they are the least notable group ever to have released 6 albums. No significant coverage found whatsoever.--Michig (talk) 16:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both: Hoaxes. Joe Chill (talk) 18:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Zero coverage. I'm going with hoax as well. Gongshow ^Talk 19:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. The given references do not discuss this alleged group at all. The only significant contributors are a SPA (Special:Contributions/Georgejarvis6295) and an anon who is probably the same person. This contributor seems to be trying to create a web of articles including these two and Millie Anchez, which is also up for deletion. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 02:46, 27 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 Reform Party of the United States of America . JForget 01:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reform Party of Texas

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

Non-notable local minor party branch Orange Mike | Talk 04:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons stated above. Eeekster (talk) 04:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Statewide is not local, and worth listing on the basis of having been notable in the 1995-1998 period. -- Eastmain (talk) 17:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See also these Google News hits for the Reform Party of Texas here. -- Eastmain (talk) 18:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- Eastmain (talk) 18:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Eastmain.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And per this result.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Reform Party of the United States of America. This has been done with state chapters of other parties when there simply isn't enough for a stand alone article. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 15:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge to Reform Party of the United States of America per Niteshift36. Bearian (talk) 16:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. If you can find something more to say than "The Reform Party of Texas is the state affiliate of the Reform Party of the United States. David Collison, the party's secretary, is also the national chairman," ... you know, like, "Hey, we put a candidate on the ballot in Texas!"... call me. Mandsford (talk) 20:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Reform Party of the United States of America. Not independently notable, not even in the 1995-98 time range mentioned above. THF (talk) 01:30, 27 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Love Story (Katharine McPhee song)

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

The song fails WP:NSONGS, it failed to chart and is unlikely to grow beyond a stub Aspects (talk) 23:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Aspects (talk) 23:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. It was officially the second single. It was played on the radio and charted in the 60s on Mediabase's Pop chart and a video was made that was played on TRL and MTV Asia. Plus, it sold over 77,000 downloads. I wouldn't say it had high notability, but it seems notable enough as an official single to have its own article as part of information about its album. I'd like to hear other opinions before I decide what to vote. Ducold (talk) 04:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here is a Billboard review of the song [21]. Gongshow ^Talk 00:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Since Gongshow already found at least one reliable source from which the article can be expanded, I see no reason to believe that the article is unlikely to grow beyond a stub. Rlendog (talk) 16:23, 16 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) 03:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 15:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: One source is not enough. Joe Chill (talk) 19:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Keep: Per Gongshow. Joe Chill (talk) 23:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Here are two more sources for consideration. [22][23] Gongshow ^Talk 19:59, 26 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. This discussion has gone on long enough-12 days now; I cannot recall ever hearing such totally irrelevant keep arguments, scarcely worth the refutation & RGTraynor's analysis of the claimed awards seems definitive., DGG ( talk ) 04:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Li Xing

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

fails WP:ENTERTAINER; as a general rule, if your most prominent role is "featured extra" in a film that hasn't yet been made? Probably not notable. Ironholds (talk) 00:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 01:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ if sourcing found. Sure, fails the sub-category of WP:ENT... but his many awards for accomplishments as a martial artist seem to surpass WP:BIO's "has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for one". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC) Struck my provisional keep. Sources were not found. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

notable award or honor. First place at the Takamori School of Martial Arts in Karate is not a notable award unless the school is known, which it doesn't seem to be. Its on the same level as the half-colours I won in 5th form. Ironholds (talk) 08:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations. Since I can only hope for sourcing, I have added this to deletion sorting for martial arts. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're failing to address the problem with your comments here. Please explain, in any amount of detail, how the Takamori School of Martial Arts is a reputable and highly regarded award-granting body? Ironholds (talk) 10:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Though I might guess the school could be named for Saigo Takamori, I do not know who the actual namesake Takamori is nor know the school.... and so I am awaiting input from the experts. Which is why I added this AFD to deletion sorting for martial arts... and why my comment above contained a caveat. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 11:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I searched on "Takamori School of Martial Arts" and the only hit I found was this article. I can find no evidence that his martial arts awards are anything except those presented by a local school. Papaursa (talk) 04:09, 22 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 14:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have not been able to find any reliable sources to support this article. The article itself appears to be self-promotion. Janggeom (talk) 16:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"You shoot that dog!"--Lionmadness (talk) 21:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that you are a new user (based on your edit count), you might like to refer to Wikipedia:Guide to deletion as a helpful guide. I would appreciate an explanation of what you mean by your statement, as it is not clear to me. Thank you. Janggeom (talk) 04:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per the moral saying "You shoot that dog!"--AtlanticDeep (talk) 19:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, would you mind explaining, err.. what the hell you mean? Ironholds (talk) 23:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per AtlanticDeep and the fact that no concensus was reached last time, which is often, by default, a keep anyway.--Lionmadness (talk) 20:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that no consensus was reached does not mean that any future debate should result in keep; otherwise we'd have a double jeopardy rule. I cannot see another AfD; where exactly was this debated before? Ironholds (talk) 23:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was debated earlier this year, just not at the regular Afd venue. "You shoot that dog!"--AtlanticDeep (talk) 01:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1) where and 2) what the heck does "you shoot that dog" mean? And again, a previous debate does not invalidate a second debate, otherwise we'd have a double jeopardy rule. Consider the evidence at hand rather than blindly following the pack. Ironholds (talk) 01:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, it doesn't. I was just pointing a previous debate out that did decide to keep the article, (not at Afd obviously). And how am I "following the pack" when I was actually the first to suggest keeping per "You shoot that dog?"--AtlanticDeep (talk) 02:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring, for a second, that "You shoot that dog" is not a valid argument; I was more replying to Lionmadness, who was following the pack by saying "well the previous debate said keep, so without examining the issue I'm going to go with keep too". Ironholds (talk) 02:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that I haven;t examined the issue. Stop speaking for others. Should I say "Ironholds is here even though he doesn't know what Afd is?" Of couse not. I don't have a clue what he knows and doesn't know in the same way he doesn't know what I know and don't know. Even WP:AGF that was not a good comment.--Lionmadness (talk) 02:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)*[reply]

"Strong keep' per AtlanticDeep and the fact that no concensus was reached last time, which is often, by default, a keep anyway." very clearly implies that you've not examined the article. The comment you've made simply cites a previous discussion and dog-killing as being your case-deciders, nothing about how the article passes WP:ENT or its particular merits. Ironholds (talk) 02:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete You shoot that cat? Wtf is you shoot that dog supposed to mean? This article fails WP:ENTERTAINER, and therefore merits deletion. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 02:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
20-Mule Team Delete: Let's review. This fellow's appeared as an extra in a few films. The article claims that in a martial arts career he suspended before his 18th birthday, he's earned TEN different black belts from a school we can't prove exists. His IMDB page is, in fact, devoid of work. None of the films in which he claims to have worked actually include him in their cast lists, even with the two that have long lists of uncredited performers, and I can't find any evidence that the first two films he claims to have worked on actually exist. No valid policy grounds for keeping this article have been proffered, and in particular I ask MichaelQSchmidt to withdraw his Keep vote immediately; frankly, I'm staggered at a Keep vote based on an assertion of notability on which it's plain not even the most cursory examination was done. RGTraynor 14:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Immediately? With respects, as stated above my keep was provisional. The guideline-based "grounds" for my provisional keep were the assertions of notability through the multiple awards. Wishing to myself WP:AGF, and not being expert on the usually non-notable sport of martial arts nor a reader of languages other than English, I tagged the article for attention of the martial arts wikiproject and hoped for input from the experts. I waited and watched. Sources were not found. So I have struck my provisional keep... but not because you demanded I do so. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - Reply: An assertion of notability is not a ground to advocate Keep; damn near every article at AfD, and every hoax article ever written, does that much. All an assertion of notability does is debar a Speedy Delete. Since AfD's a discussion on the merits of an article, one would hope that people advocate Keep on any claim proven credible. RGTraynor 21:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting Afd discussion with arguing on both sides of the fence for different reasons. But at the end of day, he still won TEN black belts. My !vote shall be Keep.--NiceHotShower (talk) 22:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you cite some kind of policy or guideline, please? The black belts are from a completely unknown school. I could set up the Ironholds School of Pseudo-Judo in my back garden and award myself 42 black belts; that doesn't justify an article on me. Ironholds (talk) 22:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTABLE--NiceHotShower (talk) 22:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

..okay, now please show how that policy applies here, and how having ten black belts qualifies one under WP:BIO. Ironholds (talk) 22:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In all martial arts and similar activity, black belts are held to high honor. Anyone with 10 of them is notable.--NiceHotShower (talk) 22:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Find the bit of WP:BIO that says that or similar. It allows for people who have won important/prestigious awards; you're making the assumption that the school who awarded it is notable. Given that nobody knows anything about it, it's safe to assume that it isn't. Ironholds (talk) 22:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are not understanding. I never said anything about the school being notable. I said that the important/prestigious black belts are notable.--NiceHotShower (talk) 22:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But one can call any award a black belt. If the school is not licensed/important, and is self-run, there is no evidence to show that the black belts are a particularly difficult achievement. Even if they are, thousands of people gain black belts. They are not prestigious awards, and are not covered by WP:BIO. The importance of the school is relevant, since it is linked to how distinguished an award is. If the school is the greatest and most difficult martial arts school in the world, a black belt is more prestigious than if it's Lucky Dragon Karate, which meets once a week above a launderette. Ironholds (talk) 22:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

but he has not won only 1 or 2, he has one TEN! Ten worldwide recognized awards of honor. Anyone in the martial arts knows the high significance of a black belt. Someone with many of them is a high honorable. Meaning, notability!--NiceHotShower (talk) 22:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But again, who awarded the black belts! If it's a recognised awarding body, fine. If it's a disreputable institution, not fine. You seem to be missing the point of my line of argument somewhat. Ironholds (talk) 23:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are actually missing my point. Be it from a school that is not well-known or the most well-known school in the world, a black belt is a black belt. It is an award of honor no matter who awards it. Anyone with many honorable black belts is notable. end of discussion.--NiceHotShower (talk) 23:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, because "black belt" is subjective. If they are being awarded based on a curriculum or exam system devised by some hack and not supported by any certified organisation, how can you say multiple wins of this "black belt" constitutes notability? But on your head be it. I'd suggest getting a better knowledge of how WP:N and the surrounding guidelines work before contributing to AfDs in the future. Ironholds (talk) 23:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was about to suggest that to you. So what are you waiting for Ironholds? You can start reading up on policies now. I can give you a quiz on Wikipedia policies at the end of the week and if your knowledge has improved I'll give you a barnstar. How about it?--NiceHotShower (talk) 23:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't strike that tone. Your reasoning here is at best ignorant of why we are an encyclopedia. Ok he won ten black belts^{[citation needed]}, that still doesn't make the article pass WP:BIO, and unless you can show how it does, I suggest you stop arguing for this article's inclusion. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 00:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Errr ... a mere black belt is not notable in the martial arts world; pretty much anyone who's reasonably fit and dedicated earns one in a few years. To quote from the black belt article, "In contrast to the "black belt as master" stereotype, a black belt commonly indicates the wearer is competent in a style's basic technique and principles ... The shodan black belt is not the end of training but rather as a beginning to advanced learning: the individual now "knows how to walk" and may thus begin the "journey". As a 'black belt' is commonly viewed as conferring some status, achieving one has been used as a marketing 'gimmick', for example a guarantee of being awarded one within a specific period or if a specific amount is paid." Beyond that, there's no evidence that this kid's claim of ten black belts is actually true. A kid earning ten black belts before he's 18? I think it's bullshit myself. RGTraynor 01:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Since the discussion has turned to notability guidelines, it is worth noting that the article's subject currently does not meet any of the five WPMA notability guidelines for martial artists: (1) subject of an independent article/documentary; (2) founder of a notable style; (3) Olympic medallist; (4) finalist in another significant event (note that this specifically excludes internal school events, which all of the subject's events appear to be); and (5) author of significant books on his style. The WPMA notability guidelines do not have any point based on rank. Even if the article had reliable sources to support its current content, it would still fail to meet these guidelines. Janggeom (talk) 03:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This guy does not appear to be notable either as an actor or as a martial artist. --MelanieN (talk) 05:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 03:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will Darke

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

Delete. Non-notable aspiring actor, fails the criteria at WP:ENTERTAINER (only one role). WWGB (talk) 14:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete under A1 - No Context. — Deon ^talk 14:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Young actor not currently able to meet WP:BIO. It has content and context... though yes, extremely brief.. so a A1 speedy does not apply. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:41, 29 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 Gompie. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who the X Is Gompie!

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

Non-notable uncharted album, completely unsourced Rapido (talk) 14:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 15:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not finding any coverage for the album, just a passing mention in this Billboard article. ~~For what it's worth, the album apparently yielded a hit single, "Alice, Who the X is Alice?", which charted in several countries. The song may have better luck supporting an independent article.~~ Gongshow ^Talk 20:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see the song is a version of "Living Next Door to Alice", which indeed has its own article. Gongshow ^Talk 20:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This was indeed an album released. Remember Wikipedia is meant to be unbiased therefore deleting this article would only violate this polocy. Please have a look at this: - [24] This should prove my point. --Cexycy (talk) 01:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article violates WP:MUSIC. Joe Chill (talk) 01:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - How does it? The artist is notable and I have shown you a pic of the album. It is a valid album, by a notable artist. they have a Wikipedia article. --Cexycy (talk) 02:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read the guideline! A picture doesn't show notability. The artist being notable doesn't make the album automatically notable. Joe Chill (talk) 02:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then, it says in a nutshell: A musician or ensemble is notable if it has had some sort of recognition by professional organizations, such as music charts. - Yes Gompie had charted with their version of the Alice song and it made Smokie re-record their own version! A professional organisation recorded and released their album. It probably did not chart in the UK but it probably done ok elsewhere.

Notability is met if the musician has been the subject of a broadcast over radio, television, Web stream, or a similar medium. - Yes again, it was their own version of Living Next Door To Alice which caused other versions of the song to follow and basically their additional "tagline" became well known too. This album is a "bi-product" of such publicity. This is a real album that was released by notable musicians containing their notable song. This album article should not be deleted. --Cexycy (talk) 02:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"This is a real album that was released by notable musicians containing their notable song." That is nowhere in WP:MUSIC as a criteria. Joe Chill (talk) 02:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying that the album IS notable owing to the history behind it and the people too. --Cexycy (talk) 02:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I am saying it ISN'T because the guideline doesn't say that it is. Joe Chill (talk) 02:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It says that albums released generally are notable, so how is this album different? There are articles for albums that were never released in the UK so therefore could not chart there, therefore an albums poor performance (or non-performance) in the charts has nothing to do with it. --Cexycy (talk) 02:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, not always. What it means is released albums by notable artists are usually notable because they have significant coverage or meet any of the other criteria. Joe Chill (talk) 03:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't answered the question. We have established that Gompie IS a notable act, as is the Alice song because of their added bit and all the other recording that are documented in the song article as a result of their work. This album is one of many products of such work, so can you please tell me how this is not notable and the other bits are? Please bear in mind the fact that it may have charted badly is of no consequence. --Cexycy (talk) 04:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:MUSIC thoroughly. Joe Chill (talk) 14:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: To quote from WP:NALBUMS, "All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." This doesn't. RGTraynor 14:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I said before HOW is this not notable? I have already explained why I believe it is. The article you keep mentioning says that the album must have charted in at leat one country. Can you prove it has not? Even if it didn't, it is still notable for the reasons I have already mentioned above. --Cexycy (talk) 23:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I told you how. Read and understand the guideline instead of ignoring it. It's your responsibility to prove that it has charted because you want the article kept. The reasons you gave do not show notability because it ignores WP:MUSIC. Joe Chill (talk) 23:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have read it a few times actually, but I really can not see which parts the article has violated. Can you please help me here? --Cexycy (talk) 20:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - It violates everything! Why do you have so much trouble understanding a straightforward guideline? Joe Chill (talk) 01:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gompie. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Addendum: because the album itself is not notable, but its title is a potential search term. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm in favour of that, it would be a lot better than deleting it altogether. --Cexycy (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The album exists but I can find no third-party commentary pertaining to it. Does not meet WP:NALBUMS or WP:GNG. J04n(talk page) 15:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: How about this article gets merged with the main Gompie one? What do you say about that? --Cexycy (talk) 23:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You can certainly merge any info to Gompie, you don't need permission from anyone to do that and that article would benefit from expansion. J04n(talk page) 04:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After reading the above. Not notable on its own, especially given the auto-redirect issues with the name. Shadowjams (talk) 10:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the band, and put any relevant information into the band's article. Cocytus [»talk«] 01:05, 3 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. JForget 03:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cootie's Bar

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

non-notable flash video games from a defunct site Rapido (talk) 13:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for these flash games. Joe Chill (talk) 15:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I appreciate the author's work in terms of creating and expanding these articles on flash games, this game does not appear to be notable and their arguments on the talkpage seem mostly centered on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS with the comparative article being one they wrote.--Terrillja _talk 16:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't appear notable. Eeekster (talk) 01:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The website given is not defunct and links to the games themselves, therefore supporting the article. These games were (and still are) quite popular. Just because some people may not have heard of them doesn't mean it is not notable. I have already been through this with another nomination on this article and I was successful there, why can't this just be dropped and leave the article alone? If you don't like it, dont read it. You can always improve on the article if you think it's not been written too well as with any other article. Why has this been nominated twice in the space of a couple of days, within minutes of the article being created?????--Cexycy (talk) 01:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your comments never work in AfD because they completely ignore WP:N. When the AfDs are closed, your comments won't mean anything to the closing admin. Joe Chill (talk) 01:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - What is that supposed to mean? --Cexycy (talk) 02:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - It means that AfDs are based on guidelines. Joe Chill (talk) 02:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is quite normal for a deletion debate to be started if the speedy delete request was refused. When an administrator declines a speedy delete it just means that he or she thinks the article should not be deleted out of hand without a debate. It does not mean the admin thought the article should not be deleted at all. SpinningSpark 02:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - What part of the guidelines have been violated here anyway? How is this article about a non-notable issue? Who can say if it is or not? --Cexycy (talk) 02:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline is at WP:N, as has already been pointed out to you several times. It says If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. It is up to you to find the reliable sources that say that. No reliable sources is grounds for deletion under the verifiability policy. SpinningSpark 02:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We don't even need to go so far as the notability guideline; the subject doesn't appear to be even verifiable. A handful of web search hits, none of which are usuable. Marasmusine (talk) 12:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:WEB and WP:N. I appreciate that Cexycy is eager to create articles, but they would survive better if subjects were chosen with an eye towards satisfying WP:RS, WP:V and the appropriate notability guidelines as a prerequisite. Ravenswing 14:33, 27 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. JForget 03:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greatest political gaffes

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

Delete. Original research since claim of "greatest gaff[e]s" is unreferenced. Poorly cited article, collection of random quotes. Contested prod. WWGB (talk) 13:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 13:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well perhaps greatest was wrong on the article title, i a, however quite happy to a name change to political gaffs? Of course such an article would be a random collection of quotes. I had not finished the article when it was nominated for deletion :) hence no links to said quotes. Is there a rule in wp which forbids a collection of gaff`s made by politicans? --mark nutley (talk) 13:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing, should i hold off on any further work on this article until such a time as it has been decided if in is in or out? mark nutley (talk) 13:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You are free to make improvements to the article, even while its under AfD consideration. Digestible (talk) 14:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, inherently subjective list (who decides what's "greatest", horribly misspelled title. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Terrible article. Quotes are not sourced, possibly fictional. Even if verifiable, this stuff is way too trivial for a standalone article. If a politician is especially known for his boneheaded comments then they should be included in the biographical article. Digestible (talk) 14:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I had considered whether there would be room for a similar article called Political Gaffes but any such list is bound to be inherently subjective original research. Maybe try WikiQuote or a similar site for your article ~~WWGB~~mark nutley? Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 14:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my article! I am the nominator ... WWGB (talk) 00:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, had my christmas head on! Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 12:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This can never be anything but a subjective list of quotes, even if sources were provided for each one. Who gets to decide which is "greatest"? The horribly spelled title only makes it that much worse. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As either "Greatest Political Gaffs" or simply "Political gaffs", the article is a pointless piece of listcruff which would become noting but a POV repository. The attribution of any particular quote to this category without proper citations could even amount to libel. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research and a WP:BLP and WP:NPOV violation. I recognize some of the quotes in this article as being inaccurately attributed (i.e. they were not spoken by the person they are ascribed to in this article). I would also note the hubris involved in writing an article about political gaffes and misspelling the title, although that is not itself a reason for deletion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced, although it's probably from an amusing webpage of some sort rather than . It's interesting that some of the quotes that were attributed to Dan Quayle 20 years ago (the one about bondage, the one about Mars, and the misquote of "a mind is a terrible thing to waste") are now being attributed to Al Gore. Yeah, we get it, you hate Al Gore, Gore sucks, etc., now find a reliable source that links a stupid statement to a particular person. Mandsford (talk) 20:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as highly inaccurate attack page full of original research and empty of attribution. Funny thing: Youtube actually has videos of those alleged Al Gore quotes, but most were said by Dan Quayle back in the 1990s. --NellieBly (talk) 02:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well as the majority are on delete i figure i`ll not object :) mark nutley (talk) 12:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete OR and completely subject to any given editors POV.·Maunus·ƛ· 08:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete This article is libelous toward a living person, Al Gore, since he did not say ANY of the foolish things attributed to him on this list. --MelanieN (talk) 05:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Accidentally on Purpose (TV series). Notability hasn't been shown. There is already material on this pilot in Accidentally on Purpose (TV series), so this duplicates existing material. MMetro has the most appropriate solution. SilkTork *^YES! 02:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accidentally on Purpose (pilot)

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

No assertion of notability, and wholly unreferenced so no evidence of notability. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. Subject shows little in the way of notability, plus none of the other episodes has a Wikipedia article. CarrotMan (talk) 13:43, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Peregrine Fisher (see discussion below). The information seems to be available, it just needs putting into the article. CarrotMan (talk) 10:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I have no doubt that the series itself is notable, but I don't think it necessarily follows that each episode of a series is independently notable and warrants its own article. The article as it exists at this moment contains nothing that isn't already in the Accidentally on Purpose (TV series) article - that plot, episode data etc is all copied from the main Accidentally on Purpose article. Sarah 14:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge info into Accidentally on Purpose (TV series). Although individual episodes of a show often have their own article, it is usually after there is enough information to warrant a separate article. If the season that the episode is from doesn't have its own article, at the very least, there is a list of episodes separate from the main article. There's a lot of steps that have been skipped here, and a redirect to whatever is appropriate will be useful to a reader, will discourage the re-creation of the deleted article, but also keeps the article's spot in the hopes that a future Wikipedian can justify its existence. MMetro (talk) 21:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I said in the CfD discussion, there's no notability advanced in the article whatsoever- even an unreferenced claim to be notable. Further, I have looked twice and been unable to find any proof of notability. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 22:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's notable. I added a couple refs, although I only grabbed the smallest amount of info from each. Someone can probably turn those two into about two paragraphs, but I've never seen the show, and don't really care about it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's all very well, but why is it notable? Is the show particularly popular in America? Is the episode significant for some other reason? I realise notability can be something of a grey area, but my feeling here is that this episode doesn't quite make the cut. I'm open to other opinions, though. :-) CarrotMan (talk) 18:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is based on coverage in reliable sources, per WP:NOTE. If a subject has been written about, we write about it. If it hasn't been written about, then our rules say we shouldn't have a stand alone article on it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you've convinced me; there's no denying the existence of sources. Whether there are enough sources yet, I don't know, but I suppose it's a start. CarrotMan (talk) 10:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there's gonna be any coverage of any episode of the show, it will be the pilot, since that is all that the reviewers often have to go on when they review a new show. MMetro (talk) 12:21, 31 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 a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria riisen

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

Delete. Unreferenced, notability not evident, appears to fail WP:MUSICIAN. WWGB (talk) 12:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 12:10, 26 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. JForget 03:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mokka

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

WP:NEOLOGISM with no indication of notability. Unsourced and incoherent article. noq (talk) 11:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 15:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A similar article was created in Tamil a while back -- மொக்கை என்றால் என்ன? and deleted by AfD. However, the content isn't the same, so this doesn't qualify for G4. The usage mentioned in this article is not the primary meaning and nothing beyond blog level content in the article to keep it. Not worth a transwiki to anywhere either. -SpacemanSpiff 15:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now or userfy - there is text thereon that indicates it's still under construction. Bearian (talk) 16:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus appears to delete it. No attempt has been made to rescue it. Bearian (talk) 19:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per spiff. this is a recent slang word, with mostly blog content--Sodabottle (talk) 07:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete as non notable neologism, and I don't care about text saying under construction - this is a wiki, it's all under construction - there is userspace for preparing articles, but articles in articlespace must meet criteria.--ClubOranje^T 07:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough of a slang word for a Wikipedia article. Priyanath ^talk 00:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's a self-confessed neologism. Though it claims to be widely used, I can find no indication of it being so. I don't think there's much chance of it being pushed over the notablity guideline any time soon, so there's not much point in userfying, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 18:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced neologism, no indication of notability. December21st2012Freak ^{Happy New Year!} at ≈ 19:40, 30 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. JForget 03:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tamil Sangam Ireland

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

Non-notable organisation. Google hits go to homepage and Wikipedia, zero Google News. Homepage states that it has formed in 2009, that yearly events will be planned in the future no information on notability based on membership levels or activities apparent in the article or through internet research. SGGH ^ping! 09:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article was today speedily deleted and recreated again. The problem is still the same - no evidence of notability. --Vejvančický (talk) 09:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails criteria at WP:ORG. WWGB (talk) 10:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found zero sources. Joe Chill (talk) 15:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable organisation. There is also a duplicate article at Ireland Tamil Sangam which I have redirected. Snappy (talk) 19:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - anyone wanting to find Tamils in Ireland will use google.Red Hurley (talk) 12:19, 29 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. The arguments for retention (more specifically, meeting the WP:GNG) that I saw outweighed the reasons for deletion. –MuZemike 06:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AFD doesn't prevent renaming from occuring, however, as several users have recommended that. –MuZemike 08:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Manuel Rodriguez (writer)

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

Seems to fail WP:AUTHOR. No real indication of notability other than writing a number of books. What makes this author special or notable apart from anyone else who writes books? No independent third-party refs to establish notability. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 08:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Keep - After some searching, I couldn't find anything that shows he meets WP:ACADEMIC or WP:AUTHOR. Simply having published or simply being a professor isn't sufficient. Additionally, it appears that it's being used as a continuation of an argument over the book Man of Ashes—Salomon Isacovici claims it's an autobiography, and this article claims it's fiction. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 10:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed my !vote—he still doesn't meet WP:ACADEMIC or WP:AUTHOR (really—read them!), but he does meet WP:GNG.
  A tip to later editors: you get very different results depending on whether you search for "Juan Manuel Rodríguez" or "Juan Manuel Rodriguez". Examples: 24 books on WorldCat / 1 book on WorldCat, 139 GNews hits / 3810 GNews hits and 81 GBook hits / 15 GBook hits. At least GScholar gives you the same 17 hits no matter which you search on. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note that many of these googlehits are about different people of the same name.--Slp1 (talk) 19:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly a prolific author and an academic. Per WP:ATH, he would be a dead-cert keep if he had played in just one ballgame at professional level, even if he had been brought on as a substitute in the last five minutes of the game and never got near the ball ... yet here we have a man who is not just a professional academic, but a professor. He has both published widely in his field and been a prolific writer of fiction. Deleting this article whilst keeping hundreds of thousands of articles on sportspeople who have made much much less of an enduring contribution would be crazy. The lack of third-party refs so far is probably due to the fact that he doesn't write in English, so the sources are less accessible to writers of the English-language wikipedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ATH? The article doesn't say anything about him being a ballplayer... it says he's a professor and a writer. Still fails WP:AUTHOR. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 06:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read what I wrote. I didn't say that he was a ballplayer, just that a ballplayer who had accomplished a fraction as much as he has would be an automatic keep, and I am challenging the double-standard. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did read what you wrote. WP:ATH has nothing to do with WP:AUTHOR. The converse of your logicwould be that WP:ATH could be revised to conform to WP:AUTHOR. If you want to revise the guidelines start a discussion at village pump. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 03:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines are descriptive of the understanding of current consensus at they time they were written, rather than prescriptive. If there no consensus here to follow the double-standard, it is not binding; if there are frequent rejections of the guidelines, they need to be revised to more accurately describe the reality of the decisions being made. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (leaning to keep) There seems to be some coverage here. As Dori notes, there is a row over the book Man of Ashes (see the link & Salomon Isacovici). The row seems to be spilling into Wikipedia, eg [25] [26]. Mr Stephen (talk) 14:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added a link to ISBN 0803292783 which has an entire chapter on the controversy surrounding "Man of Ashes". A WP:BETTER article would mention that, but it is hard to argue to delete the entry for lack of notability. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 15:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If it is kept, then this article is going to need some careful and skillful BLP editing. Several scholarly sources e.g. [27][28] make suggestions of usurpation, appropriation and antisemiticism by Rodriguez in the context of the dispute over Man of Ashes authorship and status as a novel/memoir. This last is an issue in Rodriguez article. Man of Ashes is currently listed as 'fiction', with the 'collaboration' of Isacovici which is a highly POV description of the situation. --Slp1 (talk) 19:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually cleaned this last issue up, to my satisfaction at least.--Slp1 (talk) 19:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~Comment~~. Does not appear to pass WP:ACADEMIC or WP:AUTHOR on basis of cites to his works. Only claim to notability appears to be involvement in "Man of Ashes" controversy and that is not dealt with in the article. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. This is a tricky one. While I am conscious about systematic bias here, it is quite difficult to obtain secondary references about this man, which is what we need to write a biography. The article was created, likely by the subject, in order to further an external dispute.See ANI report. The creator of the article User:Hoolio9690 and a sockpuppet User:Wikicrawlproject6969 have been blocked for further edits within the last few hours to protect Rodriguez' POV into both this and the Salomon Isacovici bios.[29][30]. All to say I would argue that this is a BLP article which will be difficult to expand and maintain because both of the lack of secondary, substantial references to the subject, and because, as Xxanthippe, his main claim to fame based on the sources is his participation in a dispute both parties have imported into WP (to a greater or lesser extent). In addition, the published material that there is about this man some very serious allegations, and there is a significant danger of a negative article, given the lack of other information to balance it. These are enough concerns for me to say the article about this man, whose notability is marginal, should be deleted.--Slp1 (talk) 14:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even if the parties imported the dispute there are academic, reliable resources about it and the authors. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 21:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are sufficient reviewed publications to meet WP:AUTHOR. I'm uncertain based on the available evidence to decide about WP:PROF, DGG ( talk ) 23:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note that the subject and creator of the article is now clearly requesting deletion.here, and here on ANI where, as I feared, he is unhappy about the well-sourced material about the Man of Ashes controversy currently in the article --Slp1 (talk) 04:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is clearly notable, if not then the controversy would not be notable. He should not be afraid of the controversy. If he wrote the book as fiction and let it be published as fact that would be much worse.Borock (talk) 08:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The controversy could be trimmed down to a sentence or two. The book was published 10 years ago. Nothing can be undone about it. Borock (talk) 08:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename or delete.it is just a list of his books, he is not notable apart from these books. This so called controversy titillation is being given far too much weight and content space, actually if you remove that you have nothing left apart from a book list. Off2riorob (talk) 14:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's wrong to keep an article about an author that's just a book list if it is somehow understood that he is important in his country. Not strictly WP policy but at least interested people will get some info. Borock (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMO the single books if they are notable could have individual articles which would be better than a list of the books that are not notables being included. Your comment sounds like a rename or redirect to list of books published by Juan Manuel . At this time none of his individual books have an aticle written about them. Off2riorob (talk) 17:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The controversy is what is written about. It's not really our choice to decide what's notable or not, authorities decide for an encyclopedia. The controversy has pages in a couple of books. A list of an author's books is a pretty standard part of the article. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 18:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the controversy is what is written about then rename the article the controversy around the book "Man of Ashes " there is close to nothing biographical about this person , a bio is a life story, this article is a list of books that appear to be not notable and the excessive section as regards this so called controversy from 20 years ago.If the article is kept then this section should be trimmed for weight as the section is 95 percent of the biography.Off2riorob (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename or delete. In case you didn't see this on WP:BLP/N, I am also posting it here for your convenience. These are my opinions:

- The article has been referenced using unreliable secondary sources, including those by Ilan Stavans. The following link concerns the reliability of Stavans: http://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/13/books/be-both-outsider-insider-czar-latino-literature-culture-finds-himself-under.html Stavans attacked Mr. Rodriguez for having supposedly usurped Salomon Isacovici's book Man of Ashes in his book ' The Inveterate Dreamer: Essays and Conversations on Jewish Culture'. Not only are his accusations distorted, but also blatantly false. For example, Stavans claims Mr. Rodriguez was an ex-jesuit priest, but he does not say where he got such information. Considering the NYT article, Stavans is highly unreliable and should not be sourced on this page. Su Di and Cynthia Ozick are just as biased.

- Since I started the article, and now it is filled with libelous information with the sole purpose of denigrating the author, I either suggest the secondary sources be eliminated or the page deleted. After all, the page itself is a stub and has little information. Also,wikipedia does not cover a controversy well if doesn't include any information arguing against the allegations made against Rodriguez. It might be best just to delete it altogether.

Salomon Isacovici - In addition, the page on Salomon Isacovici uses the same unreliable sources to discredit Juan Manuel Rodriguez. There is primary source evidence of copyright contracts which is not being allowed due to Wikipedia's policy of only using secondary sources. Nevertheless, discrediting the primary source information and relying on evidence like that of Stavans is ludicrous! Once again, I suggest that the sources be reconsidered and that either the page be deemed controversial and deleted or allow the usage of the primary source copyright material. As it is currently, there is a lot of erroneous material.

- These two sources are worrisome, as both confuse the existing controversy and harm Mr. Rodriguez by discrediting his authorship of the book 'Man of Ashes' and by sourcing unreliable books that purposefully tarnish the reputation of the author. I can't think of a worse thing for wikipedia to do, than allow disreputable sources and tarnish someone's reputation. Hoolio9690 (talk)Hoolio9690 —Preceding undated comment added 23:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: Despite the fact that many people have participated in this discussion, I am relisting this debate to garner more discussion because of new developments. The creator, Hoolio9690 (talk · contribs), who is also the subject of this article, has requested deletion because he believes that the sources used in the article are unreliable. Above, he "suggest[s] [that] the secondary sources be eliminated or the page deleted". Discussion above is mixed on whether the subject passes WP:AUTHOR; there has been little discussion about coverage in reliable sources — specifically which sources establish notability. There are also concerns that the controversy section is being given too much weight in the article.
Because the subject requested deletion after most of the participants have opined, this hasn't been taken into consideration by a number of the participants of the AfD. Therefore, a relist to discuss whether the subject's request should be granted is needed. Is the subject notable enough to override the request for deletion? Or is he marginally notable enough that the deletion should be granted per WP:BLP#People who are relatively unknown? These questions are why I am relisting this debate for further discussion. Because I am not an administrator, I am open to an administrator overriding this relist and closing this AfD as s/he sees fit. Cunard (talk) 07:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hoolio9690 states that he is not Rodriguez see here. Mr Stephen (talk) 10:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The creator is NOT the subject of the article. Someone just assumed that. It is confusing for people to keep saying that. It was more confusing before he explicitly denied it,[31] but it remains confusing for editors to keeping saying it. So, there is NO subjects request to discuss. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 17:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I apologize for misunderstanding this diff [32] as a claim that the article was autobiographical.--Slp1 (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've undone the relist. This may be closed by an administrator at any time. Cunard (talk) 01:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea

--DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 14:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: At issue seems to be notability. He needn't be notable by academic standards if he is notable by some other criteria. A notable controversy involving academic matters need only meet normal notability criteria. If he was notable for being a parttime clown that would work too even if he is also an academic. There was some concern about BLP, this suggests that some controversy about him exists making it likely he is notable ( assuming these are from RS). Vs athlete, certainly "other crap exists" doesn't help but presumably there are some consistent criteria people are after and some passing consideration may be worthwhile. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 14:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject appears to meet the GNG over well-publicized literary controversy, also making his name a plausible search term. Original deletion rationale doesn't make much sense, in context. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I support the article creators request, delete or rename and create a list of books by the author. Off2riorob (talk) 17:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His notability is well sourced. Deleting and creating a list of books makes no sense. If he's not notable for his books, he's not notable enough for a list of his books. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 18:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the books are notable just that no one has written an article yet. Off2riorob (talk) 18:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but if they're notable, the author is, and if the notability of the book is minor, the discussion should be at the author's page, not an article on the book itself. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 18:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes, Rodriguez has published several books and articles. But noone has produced reliable sources that they have won significant critical attention or has made a significant impact per WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF, apart, that is from this one controversy. Possibly reviews have been published, (in Spanish language sources?), but this needs to be demonstrated before claiming notability for anything other than the Man of Ashes incident. Unless other sources are found, we are basically dealing with a BLP article about a person notable only for one event; the policy specifically points out the dangers of an unbalanced, POV biography where we have very little evidence about Rodriguez with which to write balanced article. Unless other independent sources (reviews etc) appear about the notability of his books, scholarship or the author himself, the appropriate action is to delete the article, especially given that the creator argues for this. Maybe the article could be renamed the Man of Ashes controversy, but given that all the information cited is already in the Salomon Isacovici, it does not seem particularly necessary. --Slp1 (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Books don't usually contain pages about an incident involving a non-notable author. Or, are you arguing that is the case, that the incident is discussed without any of the participants being notable? That seems unlikely. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 01:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm arguing that this man is, based on the sources provided, notable only for this one dispute, which is in itself mainly notable because it involves the possible "suppression" of the memoir of a Holocaust survivor, Salomon Isacovici. Isacovici is notable enough for WP article since a book about his life has been published by a reputable press. In contrast, no evidence of secondary sources (reviews, appreciations, articles) about Rodriguez's other publications or about his life has been found. In terms of the secondary material we have available, he's only notable for the one event, which puts him squarely in the BLP one event frame. So yes, I believe the Man of Ashes incident is notable, but that we don't need an article on Rodriguez himself; our BLP guidelines require us to consider the effect of an unbalanced, unrepresentative article on the life of a living person. In addition, the creator, Hoolio9690, who based on the documents s/he has access to is someone very close to the subject, is arguing for deletion, a desire that I take fairly seriously. --Slp1 (talk) 02:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't reach the same conclusion. The Holocaust survivor is unique among such survivors because he's Romanian and Latin American. His notability arises from a book whose authorship is controversial. The reviewers of the controversy speak about Rodriguez as if he is notable in himself, mentioning that he is well-known for being a Jesuit, and an Ecuadorian educator. They don't, in their discussions of the controversy, dismiss him as a nobody claiming credit for something, as is the case with minor authors who have contributed to say television treatments or songs or books, and then claim the whole thing was their idea. In addition, the press itself could not entirely dismiss him as a ghost writer or entirely dismiss his claims that he wrote the book as a work of fiction about the Holocaust survivor. Hoolio9690 is just one more COI person saying too many things to really follow. It's typical in biographies and company articles: the article has to be one giant screaming bad publicity attachment or they run off pouting, "delete." I'm editing two other badly written articles, badly written for the same reason as this one: serious COI interference with writing the article. And both those pages also have editors who've decided: if wikipedia doesn't write it their way it should be deleted. Waste everyone's time trying to pull a free publicity coup courtesy of wikipedia as if they're the first one ever in the universe who thought of it, then demand the whole thing be gone when they can't use it as easily and effectively as desired. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 02:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not enough to say writers about the controversy "speak about Rodriguez as if he is notable in himself" and/or make deductions from what they don't say. If Rodriguez is truly notable as an author or a professor, it should be straightforward to find secondary sources showing that this is the case. But nobody has found a thing. Not one. Ergo, we have a one event living person, until proved otherwise.

I'm a bit disturbed by the tone and content of rest of your post. Suffice to say that WP is not a game of "fight the COI editor", with articles as the punching bag. In this case, we are talking about the consequences on a living, breathing human of the actions of a family member/friend who now recognizes his/her mistake. --Slp1 (talk) 03:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. General consensus is not towards deletion, and so the merge discussion should be continued on the article talk page. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Asimov's Robot City: Refuge

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

Incorrectly titled, this article is on a non-notable book. It's one of those "inspired by" types that aren't shelved in alphabetical order by author in the bookstores, but relegated to their own little section. No secondary sources for notability exist for this book, the article consists of a regurgitation of the WP:PLOT, and the author is a redlink. Deprodded. Abductive (reasoning) 08:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I had no difficulty finding and adding a source to the article. No consideration seems to have been given to alternatives to deletion such as merger with Isaac Asimov's Robot City and there is no discussion at the article. The nomination thus fails our deletion policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that there is nothing sourced to merge, and the title is incorrect. It is doubtful that the suggested merge target is itself notable. Abductive (reasoning) 18:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Title changes are accomplished by moves, not by deletion. Your other point is puzzling as I already added some sourced content. I'll add some more to be sure. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this wasn't written by asimov. At any rate, fails Wikipedia:Notability (books)Bali ultimate (talk) 20:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Asimov played a significant part, providing the background, continuity and story idea which the guest author fleshed out. As this tale forms part of his major Robot/Foundation oeuvre, this satisfies element 5 of WP:BOOK. Colonel Warden (talk)

Keep I deprodded the article. Granted this series of articles is poorly written, but it does cover a notable series of books by guest authors sponsored by Asimov, as Colonel Warden has pointed out. They are well-known in the Science Fiction genre. Sources are not difficult to find. The article needs editing, not deletion. As a side-note, why is this article being singled out for nomination, as opposed to the rest of the series? Is it singularly non-notable? Plvekamp (talk) 22:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge WP:PLOT seems like a problem here. Overly detailed plot summary and nothing else. WP:RS would be needed with significant coverage of this specific novel, not just a mention that substantiates its existence or provides only a synopsis. Might be better off handled by smerging to Isaac Asimov's Robot City as suggested above and not giving it undue weight. WP:BEFORE is at the moment a best practice guideline, one that is indeed usually advisable to follow, although not a formal guideline or policy. A nomination can't "fail WP:BEFORE." Making it a guideline or policy is something that's been discussed, I believe, something I might myself support. WP:BUNDLE states "for group nominations it is often a good idea to only list one article at afd and see how it goes, before listing an entire group." I did a big bundle of articles all of the same kind with the same problems, and I'm not sure if it was the best way to go about it. Either way, somebody will have an objection. It seems odd that WP:BUNDLE suggests a trial balloon, implying that one might use it as precedent, when precedent isn't exactly respected. It's hard to figure WP out sometimes. Шизомби (talk) 23:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete + merge anything of relevance, this however just seems to be a mass recounting of PLOT. Ryan4314 (talk) 13:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable article. Part of a notable series. Needs some editing though.--Narayan (talk) 20:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. WorldCat [33] shows the work has been translated into French and Spanish--multiple translations are some indication of notability, because routine works are not translated. Adding them will easily provide sufficient publication to be added to the article to increase the amount of RW content. (And I have not even looked for reviews , which should also be done--reception is also RW content.) I completely agree the amount of space & detail in the plot summary is excessive, but that can be dealt with without deletion. Although all this would technically justify an article, it might be wiser to merge it--I think that a reasonable course with derivative works such as this. . It is not correct that there is nothing sourced to be merged, because the publication information is sourceable, and so is the plot, since the work itself is the proper source for that, except for interpretation. DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found no reviews, and the plot is sourced to a single primary source. Extrapolating this notion, all works of fiction could exist on Wikipedia, with every pointless detail of their plot recounted and reguritated. That is why WP:NOT#PLOT was kept a policy recently; to keep exceesive plot regurgitation off Wikipedia. Abductive (reasoning) 08:34, 2 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. JForget 03:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Cooper (broadcaster)

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

BLP of a non-notable person. No independent sources, mostly promotional. ms.⁴⁵ 12:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 08:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He seems to be a legitimate person in the radio industry, but the complete lack of any outside mention of him - from the article or a Google search - makes him non-notable by definition. --MelanieN (talk) 06:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 03:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cymatic Theology

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

Delete. Unreferenced to any reliable sources re expression "Cymatic Theology", original research, contested prod. WWGB (talk) 08:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 10:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Refs claimed seem to be to irrelevant real works (A. Einstein from 1950?) or to probable vanity press. OR concerns seem valid--possible hoax or promotion as well. Jclemens (talk) 19:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverified, probably hoax. Google search turns up only six hits for this phrase, five of which are to Wikipedia pages. I could not verify the existence of a Dr. Mark Pretorius at the University of Pretoria, who supposedly coined the phrase (in fact the name was unlikely enough that it set off my BS alarm). If it isn't a hoax, it is at best an essay or original research. --MelanieN (talk) 06:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
Delete Non-notable theory at best, probable hoax. Edward321 (talk) 14:54, 1 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. JForget 03:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jquarks

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

JQuarks is a relatively new Joomla extension - less than one month old. It has had very few downloads or positive reviews. It is an entirely unremarkable piece of software that has not yet reached sufficient notability to be included on Wikipedia. Furthermore the creator and major contributor to the article is the author of the original software. The subsequent contributor Mahmoud M'HIRI (talk · contribs) is an employee of the software company (according to his linkedin profile). As no third party outside of the software company has made any significant contribution to this article it is safe to assume that this is purely a promotional article and given the major COI that exists I propose that it is deleted. Biker Biker (talk) 08:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 15:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete software appears to be non-notable, and lacks reliable 3rd party sources covering the software. As nomination for deletion states, article may be advert. Dialectric (talk) 16:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur with all of the above. Not much else can be said. Wikipedia is not a catalog of plug-ins and extensions. It doesn't seem notable enough to even include in the article on Joomla. Pcap ping 03:30, 27 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. JForget 03:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stanford solar car project

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

Non-notable student group. OCNative (talk) 07:43, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Makes perfect sense within the context of List of solar car teams, where it's a relatively well written article. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 17:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would note that few of the teams on the cited list have articles. OCNative (talk) 01:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I easily found 4 references to the Stanford solar car project spanning 14 years - two books and two popular magazines. I'm certain there's many more. Most student groups haven't been producing world-class racing machines for 20+ years. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 04:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence that this group is anything more than a group of amateurs operating out of their parents' basement. Gerbelzodude99 (talk) 21:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Patently untrue; you could say that they might be working out of their dorm rooms, but that is not relevant to their contributions to solar car racing. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 04:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gerbelzodude99 blocked as a sockpuppet. 99.34.79.151 (talk) 20:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep well written, meets notability and verifiability guidelines. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not just a random student club; they have some notable accomplishments in solar car racing, as cited. Plvekamp (talk) 04:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of outside recognition for this group; for example, wired.com. --MelanieN (talk) 06:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 03:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stanford Dance Marathon

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

Non-notable student group. OCNative (talk) 07:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, only has three Google News hits, all in the Stanford Daily. Abductive (reasoning) 08:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 18:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Undoubtedly a worthy organization, but notable only on campus. --MelanieN (talk) 06:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 03:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More on ehcp

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

Because my earlier AfD on two articles in one (this being the second) was closed without this article being deleted or considered (yes I know that having more than one article in a AfD is bad practice, but it worked for me in the past, so I'm gonna accept the verdict and create a new one). [34]. Again, Wikipedia is not a guide on how to use software, nor is it a place to copy+paste information from a off-site wiki. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 07:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Add any relevant information to ehcp. Why on earth would we have two (short) articles on the same subject? •••Life of Riley (T–C) 03:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge with the existing article on ehcp. This whole article is ridiculous, starting with the title. --MelanieN (talk) 06:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
Delete This article is almost devoid of conent and doesn't contribute anything new that isn't already in ehcp. OCNative (talk) 02:02, 2 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. JForget 03:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FACES

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

Non-notable student group. OCNative (talk) 07:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 15:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete They've had some very notable speakers, but the organization itself does not seem to have garnered any general notice. --MelanieN (talk) 07:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. or "nomination withdrawn". (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oleg Dineyev

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

~~I can't see how a guy who has not even played a professional game is especially notable.~~ Perolinka (talk) 07:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He played 23 professional league games for three professional teams (Spartak, Shinnik and Khimki) in two leagues that are professional as per WP:FPL (Russian Premier League and Russian First Division). He did not play any professional games in 2009, but that does not cancel out the professional games he played in 2007 and 2008. Geregen2 (talk) 13:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I can't see how nom missed that the Russian Premier League is the highest level of soccer in Russia and is absolutely professional. A casual glance at the article before nomination, please? RGTraynor 14:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm sorry, i missed that.. Perolinka (talk) 14:40, 27 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. JForget 03:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Bicknell

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

I can't really see how a guy who spent 12 of his 18 year American pro career in independent baseball is especially notable. Alex (talk) 06:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Alex (talk) 07:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Alex (talk) 07:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article plainly states that he played for the Taiwan Major League and the Chinese Professional Baseball League, the highest such pro league in that country. That's a prima facie keep under WP:ATHLETE. Ravenswing 14:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per Ravenswing. OCNative (talk) 00:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks substantial coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject, as required per WP:BIO and WP:N. The sources consist of two newspaper articles, which are accounts of individual games in which he pitched (that is, not substantial coverage), a team website (not independent of subject), a statistics site (not sufficient to establish notability per WP:BASE/N and WP:NOTDIRECTORY), amd a blog and a wiki, which are not reliable sources per WP:SPS. Highest level of play was 1-1/2 seasons in Class AA (in 1993-94), two steps below the majors. Text of article (e.g., "Thankfully for Bicknell...") suggests it's largely a vanity piece. BRMo (talk) 04:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ravenswing.. participation in top level foreign leagues. Spanneraol (talk) 21:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Often "top level" foreign leagues are no better than our minor leagues. Furthermore, maybe they're worthy of articles in that language's (Chinese, etc) Wikipedia, but not this one. Alex (talk) 16:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responce Your opinion is contrary to precedent and policy, Alex. Spanneraol (talk) 17:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd be interested to see how far you'd get with filing an AfD against a player who'd just played in Major League Soccer, on the premise that the caliber of soccer isn't that of the Premiership. Ravenswing 18:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, it's not my fault it's a stupid policy. There are some "top pro leagues" in other countries that are no better than our A ball, but by that precedent we should have articles for each of those players. See the German Bundesliga, the French Division Elite and the Baseball Philippines. Furthermore, we in America know, care about and follow Major League Soccer. How many Americans say they follow the Taiwanese baseball league? Alex (talk) 12:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a lot fewer than Taiwanese who care about it, which is a better parallel, and a lot more than Europeans who follow MLS. In the meantime, however, if you're asking "Are those players really eligible for articles?!?!?" my answer would be "Well, yes." Sports notability standards aren't based on picking a single league in a particular sport and declaring all other leagues substandard; doubtless, for example, the Mexican national figure skating champion wouldn't crack the top twenty at US Senior Nationals, but that's irrelevant. Now if you think it's a stupid policy, feel free to amble over to the appropriate talk pages and try to get consensus for your position. Ravenswing 13:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Ravenswing, playing in a professional Asian league is enough to establish notability. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:46, 31 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. JForget 03:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete capitalism

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

Miniature article about what appears to be a Marxist perspective on the information-age economy. No evidence of significance — let alone notability; prod was removed by IP without comment. Nyttend (talk) 05:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone could find any source, anywhere, that mentions "Obsolete capitalism", then we could always merge the single small paragraph there into the Capitalism and/or Marxism article(s). I don't see anything relevant listed on Google though, so I'm guessing that this is someone's original research. In the meantime, I at least cleaned up the paragraph slightly.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 06:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think Sam Bowles has done some work on this idea, but I don't believe he used the term "Obsolete capitalism" (except perhaps in passing). I also don't think it has much to do with what's in this article. 24.177.35.216 (talk) 22:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. OCNative (talk) 00:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as barely intelligible. The concept in its own right does not appear to be notable. Drmies (talk) 16:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, dicdef, neologism. Hairhorn (talk) 10:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced original research. Edward321 (talk) 03:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JForget 03:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Goma

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

Only notable for one event WP:BLP1E. Although the incident received media coverage, there is no notability beyond the single event. There hasn't been a update of this guy in years, indicating WP:RECENTISM-Coasttocoast (talk) 04:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable and well sourced. Badagnani (talk) 05:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the interview incident led to a brief period of fame, there's plenty of coverage, and the article is well-sourced. No reason to delete.--Michig (talk) 07:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A well written article, well sourced and comprehensive. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 18:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, consider renaming to reflect the event which is already the main focus of the article. There is currently no separate article about the event, which is notable enough for an article. Cassandra 73 (talk) 20:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We may as well Keep, ~~but I don't real all that strongly about it.~~ -----J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently this story is still occasionally mentioned in the media, as recent as September 2009: [35], [36], [37]. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This one was only two weeks ago - [38] Cassandra 73 (talk) 10:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - though maybe consider Cassandra 73's suggestion. And I know it was a repeat from 2006 but Guy Goma was on the TV no less than five minutes ago, which is the reason I came to the article. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm exactly the same as AnemoneProjectors and came here because I also just saw him in the repeat of Big Fat Quiz of the Year 2006 and came to the Wiki article. ZX81 ^talk 00:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to renaming in theory, but I can't think of anything that wouldn't make the article harder to find. -----J.S (T/C/WRE) 03:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the exact same reasons as before: "Notable and verifiable, everything is referenced. I don't think the transcript is appropriate, however." -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 15:59, 30 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.

The Google books and scholar links do not point to books exclusively dedicated to this topic, but to such works as "Class, Politics, and Ideology in the Iranian Revolution and "Oil and Law in Iran". Editors who feel that an article about such a topic provides a better place for the 1933 agreement are encouraged to expand or write such an article, including a substantial coverage of content that is independent of the APOC/AIOC article. In doing so, text portions that are not germane to APOC, such as section "§ Coup", should be moved to the new article, if applicable. — Sebastian 04:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 1933 Agreement of Iran

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

Content fork of Anglo-Persian Oil Company#The D.27Arcy Oil Concession written by an SPA, apparently as a term paper. I've tried redirecting it and prodding it but the author just reverts and I want to avoid an edit war. andy (talk) 15:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC) andy (talk) 15:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: per WP:CFORK and WP:UNDUE. I see attempts have been made to get the creator to talk ... RGTraynor 16:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. While there are issues with the article as it is currently, the 1933 agreement is a very notable subject, worthy of its own entry (and it has its own entry already in some printed encyclopedias). A quick search on google books will find that it features prominently in several books, and that there are works written entirely about the 1933 agreement and its repercussions- lots of research material available if someone wants to improve the current article. The AFD nominator thinks that the 1933 agreement should be solely covered within the article on APOC (one of the parties involved in the agreement). I strongly disagree. --Brunk500 (talk) 16:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It has its own entry in encyclopedias? Which ones? RGTraynor 17:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment: moveover, the material in the nominated article is properly set in context in Anglo-Persian Oil Company and forms the bulk of that article. The 1933 Agreement of Iran is pretty much a rewrite of Anglo-Persian Oil Company with the emphasis switched from APOC to the 1933 agreement. andy (talk) 17:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These 545 books and these 83 scholarly papers cover the subject. This is an international treaty with widespread effects that go far beyond one particular company, and are still being felt today in the mutual distrust between Iran and the West. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - nobody said otherwise. The point is that this article duplicates the content of another, better one! andy (talk) 00:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Andy people are aware of your reasons for nominating, we just happen to disagree. to provide a ludicrious example - what if WW2 was covered really well within the germany article, and the WW2 article itself was more problematic. would we delete ww2? --Brunk500 (talk) 15:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is obviously yes if it was a content fork as defined at WP:CFORK. Particularly if it was also POV and OR. I can't for the life of me see what this article adds to WP. If we do need a separate article then the relevant material should be taken out of the APOC article and used as a basis - at least it is well written and neutral. andy (talk) 16:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
this is from WP:CPFORK "Articles on distinct but related topics may well contain a significant amount of information in common with one another. This does not make either of the two articles a content fork. " COntent forking is more relevant to people gaming the system to create duplicate articles with different names- however APOC and the 1933 agreement are NOT the same subject --Brunk500 (talk) 05:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a misleading extract. The very next sentence in the same paragraph says: "As an example, clearly Joséphine de Beauharnais will contain a significant amount of information also in Napoleon I of France, this does not make it a fork." This is obviously irrelevant - in this case we're not talking about Napoleon and Josephine, who were two different people, but simply two perspectives on the same issue - as if, for example, we had articles on "Napoleon and Josephine" and "Josephine and Napoleon"! The more relevant paragraph is Wikipedia:CFORK#Accidental_duplicate_articles which deals with cases where a duplicate article is created in good faith (but ignorance), as in this case where a student has been tasked with creating an article about the 1933 Agreement. The paragraph says clearly that "Regardless of whether he or she deliberately created the fork, the result is the same: the content should be merged back into the main article". andy (talk) 00:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BTW I notice that the author of the article, who clearly states in the very first edit summary that it is OR, worked for a period of two hours more than a week ago and has not been heard from since, in particular not playing any part in this debate. What are we getting bothered about? It was written as a classroom exercise because Professor P. Valenti said so and nobody really cares any more. Merge or delete the darned thing. andy (talk) 00:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nominator Editors need to see wikipedia pages 2 or 3 dimensionally rather than one dimensionally, and realize that merging is much more preferably than deletion, because the edit history is still intact. Ikip 00:52, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom Its apparently a homework of some random student, clear and simple... Thus it could be presumed that the author simply opened Wikipedia and created the article, without checking if similar content already exist, and won't accept others' edits whatsoever because he need to do it himself to complete his work... Nevertheless, this could reasonably be considered a good faith contribution, and deletion might be inappropriate. Better merge instead. Blodance (talk) 15:36, 26 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 List of Battlestar Galactica objects. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FTL (Battlestar Galactica)

AfDs for this article:

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

A collection of OR, SYNTH and plot regurgitation; refs are to wiki articles and a busted glossary link. delete. Jack Merridew 04:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 04:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So what's changed since the first nomination? Is it just that BSG is now off the air? Jclemens (talk) 05:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
: I looked and saw that not much has changed; the article 2 ½ years ago was also a heap of unsourced, non-notable OR/SYNTH/PLOT that should have been deleted then. Oh, well. Let's get it right this time. Jack Merridew 05:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trim down and merge to List of Battlestar Galactica objects. People will come looking for this information, but the article as it stands has the problem of being a plot recap. A streamlined paragraph will convey the relevant information nicely. -- saberwyn 23:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to the list article per Saberwyn. It might live as a stub, but there's enough stuff here to properly integrate. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above. Doc Quintana (talk) 04:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to List of Battlestar Galactica objects#FTL Drive; the entry there already covers the topic in sufficient detail. --EEMIV (talk) 04:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to List of Battlestar Galactica objects - is a valid search term so folks will come looking for it (i.e. redirect rather than delete). Given on what is there, merge is best option currently, but if more critique/physics comes up might stand alone. Some sort of Faster-than-light article on fictional material (as it is a very common plot element) might be good too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:28, 28 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. JForget 03:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pepperpot (Monty Python)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Pepperpot (Monty Python)

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

This article is redundant, as nearly everything that is said here is already stated in the main Monty Python's Flying Circus article, as well as in the Monty Python article. What little that is not already said could easily be added, which amounts to names of some characters, if it was felt the information is necessary. The article has existed for 3-and-a-half years with little improvement, and has been tagged as unreferenced for more than a year. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That an article hasn't improved much in X years or referenced after being tagged for X years is not evidence it couldn't, but even as a Python fan I have to agree there's not much WP:RS could say about these characters, for a general encyclopedia anyway. Google Books (including a Monty Python Encyclopedia) and Google Scholar if anyone wants to look for substantial coverage. It's been mirrored by the Monty Python Wiki, so they have it if they want it. I guess it could be merged to List of recurring characters in Monty Python's Flying Circus or a Glossary of Monty Python could be created following WP:WPGLOSSARY but I am not inclined to create one myself. Шизомби (talk) 00:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The list article, of which I was not previously aware, seems like a good candidate. But, as I say, the information is already covered in the Flying Circus article. It seems superfluous as an independent article. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete: unnecessary independent article already well described in Monty Python's Flying Circus. ww2censor (talk) 15:42, 29 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. JForget 03:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Misty Giles

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

Not notable. Unsuccessful small-time pageant contestant, unsuccessful reality TV contestant kicked out very early in the season. Bueller 007 (talk) 02:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, extremely minor celebrities aren't notable. Nyttend (talk) 05:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable enough as either a contestant on Survivor or as a beauty pageant competitor. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:40, 30 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. JForget 03:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Potrace

(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) 02:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 02:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-known font tool. Described in standard tech book in this area [39]. Pcap ping 03:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC) Also described at even more length in this French book. Pcap ping 03:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pcap. « D. Trebbien (talk) 01:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a well-known tool. Destynova (talk) 01:07, 28 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. Joe Chill (talk) 14:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Donkada Patnaik

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

I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 02:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He appears to be a significant figure in the history of the Communist party in India; you may have an easier time locating sources under his name DBM Patnaik. The entry deserves to be WP:BETTER, not removed, since Wikipedia's coverage of this area has gaps. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 02:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 02:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. - Eastmain (talk) 03:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article seems to represent significant coverage: Nagbhushan Patnaik and His Political Legacy, by Sumanta Banerjee. Economic and Political Weekly. October 11, 1998. p. 2775. - Eastmain (talk) 03:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This appears to be a difficult one, especially given the multiple variations of his name in use. However, this gbooks search shows that many of his court cases are discussed as significant points in the Indian legal system, especially the one on "the right to life and liberty" as applicable to convicts. In addition, the source above from Eastmain marks him as one of the two most important leaders of the naxalite uprising. I think a pretty large article can be written based on the many sources available, but the current version ought to be stubbed first (I'll take a stab at it). -SpacemanSpiff 05:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. notable leader of the Naxalbari movement.--Sodabottle (talk) 11:06, 26 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 A9. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Invictus (Daniel Gray album)

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

Album by non-notable musician who is himself up for AfD. Since its July release, the only review is by a LGBT website which fails as a reliable source. A Google News search for “Daniel Gray” + Invictus returns zero hits, and there is no evidence for either the album or the performer beyond a handful of local LGBT websites and blogs. The album was released on an obscure indie label, has not charted and has won no awards. Fails WP:V, WP:N and WP:MUSIC. RGTraynor 01:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 02:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Boleyn2 (talk) 17:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the review cited in the article is a blog submission from a non-professional reviewer, can find no coverage of this album in third party, independent sources, fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:GNG. J04n(talk page) 15:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I just nom'd it as a {{db-a9}}, as it fits that criteria. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 22:20, 29 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. JForget 03:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lysterfield Park

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

It looks to me that this park is not notable. It currently does not have any real sources, and I'm not sure it ever will. It should probably be a section in a list of such places. Becritical (talk) 23:52, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I haven't carried out a search for sources in any depth, I would have said this is one of the more significant bushland parks in Melbourne and would certainly be notable. It is managed in conjuction with neighbouring Churchill National Park so perhaps it could be merged there? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added two references. - Eastmain (talk) 04:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks sufficient to me. Part of the reason for having sources is of course so people can see how important/notable it is. It looked to me like a nothing..... a city park or something, which might not be mentioned anywhere. I thought someone just put up the article because they live right beside it. Becritical (talk) 22:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article is now a tidy, referenced stub and the subject appears notable. Wexcan Talk 17:24, 31 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. JForget 03:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sunrise on Eagle's Wings

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Sunrise on Eagle's Wings

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

Non-notable high school TV show. Notability is vaguely claimed not demonstrated.No indication that it is broadcast outside of the school. Unreferenced and unverifiable. May also be an element of vanity in the long lists of names. DanielRigal (talk) 00:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 00:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 00:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Radio and TV stations and programmes of schools, colleges, hospitals, shops, chicken factories, otter sanctuaries and others assorted are not notable beyond their parent institutions unless they have multiple non-trivial secondary sources that give reasons why they are. None in this case. --A1octopus (talk) 16:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hats off to the folks that made this such an in-depth article, but "its status as one of the very few daily live television productions produced by high school students on a daily basis. It is also one of the longest established" doesn't really meet the bar for notability, I don't think. I'm not really finding any significant coverage by reliable third-sources either, so that leads me to vote for deletion. Cocytus [»talk«] 02:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JForget 18:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Global Network for the Forecasting of Earthquakes

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

This article appears to fail the test for notability per WP:NOTE lacking any reliable sources - most of the material is published by this or closely related organisations. Mikenorton (talk) 18:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain This seems to be a major international project [40] but I am having a surprising degree of trouble finding third party references.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 04:33, 12 December 2009
Keep References and files from independent sources of the information have been added.--Ismail Valiyev (talk)12:58, 17 December 2009}}(UTC)
Keep This article is about non-governmental organization which was established in 2008. That's why no wonder that Google finds so little results. Wertuose (talk) 17:58, 17 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) 03:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 00:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep References had been added and the article is not lacking sources.--Melikov Memmed (talk) 16:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References had been added and the article is not lacking sources.--Cekli829 (talk) 11:27, 29 December 2009 (UTCek)
Keep I do not see any reason for article deletion.--EIC (talk) 13:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Facts are enough.There is no reason for article deletion.--Wosco (talk) 13:46, 29 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) 21:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tristan Dare

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

Not notable in reliable sources Cynof Gavuf 11:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:48, 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, Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 11:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 00:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the websites might be notable, but I don't think the hoaxer is. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete not enough evidence that this is a single anon hoax artist. refs are not very substantial. anyone could call themselves this now. i would wait to see if any more hoaxes reach notability. seems self promoting.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's international news coverage including the NYT which seems ample to establish notability. Note also that the AFD is broken - there's no tag. no discussion on the talk page, no search has been done. Relisting this three times without checking out the basics of the nomination is poor. Please see our deletion process and speedily close nominations which do not satisfy it rather than cluttering up AFD with half-baked drive-bys. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: and merge relevant content to the Radovan Karadžić and Scarlett Johanssen articles. I'm with Mercurywoodrose; there's no genuine evidence this isn't some copycat name, and I can't see that this hoaxer - even if it is the same fellow - is notable beyond his interaction with the other subjects. RGTraynor 14:01, 27 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) 21:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

InBio.be

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

Doesn't seem to be notable enough for inclusion, article's creator (or creators) has the username Inbiostaff (talk · contribs), suggesting WP:COI. Google hits don't turn up anything useful, and it fails the general notability guideline and WP:CORP (I think CORP is the most relevant guideline, but I may be wrong). Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 14:39, 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) 03:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update - Creator has (quite rightly, I suppose) been renamed User:Wilsonrty, just in case that was confusing anyone, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 19:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 00:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of sufficient coverage to demonstrate notability. ~ mazca ^talk 02:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, more an ad than an article. Not much coverage to indicate notability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:19, 26 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) 21:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Gray (writer)

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

I can find no evidence that this TV writer/producer meets WP:BIO guidelines. Article has been deleted via PROD in the past. Gonzonoir (talk) 14:23, 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) 03:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 00:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, having a look at his IMDB profile, it doesn't look like he's made a particularly large contribution to The Paul O'Grady Show, nor any other programme. I was not able to locate any news or press coverage of this person, either. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:18, 26 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) 21:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blake O'Leary

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:ENT. does not qualify because of 1 TV role. in any case he gets a mention in the character Ben Kirk's article. nothing really in gnews on this person [41]. LibStar (talk) 12:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the 1 TV role.Polarpanda (talk) 12:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 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) 03:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You'd think that his being in 214 episodes of Neighbours from 2007 through 2009 would have generated some sort of press... but then, Australian actors and productions rarely get searchable coverage unless they do something in the U.S. or UK. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

google news does include all major Australian newspapers. LibStar (talk) 01:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it does not. Could you advise what database might? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. My own research has found Web Wombat, Google Australia, and Colossus. We'll see if I can get lucky. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you could try google for domains: abc.net.au , smh.com.au , news.com.au LibStar (talk) 07:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More homework? I do appreciate the leads, thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable enough. - Shiftchange (talk) 16:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 00:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Well, I've done the homework - all thirty seconds of it - and, as it happens, there are zero hits on Google Australia's News for "Blake O'Leary" + Neighbours, as well as zero hits for O'Leary without any additional search terms on the current month. I believe this is a case - as, indeed, all AfDs theoretically are - where the burden of proof is on anyone wishing to retain the article. Ravenswing 13:53, 27 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. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard S. Schmidt

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

Subject is a U.S. Bankruptcy Judge, a level of federal judge hired by the local District Court, rather than being appointed by the President. Our recent history has been to deem U.S. Bankruptcy Judges not inherently notable. There is nothing at all in this article to indicate any other basis of notability for the subject. bd2412 T 04:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The reason I added this stub was that Judge Schmidt presided over the final stages of the bankruptcy proceedings for ASARCO, which was the largest environmental-bankruptcy settlement in U.S. history ([42] for an account of the settlement; [43] for Judge Schmidt's involvement). I don't know whether including this on his stub would be sufficient to meet the notability standard; if so, I'll be happy to do it. If not, go ahead and delete the article. Please respond to this post though, because I'm going to wait to expand the stub until I hear whether someone thinks it should just be deleted anyway. W.stanovsky (talk) 19:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has this judge participated in other cases of this scope? It seems from the articles that, although the ASARCO matter is substantial, the judge's position was essentially advisory - he examined the evidence and made recommendations to the District Judge, who has the power to make the actual decisions. Is this an accurate assessment? bd2412 T 19:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, the point really is that there has never been a similar case of that scope, but he also worked on the bankruptcy of Pacific Lumber Company (also referenced at Mendocino Redwood Company) a few years ago (see [44], for example). I'm not deeply invested in this article though, and I'll happily defer to the judgment of more experienced article-deletion-considerers than myself. W.stanovsky (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even involvement in a case of historic magnitude does not automatically make a participant notable. Surely the District Court judge who had the final say in the matter had law clerks who researched and produced draft opinions. But it is the District Court judge alone who decides what to do with the recommendations of the magistrate, and the research from the clerks. bd2412 T 18:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 00:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, a public servant doing their job. I've no doubt that he does it well, but that doesn't mean that he's notable. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Comment - can any of you find more sources? Bearian (talk) 16:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources for what? Even if everything claimed about this person is true, they are still not the final decision maker in any matter. bd2412 T 17:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  - I'll take that answer as saying there are no sources for him. Delete. Bearian (talk) 05:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with United States bankruptcy court, Southern District of Texas. I looked in Judgepedia for an entry for Schmidt, and he doesn't have one there; if he's notable enough to be in Wikipedia, he should first at least be notable enough to get an entry there. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 19:09, 26 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 / keep. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia Costa

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous (recent) AFD was closed as no consensus/keep after an editor who favored deletion made a joke "keep" !vote, see DRV here [45]. DRV endorsed original close, calling for another AFD. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I noted in the 1st AFD that the article made an assertion that she was a playmate in Playboy Mexico, and in the DRV someone confirmed that with a link. My question before, as now, is whether that is sufficient for notability.--Milowent (talk) 05:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the applicable language in WP:PORNBIO is intended to refer only to playmates from the US edition. Playboy has about 40 national editions outside the US, but those generally don't generate the level of coverage needed to satisfy the GNG. And I don't believe that non-US centerfolds are included in the pertinent categories, either. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 06:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 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) 03:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 00:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the main claim to notability (being playmate) is unsourced, and the acting roles appear to be quite minor. Does not seem to meet WP:ENT at this point. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Weak Keep: Err ... it took me all of ten seconds to find a JPG of the November 2009 cover clearly stating that Costa was, indeed, the POTM in that issue [46]. Ravenswing 13:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which is not the cover of the main/US edition, and therefore is not sufficient to demonstrate notability. The Playmate for November 2009, as the term is used in the relevant guideline, is one Kelley Thompson [47]. Note, for example, this listing of 2003 playmates for the Mexican edition of the magazine; only those who appeared as US centerfolds have articles and are included on the relevant lists/categories. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's an interesting premise. What makes a PMOM from the US edition notable, and one from the Mexican edition not? I'd be interested in you directing me to the guideline stipulating so. Interestingly enough, criterion #3 of WP:PORNBIO is "Is a Playboy Playmate." The Playmate article doesn't stipulate "American editions only." Ravenswing 16:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's clearly a consensus usage. All of the relevant categories using "Playmate" in the title limit the included articles to US edition playmates, as do all of the relevant lists. (I won't say one might slip through here or there, but I haven't seen any.) In the substantive articles, every listed Playmate has appeared in the US edition and the only date references are to the US editions. From the Mexican edition listing I messed up/left out of my earlier post [48], it's eas to see that only Playmates with US edition appearances (eg, Marketa Janska) are categorized/listed as "Playmates"; the others generally don't have articles, and aren't otherwise listed in related articles without some sort of Playboy US publication. If you check this listing, you see more than a dozen different November 2009editions of Playboy (and there are clearly even more), each with their own Playmate [49]. On a parallel, Tanja Szewczenko, an Olympic skating medalist who appeared only in the German edition (twice), isn't included in any of the relevant Playboy lists, and has only one (qualified) mention in the Playboy articles. I think the standard practice is well-established; perhaps it would help to modify the text of the guideline to reflect what has been previously undisputed in practice. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep in agreement with User:Ravenswing. Being in a version of Playboy does not nessessarily make one a porn star, as many playmates have never been in porn films and many porn actresses have never been in Playboy... so I'm comfortble falling back upstairs to WP:GNG for her meeting WP:BIO. But isn't the Spanish version of Playboy published by the same folks who publish the United States version? If the two apples grow from the same tree, perhaps we shouldn't be so Anglocentric here on en.Wikipedia, as Spanish notability is notability none-the-less. Anyone from Project WP:CSB care to offer an opinion? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"But isn't the Spanish version of Playboy published by the same folks who publish the United States version?" This generally isn't true for Playboy's international editions. The US company licenses trademarks and content to an independent partner, which creates the magazine independently. See, for example, this article/interview, which says clearly that each "edition" is really a separate magazine, "It will be created by a [local] staff and for [local] readers." As the articles on the Brazilian and Japanese editions point out, these editions are franchises put out by different publishers; they shouldn't automatically WP:INHERIT notability from the parent, and certainly shouldn't serve as conduits to pass the original notability on further. It's not a systematic bias issue, but reflects the relative prominence of the magazines in their respective markets. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Fair enough. What is your basis for assuming that Playboy is a significantly less important magazine in Mexico (say) than it is in the US? You suggest that leaving out any references to foreign Playmates is due to consensus, but that implies a definite decision was made to do so and that the subject was actually raised. Was it? Ravenswing 21:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even ignoring en.Wikipedia's Anglocentricism, it would seem a non-English version of Playboy magazine, because of its editoroial staff and expertise in context to the subject they present, should be seen as meeting the long-established guidelines for considering contextually reliable sources.... even if non-English. If that might be grudgingly conceded, the subject's notability would then seem to meet the WP:GNG's "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article," and even meet notability through WP:PORNBIO as a Playboy Playmate, no matter what country or language. Certainly, if the caveat in WP:PORNBIO had been written primarily by non-English-language Wikipedians, it might have stressed that non-English sources could be considered. That its editors were presumedly mostly English-language Wikipedians, I do not think we may assume that their not being more precise means that the United States version of Playboy is the only one that can be considered reliable in this context. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that was my take. If people want to tighten up PORNBIO to define #3 as US Edition Only, I'm sure they can do so, but lacking explicit consensus on the subject, I can't imagine defining a consensus that hasn't yet existed. Ravenswing 23:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But Playboy magazine is explicitly defined in its article as "American men's magazine," and all the related list articles and categories relate to the American edition only. There's a strong consensus practice here, and the burden of changing the standing interpretation, which was entirely noncontroversial until this AFD, should be on the editors who want to change it. There's no "definite decision" to point to because this was generally accepted, with no contrary opinions expressed. Comparing the coverage for the Mexican playmates with no US edition or US-internet publication is exceptionally limited --just using the listing I pointed out earlier, the February 2003 M-PM has only 84 GHits, March 2003 8180, April 2003 411. The corresponding GHits for the US-PMs: 26,600; 37,000; 229,000. (The January M-PM has an excessively generic name to search.) There's just no basis for believing that non-US edition Playmates generate significant coverage. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Except, of course, the International Editions section of that article, as well as the factoid "The oldest playmate ever to be in the Playboy magazine is the Dutch Patricia Paay," who appeared in the December '09 Dutch edition, the celebrities listed for foreign editions, the extensive discussion of underage Playmates in the Playboy Playmate article which highlights those Playmates in foreign editions where the age of consent is under eighteen, and that your assertion that criterion #3 = US Edition Only is "generally accepted" lacks the slightest bit of evidence beyond your personal opinion. Ravenswing 00:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That "factoid" is inaccurate and was added just a few days ago, and should be removed; Patricia Paay is not a "Playmate" in any December 2009 edition or any other date; see for example here [50]. The "discussion" of underage Playmates is limited to Playmates who appeared in the US edition, some of whom appeared in other editions, some of whom didn't. When you look, for example, at List of people in Playboy by birthplace, List of people in Playboy 1953-1959, List of people in Playboy 1960-1969, List of people in Playboy 1970-1979, List of people in Playboy 1980-1989, List of people in Playboy 1990-1999, List of people in Playboy 2000-2009 and List of Playboy Playmates of the Month, the listings and references refer only to the US edition; the list of Playmates is expressly limited to the US edition. The practice was evident long before I began editing; it's not an issue I had any hand in until this came up, as I recall. Can you find any prior discussions where a non-US PM was kept on that basis? I don't recall ever seeing an article even listing a non-US PM without some other claim of notability; this one is a remnant of the time all US Cyber Girls were treated as notable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:NOTABILITY as per her inclusion in a version of Playboy RP459 (talk) 18:08, 27 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. There are sources, and he clearly passes WP:ATHLETE as he is a professional - the main criteria. SilkTork *^YES! 02:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Amasinger

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

Subject is non-notable. He's had only 7 professional fights, none in a notable promotion, none against a notable fighter. His most notable achievement appears to be a fighter UFC's reality show The Ultimate Fighter, but was eliminated in the first round of the tournament. Google search consists of only fight records, blog entries about The Ultimate Fighter, and match descriptions. Further, the article content, aside from the fight record, is unsourced. This article was also speedily deleted once before due to notability concerns (Deletion log). TreyGeek (talk) 00:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —TreyGeek (talk) 00:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO and WP:ATHLETE both. Ravenswing 09:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are no claims that are not backed up by sources. -- WölffReik (talk) 17:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It isn't as if anyone's claiming he doesn't exist - he just fails of notability. None of the sources anyone's provided cures that. Ravenswing 21:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: per WP:ATHLETE. M0RD00R (talk) 16:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC) If Dean Amasinger indeed is Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu world champion, then the article might be worth keeping. M0RD00R (talk) 21:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It is a reasonably well-written article about a notable sportsman. Perhaps a clean-up and a few more sources are needed, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.94.7 (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the above IP is almost certainly WolfR-something further up. Editor has four or five IP addresses under which he also edits game-, Rambo- and fighting-related articles. --EEMIV (talk) 15:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails notability standards at WP:ATHLETE, low as those are. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have provided reliable sources.

Dwanyewest (talk) 19:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to LA Muscle he won a Gold medal at the World BJJ Championships in 2006. [51]

Dwanyewest (talk) 20:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Long winning streak, young and has an excellent ground game, there are TONS of lesser prospects out there and MANY pages that are stubbed out here. This article is well written and we would just have to re-create it sooner rather than later and the editor may not be active. David.snipes (talk) 13:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 00:15, 26 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.