Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 January 3

< 2 January	4 January >

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. Tone 13:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ik Jo Kang

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

Non-notable martial artist with a dojo. His daughter is the subject of an article here, but I can find no significant coverage of the man himself. Mentioned in passing in a 1977 issue of Black Belt magazine here, listed without elaboration on the website of something calling itself The Official Taekwondo Hall of Fame here (unclear whether he's an inductee), and that's it. Glenfarclas (talk) 23:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: notability not established with third-party reliable sources. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 00:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless notability can be established by reliable sources. Hairhorn (talk) 18:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have found a few references, but nothing that supports notability. As far as I can see, the subject fails to meet any of the five WPMA guidelines on notability for martial artists, and meets the guideline supporting deletion. Janggeom (talk) 15:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, esp. what Janggeom said. PDCook (talk) 02:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete I have trained with him, he is a magnificent man, yet unknown, he is the man who brought Tae Kwon Do tournaments to America. He brought the most used martial art in the world, to America, I wonder why it is the most used. He is a GRANDMASTER, approved by the WTF. It is hard to find sources for him, that is all, he still is notable, but I did not add a lot of content because people don't make anything to source him by. He was also on the Board of South Korean - American Relations.

You said it yourself: "yet unknown." Once he becomes known, he can have his own WP article. PDCook (talk) 14:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I am trying to make him known... This may sound like marketing, but I do not intend it that way and really think that people should recognize martial artists who are not movie stars. I also did originally put the bullet point at the bottom, I am not sure how it got in the middle.Dharokowns (talk) 23:06, 8 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 00:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Saavedra

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

Contested proposed deletion. Biographical article that is unreferenced (and note has not had any since created in 2005). I have searched and cannot find any books about him, significant awards he has won, substantial news articles about him (that do more than mention him in passing) or anything else from reliable sources. Does not pass the basic biographical notability standards Peripitus (Talk) 23:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Seems to just miss AUTHOR requirements. THF (talk) 16:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator.--Professional Assassin (talk) 19:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 15 gnews returns and not all are even him. Nothing that really amounts to significant coverage. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:18, 10 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. Despite the obvious dispute that has preceeded this nomination, there is a fairly extensive agreement that this page should be deleted, for a number of reasons. There are a good few keep votes, but given that a couple of them don't provide much context or evidence to support their arguments, it seems reasonable to conclude that consensus endorses removal. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of shell providers

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

this wp:pointy article was created after sources were requested for this unsourced list in shell account. instead of providing a single source when requested, User: hm2k simply cut and pasted the unsourced content from shell account into this new article, as if creating an unsourced article would relieve the burden of providing sources in another article. sources still have not been found. this article should be deleted because there are no third party, reliable sources for this arbitrary list of providers which have not shown notability for being shell providers. Theserialcomma (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

instead of providing sources, hm2k provides incivility and personal attacks [[1]] [[2]] [[3]] Theserialcomma (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ADHOM. --Hm2k (talk) 11:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As agreeing inclusion criteria in the lead (as per WP:LSC) is being actively resisted then there seems little to stop this article being on ongoing magnet for non-notable account providers and their websites.—Ash (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you believe it should be deleted, why have added content since?[4] --Hm2k (talk) 13:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Adding a viewpoint one way or the other in an AfD does not preclude collaborating on the article, this also applies to the nominator.—Ash (talk) 13:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, in principle, however your viewpoint and your edits are contradicting. Are you trying to prove a point? If so, what? --Hm2k (talk) 13:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hm2k, someone can improve an article and still believe that it doesn't meet the requirements of wikipedia. please stop being disruptive. Theserialcomma (talk) 14:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I am more than aware of the capabilities of an editor, however it is a futile and contradicting act, unless you actually believe the article will be and/or should be kept. --Hm2k (talk) 15:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        As you have yet to withdraw your accusation that I'm a troll (see diff), why don't you stick to the guidelines of m:troll instead of trying to engage me in discussion? You can't hand out insults and then expect quizzing the same editors about their motivations to be taken seriously.—Ash (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        You're avoiding the question. What point are you trying to prove?--Hm2k (talk) 17:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Does this mean you are withdrawing your accusation? If someone is insulting me, I don't really want to give them further opportunities to insult me.—Ash (talk) 17:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        If you intend on trolling then I will treat you so, otherwise, good faith is assumed. --Hm2k (talk) 17:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        It seems odd that not too long ago you were thanking me for my independent opinion (see User_talk:Ash/2009#3O:_Shell_account) and now you are not prepared to assume good faith and withdraw your previous accusation. To save time, just don't bother trying to engage me in discussion in future for any reason.—Ash (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        It started when you attempted to troll me. You were helpful prior to that. Nothing has changed there. However, you still haven't answered my question, I suspect it's because it's yet another attempt to troll me isn't it, which is why you won't give me a straight answer. I'd rather you just got on with it instead of playing games. --Hm2k (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Perhaps you didn't understand my text? Go away.—Ash (talk) 18:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks for confirming my suspicions. --Hm2k (talk) 18:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Go away.—Ash (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        How about you go away? --Hm2k (talk) 18:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        How about you both stop making personal comments? These reactions are juvenile - you are both old enough to not participate in name-calling. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 06:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A list of shell providers that is unsourced is indiscriminate and impossible to manage with thousands of potential list entries. Miami33139 (talk) 01:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have never heard of something being removed from Wikipidia on the grounds that it's a potentially large subject. Amusing. --Hm2k (talk) 18:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also see WP:ATA#CRYSTAL. --Hm2k (talk) 11:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lists do not require a "references" section. The list is by best part made up of shell providers with articles. This is perfectly normal. Google: lists --Hm2k (talk) 10:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This AfD appears to be just a personal attack and should be treated that way. Providing content is not the sole responsibility of the creator of the article. Good faith is NOT being assumed. --Hm2k (talk) 10:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please raise your claim of personal attack using one of the normal dispute resolution processes. This discussion is not the right place to resolve these sorts of issues.—Ash (talk) 10:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note from an Admin Per the thread raised at the administrator's noticeboard for incidents, I've unhidden the comments. It is not acceptable for an editor to refactor, hide or delete another editors comments in an AfD discussion. Further occurences of this will lead to sanctions being imposed. There is a talk page attached to this AfD discussion. Feel free to use it to raise any issues connected with the discussion. Mjroots (talk) 16:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, in good faith, I was trying to hide the drama before it became the focus of this AfD, but that clearly didn't work. --Hm2k (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I thought long and hard before adding a keep recommendation here. A list of shell providers seems an appropriate subject for an article and the suggestion that the originator of the article has resisted adding inclusion criteria of its own right does not seem a suitable argument for deletion. There is a content dispute here that needs resolution and WP:DR should be followed, AFD is not the route for that. Having said that, there are a couple of entries in the list that could be removed due unless notable enough to justify their own wikipedia article. Justin talk 17:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A reasonable statement, I agree. --Hm2k (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Fork that appears to be a problematic indiscriminate list, or at least will become one. Non-maintainable. References (or at least linked-to articles) would be needed for each entry on the list (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will also add that Wikipedia is not a Directory (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or cleanup would suffice then? PS. Have you actually read WP:NOTDIR? It does not apply here. --Hm2k (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article has no ocntext. Why in the world do we need a list of Shell providers? I don't find this to be informative or encyclopediac in anyway. Sorry I just don't, and I am contributing on the content not the contributer. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not about what you want or need. It is as encyclopediatic as the articles in the list. Also see WP:UNENCYC and WP:USELESS. --Hm2k (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Never should have been created, being an action done unilaterally without any agreement on the parent article talk page. Articles labeled "List of..." do need sources. I mean, consider the claim being placed against them (be it good or bad), and it's being done so without any given proof from an outside party confirming it. This is rather strictly upheld in terms of WP:BLP articles, and companies shouldn't be treated any differently. This makes such articles impossible to maintain, as mentioned by Bwilkins above. Past the horrible and possibly defamatory corporate info claimed, even if that can be supported by some third-party reliable sources (as in, technology magazines or sites, not blogs or forums), it won't resolve this challenge because of the notability issue. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 17:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: Though I'm extremely discouraged by the edit disruptions performed in this discussion, those matters are taken up at incident boards and so long as all original text is replaced I'd suggest visitors double-check if the actions of this article's article might be skewing one's view in any way. I feel I've more than justified my !vote beyond my concerns with this. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 17:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We should merge it back then? --Hm2k (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No Theserialcomma (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relivance? --Hm2k (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the section you should look at is..Characteristics of problem editors. Specifically,

You find yourself repeating the same argument over and over again, without persuading people.You are bashing almost everyone here that disagrees with you.
You find that nobody will assume good faith, no matter how often you remind them.
You challenge the reversion of your edits, demanding that others justify it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly read this...How to pull back from the brink

First and foremost, however bad you believe the faults of your accusers are, think long and hard about your own behaviour. Critique it in your mind with the same vigor you critique theirs. Is there not at least a germ of truth in what they say? Have you perhaps been less civil than you might have been? Have you provided high quality citations from reliable secondary sources to back your edits? In addition, it may be a good idea to scrutinize all your behavior this way, even if you are not presently involved in a dispute, so that such disputes may not arise in the first place.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again: "Comment on content, not on the contributor" from WP:PA --Hm2k (talk) 18:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with this assessment - this is AFD! If the contributor wants to argue his points forthrightly and in a civil manner, then this is the place to do it. Might not necessarily convince anyone though. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 06:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"on Wikipedia, tendentious editing carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content which is resisted by multiple other editors." I am accusing you of engaging in tendentious behavior for writing "We should merge it back then?" Theserialcomma (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's nothing wrong with the content, so what makes you think it should be deleted instead of kept or merged? --Hm2k (talk) 20:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - neither notable or encyclopaedic. Jeni ^(talk) 21:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Care to expand on this? This seems like arm waving. --Hm2k (talk) 23:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it is perfectly clear. The topic is not notable or encyclopaedic. Jeni ^(talk) 23:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also see WP:UNENCYC and WP:JNN.--Hm2k (talk) 11:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I thank you soooo much for quoting a couple of essays, but that is all they are, essays. If you have a valid reason to comment, please do let me know. Otherwise, stop badgering everyone and start writing an encyclopaedia. I don't bother responding to people who nag at AfD, not worth my time. Jeni ^(talk) 11:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ONLYESSAY. My "valid comment" is below, I await your response. Make clear, solid arguments in deletion discussions, otherwise, don't bother commenting at all. --Hm2k (talk) 11:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! That is one of the most amusing things I've seen in a while, using an essay (the same essay at that) to claim that an essay is perfectly fine ;-) Have fun with that one. Jeni ^(talk) 11:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're not willing to justify your statement. Your contributions here are a complete waste of time. --Hm2k (talk) 11:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, exactly which topic isn't notable? Notability is established by the articles for the items in the list, this is a perfectly acceptable practice on Wikipedia. Which part of WP:NOT does it fall under for it to be not encyclopedic? --Hm2k (talk) 00:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(note) Comments in the above thread were changed by Hm2k after other editors replied to his comment. See diff for an example.—Ash (talk) 11:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This statement is false, please check the diff closely again. I added separate comments and edited a comment of mine other editors have not yet replied to. This is a false claim, possible borderline personal attack. I recommend you examine the diff again, and retract your statement. --Hm2k (talk) 12:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I meant this diff. You were so quick to delete my comment here without discussion that I may have picked the wrong diff, if anyone is bothered it may be worth browsing through the history of this AfD to make sure Hm2k has not tweaked the meaning of other comments. As for personal attack, for the second time on this page, use WP:DR rather than making accusations in an AfD where your behaviour has already been unacceptably disruptive. Lastly, you have repeatedly accused me of being a troll, please stick to the WP:DNFTT guidelines if you are not prepared to withdraw your accusation.—Ash (talk) 12:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That diff no longer applies, you know this as you undid it before you added this note. An AfD is no place to discuss my actions, use the talk page or my user talk page instead. You may now withdraw your false statement. If you continue to discuss anything other than the article, I will simply take this to ANI. Stand down. --Hm2k (talk) 12:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can see that due to your re-factoring of this AfD, your comment above at 11:48, 5 January 2010 has been introduced before Jeni's at 11:36, 5 January 2010. Consequently Jeni's comment has been forced out of context. My original comment was a note for any reader of this page trying to make sense of the discussion narrative. As an ANI is currently open for your disruption to this discussion, there seems little point in raising another.—Ash (talk) 12:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you reading the same thing as me? That's not at all how I'm seeing it in the history. Anyone can also see that it's you that messed it up by undoing my additions. Jeni replied and I had to restore the context myself. That ANI is already resolved. Good luck. --Hm2k (talk) 12:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am reading the same thing as you. Your addition of "Also see WP:UNENCYC and WP:JNN." on 5 January in the same diff was after Jeni had replied on 4 January. This version was before I attempted to make a good faith revert of your re-factoring, so don't try and blame me for your actions.—Ash (talk) 13:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not seeing this at all. In the current copy my "Also see WP:UNENCYC and WP:JNN." appears after Jeni's reply on the 4th, and before Jeni's reply on the 5th. You however, had removed my comment and left only Jeni's reply on the 5th, I had to restore it for context. You messed that up, not me. I was just trying to improve my comment, which I didn't think was an issue. You were correct to assume good faith and undo which is why I fixed them as separate comments after, but this statement is now completely false and simply disruptive thus this needless discussion. --Hm2k (talk) 13:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The time of this diff is 11:28, 5 January 2010, which is when you edited your comment after Jeni had replied on 23:31, 4 January 2010. I then reverted your edit as shown in this diff at 11:37, 5 January 2010. You are confusing the text date against the comment with the actual time of your re-factoring.—Ash (talk) 13:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeni's comment is here, which appears between the diff you mention in your (false) note and when you undid it, so I had to restore the context that comment of Jeni's to make sense. Hopefully you now see that and can cease making false statements and disruption. It'd probably be wise to draw a line under this whole discussion and strikeout the false statement otherwise I can only see this as being disruptive.--Hm2k (talk) 13:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing the comment it appears to still be accurate. You originally changed comments after other editors replied, I reverted not noticing Jeni's edit and you made later changes probably in an attempt to make the thread look sensible. You have not actually reversed your original edit, consequently Jeni's later comments are still out of context due to your manipulation of text after other editors have replied. If you believe my statement is false (presumably calling me a liar) then take it up at the open ANI or stop digging the hole you find yourself in.—Ash (talk) 14:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see no policy reason to delete this. There are a couple of uncited and non-bluelinked entries, but that can be fixed by editing. As far as "unmaintainable" goes, have a look at list of freeware, which still can't be deleted. This list has only a handful of entries. Pcap ping 02:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A valid content fork. The links at the bottom show where to find additional things that could be considered for addition to the list. The article can grow, to a size which would not fit well with the main article, so its best to keep it separate. Dream Focus 23:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment there isn't a single 3rd party, reliable source - and the links are spamish. Theserialcomma (talk) 23:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cmon Serial. let them have their opinions too. We aren't voting here just giving our rationale for keep/delete.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no real content, just a list. Categories serve this purpose for notable providers. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a null argument per WP:CLN, I've been told. Pcap ping 12:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - great so Ican go make up a random company and claim it is a Shell provider? You can verify freeware, how would we verify the providers? Apples and oranges my friend. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:CLN, a list has actual content. Nearly half of the small list of entries is lacking reliable sources for notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - In principle, an article called List of shell providers could exist within policy if it had a clear criterion for list inclusion. On the talk page of the article there is so far no consensus as to what list criterion to use. Elsewhere in Wikipedia, people often use a criterion which allows lists of entries that are notable enough to have their own articles. That's perfectly OK, but this one does not follow it. For instance, Sakima.Ivy.NET and Super Dimension Fortress do not have their own articles. I do not believe that mere *existence* of a shell provider is enough to justify inclusion. (Lists based on that rule are a spam magnet). I'd consider changing my vote if the editors of the article were to agree on a clear list criterion before the AfD closes. EdJohnston (talk) 02:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Actually I've been thinking that a category might be more appropriate since it would be easier to mark notability and relevance for each company separately. Also much easier to maintain in a case like that. Still not sure about notability after that but that would be a case for another day, and it would be a significant improvement on a lot of the objections raised here. So, another view. Oh, just for the sake of it Hm2k, it's extremely discouraged to clog the discussion page and I'd really encourage it taken to the talk page if it's going to be indented out 10 times and almost down to personal incivilities. Take it to the talk page if ranting is necessary. Drop the canvassing, please, and don't think this comment clearing won't be noticed by a closing admin as it is. I encourage you to step back a moment and ponder even an accidental sense of WP:OWN on this and read over the things you've said. Focus on core policy stated against. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 03:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the contributor you refer to is currently blocked so cannot respond and the category you mention already exists: category:Shell account providers.—Ash (talk) 07:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (though can we please move this to List of shell account providers?) Looking at the list, there are quite a few notable organizations. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but could use improvement. LotLE×talk 20:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as G4 after previous AfD found. (non-admin closure) Pcap ping 17:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Navicoder

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

Speedy was declined for this shareware item last October, but I can't find any remotely significant coverage out of the 250 or so genuine Google hits. Glenfarclas (talk) 22:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 22:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability not established with third-party reliable sources. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 00:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing in the news archive beyond press releases. Pcap ping 10:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Speedy G4 requested. previously deleted under AfD [5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paleking (talk • contribs) 22:05, 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 delete. Tone 13:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Katharine McPhee Walmart Soundcheck

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

Non notable release. MW talk contribs 22:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. --MW talk contribs 22:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's just an EP released by Walmart for McPhee's Soundcheck performance. The information is not notable enough for a separate article and can easily be added to McPhee's Unbroken article. Walmart will likely never release the sales figures for this and it shouldn't be treated as a release by McPhee or her label. I checked other articles where the Soundcheck EPs are mentioned and there are a few that have separate articles but most mention it in the body of the album article. Ducold (talk) 01:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 01:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Without any reliable sources or a release date this would fail WP:CRYSTAL and WP:MUSIC. This EP also fails WP:NALBUMS in that it is not an official release EP. Aspects (talk) 05:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have consensus to delete this yet or is more time needed? If consensus isn't reached, can we at least not make this sound like this is McPhee's 3rd album release? Ducold (talk) 15:12, 7 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. Tone 13:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Follow fashion monkeys

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

non notable musical group WuhWuzDat 22:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New CD soon to be released on CD baby.. Produced by Ian MacKaye of FUGAZI back in 1987. Check Ian MacKaye or FUGAZI or MINOR THREAT on Wiki. This is NOT a Non, Notable Group. Category in Wiki is American Hardcore Groups.
Ian MacKaye
Minor Threat
Fugazi

Follow Fashion Monkeys
Follow Fashion Monkeys —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicagoish (talk • contribs) 22:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Chicagoish — Chicagoish (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete: notability not established with third-party reliable sources, fails WP:BAND. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 00:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 01:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[6] NYU Playlist College Radio
[7] Allentown Morning Call, of 7" Release by FFM
[8] 1986 US TOur, Allentown MCall —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicagoish (talk • contribs) 02:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability is not inherited from the producer (who is unquestionably notable). The links provided by Chicagoish don't serve to establish notability either. All but the last link are trivial mentions: last.fm merely confirms existence, one song on an indie compilation, a list of bands played on one program of a college radio station, and a mention at the end of a brief article for another band. The last link is clearly about them, but doesn't seem to establish any real notability. It's a local article about a local band opening on a small tour. All the GNews coverage I can find consists of trivial mentions in that same local paper (eg. "Five local bands played at..."). That coverage, which does not meet WP:BAND criterion 1, the closest they come to meeting any of criteria of notability. No notable coverage. No notable releases. No notable tours. Not notable. » scoops “ŧâłķ„ 16:34, 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 delete. JForget 00:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Deedle

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

Non-notable fanfic character from unauthorized knock-off of the Harry Potter series. Nom on behalf of editor 98.248.33.198, "Fictional character from an unauthorized continuation which exists only on the web. See also James Potter II." Acroterion _(talk) 22:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subtracting wikis, the fanfic writer's name, the two fanfic pieces, there's one Google hit in a list of names unrelated to Harry Potter.[9] Requiring the author's name, but subtracting wikis, youtube, scribd, facebook, and the author's own website, one gets a non-notable blog, a wiki (still), and two hosts of the PDF of the fanfic.[10] Completely non-notable, no reliable sources, no verification, original research and article creator still made this after repeated warnings about doing this kind of thing. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 23:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The article fails to give enough information for an editor (much less a reader) to start to form an opinion of keep/delete/merge based on this first question: Is this a canonical or non-canonical (fanfic) character in the Harry Potter fictional universe? —Aladdin Sane (talk) 02:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I was able to determine, "Ralph Deedle" is exclusively a character in the fanfiction of one "author" and did not ever appear in Rowling's books. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 08:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct; this is a character from fanfiction, and an obscure one at that. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - totally non-notable original character from a fanfiction work which is only marginally notable because of some fuss over whether it was quasi-authorized (or at least not aggressively prosecuted). --Orange Mike | Talk 00:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – That's odd. Schizombie's confirmation of my impression above re-enforces a "delete feeling" under this argument: A work of fanfic needs to have its own article first under WP:N before a WP:SS article about a character can be considered; that is, no article about the fanfic work, therefor no article about the character from the fanfic work. You're information, Orangemike, changes "that good ole' delete feelin'" massively to a "strong keep feeling": If there is any real world information, in particular legal information (you used the word "prosecuted" in context), as opposed to WP:IN-U information, about this fictional character, suddenly WP:N is met despite the work itself being fanfic. My feeling is becoming N, N, N, and more N, based on what you wrote. If you have information about "quasi-authorization and/or a parenthetical lack of prosecution" and have withheld the information from the article about the character, I detest the move under WP:CENS, Fair use, and a whole godly host of other policies, guidelines, and essays that say we are here to build an encyclopedia based on information, not destroy one. This is a reason to keep, not delete, since both WP:IN-U can be met by providing the real world information and WP:GNG can be satisfied by documenting that a controversy existed at all. Your own comment should be in the article in the first place (with a source, of course). Withholding information from the reader with "little or no knowledge of the subject" is precisely the opposite of what the encyclopedia was designed to do. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 15:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whaaaa? - you seem to have completely misunderstood me, Aladdin! The character is not even marginally notable. The fanfic in which he appears is arguably marginally notable, and all the relevant information is in that article already. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm perplexed by Aladdin Sane's comment as well. There is an article on the fanfic, James Potter and the Hall of Elders' Crossing. The notability of that is debatable; I'm not submitting an AfD on it. The character in the fanfic is not notable. See e.g. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Derivative articles "while a book may be notable, it is not normally advisable to have a separate article on a character or thing from the book, and it is often the case that despite the book being manifestly notable, a derivative article from it is not," Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Summary style approach "Very rarely should such spinout articles be about a singular topic (e.g., character, plot item); either that topic has demonstrated its own notability, or should be merged into the main article or existing spinout articles" (emphasis in original); and in fact in this case the parent article is not even long enough to justify spinning out a stub. I'm also wondering to a degree about advert or spam here, since multiplying the number of articles about a fanfic could be seen as trying to unduly promote that fanfic, but they aren't quite entirely applicable and WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:RS, WP:GNG, and WP:BKD are sufficient. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

reply - you have good call to wonder about spam/advertising, since the article was created by an s.p.a. whose primary purpose seems to be to advertise this piece of fanfic beyond its notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that it's just a fan who's unclear on policies, guidelines, etc., although with the repeated talk page comments that have been given, there is at least cause to wonder, but then it could still just be the case of a persistent fan who feels WP:IAR applies; who knows? *shrug* Ultimately not that important what the cause is, unless this persists even further. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 16:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per Orange Mike. Shadowjams (talk) 12:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Orange Mike, as non-notable, and without significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. --Bejnar (talk) 03:59, 7 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 00:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fadl Attraction

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

Although this pornstar bio has just screamed "LOOK HERE! THIS IS A HOAX", for two years, nobody's paid attention. Apparently there's a horse with the name, though. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: notability not established with third-party reliable sources. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 00:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:V. Only found on Wikipedia and its mirrors. Yes, this just screams "Hoax!" • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Kind of makes you wonder, doesn't it, when hoax articles remain untouched for two years while hordes of deletionist editors ravage and AfD worthwhile articles. Irony on a grand scale. --80.192.1.168 (talk) 21:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but make it about the horse. :-D Kidding, Speedy Delete G3. Pure vandalism and blatant hoaxes by one-time editor Special:Contributions/Slurps. The WP:Sleepwalking Gnome edits to the article over the years are amusingly sad. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 05:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO. As for the IP editors comment...just because you feel an article is "worthwhile" doesn't make it so. Save your condescending comments. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:35, 10 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 redirect to One Love (David Guetta album). Tone 11:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If We Ever

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

Song has maybe been released as single, but it has not chated. This article gives less information than stub should give. SveroH (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to One Love, no indication of needing its own article. Jennifer500 (talk) 21:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, Jennifer500 was blocked for ban evasion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge No reason for it to have independent existence. Peridon (talk) 22:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it fails Wp:NSONGS - has shown by the quote "It made no impact whatsoever in the charts" from the article. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 01:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to One Love (David Guetta album). I can't find significant coverage for this song; does not appear to meet WP:NSONGS. Gongshow ^Talk 04:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NSONGS. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:40, 10 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 delete. The claims in the article move it clearly from WP:NFT into WP:CSD#G3 blatant hoax. JohnCD (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby dabble

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

Contested PROD. WP:MADEUP WP:NEOLOGISM. Oh, how I wish we had a speedy deletion criterion for these type of articles... Singularity42 (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If I am reading right this is one of the most commonly used words and it was madeup on 26 Dec 2009. No google hits to assert notibility. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 21:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. The claims in the article deserve a deletion per WP:CSD#G3. Favonian (talk) 21:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as vandalism. Total cobblers. Completely impossible for a word to achieve that notability in such a short time, and extremely unlikely that anyone would want to use it anyway. Peridon (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, total bollocks. Jennifer500 (talk) 21:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and warn originator. Woogee (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated for speedy delete as hoax. I see no need to keep this around for a week. Hairhorn (talk) 22:27, 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 withdrawn by submitter in favor of redirect to new article

Vitamin d dilemma

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

Essay, consisting of original research through synthesis of information from third party sources. Title is inherently POV; there is some useful encyclopedic material in there, but would need rewriting almost from scratch to meet current Wikipedia article criteria. -- The Anome (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not the place to post school reports. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 20:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both the above. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: there might be a place for an encylopedic article called Risks and benefits of sun exposure, or similar (see http://www.google.com/search?q=Risks+and+benefits+of+sun+exposure ), but this, in its present form, isn't it. -- The Anome (talk) 21:29, 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. Tone 13:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Webb

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

Unreferenced article, doesn't meet WP:BIO guidelines or WP:V. snigbrook (talk) 20:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wait There is no evidence that users have been unable to find reliable sources & I just tagged the no ref blp issue on the article. --MWOAP (talk) 20:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete No claims of resonable notablity. - Altenmann >t 21:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete No claims on notability, no references, and to be frank, it's quite obvious that he's written it himself. Rickymack (talk) 23:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unsourced. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 00:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable. Evalpor (talk) 06:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This gentleman is listed on the national actors database ^{[citation needed]}88.108.25.79 (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Err, what "national actors database"? He doesn't appear to be on IMDB, but that's not 'national'. I can't find "national actors database" on Google. Please help... Peridon (talk) 01:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable, being on a community station or spending 5 minutes in a tuppenny happenny channel 4 soap does not make you a superstar. RadioholicfromDS (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notably famous for appearing in two episodes of a soap as a 10 year old kid? Doesn't say much for the rest of his career. "He has appeared on many local stations in the city" - http://www.cambridgedirectory.co.uk/Media/Radio/ lists 6, of which one is an amateur radio club and another the University radio station. Vanity page or career booster. Peridon (talk) 21:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He is a local radio presenter in Cambridge - it may not equate to fame but it is entirely fair to say it gives him some notability.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Notation102 (talk • contribs)

Community radio according to a recent addition... Peridon (talk) 19:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still vote for delete, and delete now. From Wikipedia itself "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.". There is not one citation on there —Preceding unsigned comment added by RadioholicfromDS (talk • contribs) 20:14, 8 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. Tone 11:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pennsylvania Diners And Other Roadside Restaurants

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

Contested PROD. I cleaned it up a bit, as it was written sort of like a DVD outer sleeve. I also tried to find sources, but I came up with nothing but commercial links and TV guide type listings. Appears to be non-notable to me, and currently serves as a list of non-notable Pennsylvania diners and restaurants.

Also with this listing: Pittsburgh A To Z. Lara 19:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)--DThomsen8 (talk) 13:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Colonel Warden has removed the {{dated prod|concern = no assertion that the documentary passes [[WP:GNG]].|month = December|day = 27|year = 2009|time = 17:20|timestamp = 20091227172030}} template from the article Pennsylvania Diners And Other Roadside Restaurants. He has made some other changes, but I am doubtful that the WP:GNG issue can be solved by improving the article.

User:Jennavecia says in her editor note, "None of these places is notable..." but the diners or a list of diners (the "places"), may be notable, or at least notable if included in an article, it is the article about a DVD which was nominated for deletion, and has now received an AfD. My comment is to view this article as a source for developing an article on Pennsylvania diners as a tenative title, and not as a stand-alone article on a PBS TV program and DVD. --DThomsen8 (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being listed in a WP article doesn't make a place notable. There needs to be multiple reliable sources independent of the subject in order for something to be notable for inclusion here. This documentary only has one such source that we can find. The other documentary has none that can be found. For the diners, there would need to be significant coverage on them in order for them to be notable for either their own articles or to be listed in another article, such as List of Pennsylvania diners. But there would need to be a respectable number of notable establishments for such a list to be warranted, and I don't think we have that here. Lara 21:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While Pennsylvania Diners appears to have a reliable source, that isn't enough for WP:NFILMS and I can't find any others. A-Z goes even lower than that. Ironholds (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete both. These seem to be one-offs produced for the local public TV station, but from my searching they do not meet WP:GNG ("significant coverage in reliable sources"), nor any of the WP:NF attributes (widely distributed, receiving an award, etc.). Glenfarclas (talk) 21:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC) See below[reply]

Keep The topic is covered in detail in numerous reliable sources such as the Washington Post, the Boston Herald and the Chicago Sun-Times. It was also nominated for an Emmy. Also, the underlying topic of Pennsylvania diners is notable as there are multiple books dedicated to this topic such as Diners of Pennsylvania‎ and Pennsylvania diners‎ and so User:Dthomsen8's suggestion has merit. The article's cleanup has just started and no attempt has yet been made to discuss its problems on its talk page. Per our deletion process, the nomination is premature. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any links to all this detailed coverage? I can find a passing mention here, but that's a transcript of some other show, not an article. And it doesn't seem like Pennsylvania Diners was nominated for an Emmy, although the director did get a Daytime Emmy nomination for a program about Mr. Rogers ([11]). Glenfarclas (talk) 00:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I have links. For example, the Emmy nomination for Outstanding Cultural Programming is in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. For another example, here's a critical review in The Dallas Morning News. There's plenty more of this sort and so there is no case for deletion - not the slightest. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pennsylvania Diners, and delete A to Z. Per Colonel Warden, my searching skills suck and failed to encompass looking at the Google News archive rather than recent news. Now I see that Pennsylvania Diners has been written up and mentioned significantly several times in varied press, and was nominated for a regional Emmy. Granted, being nominated for a Mid-Atlantic Daytime Emmy should never be confused with being nominated for a Daytime Emmy, but it's not nothing, and combined with media references I think it passes notability. As for Pittsburgh A to Z, though, I don't see the same level of coverage at all: a short review in the Post-Gazette of the type that constitutes "routine news coverage," and a handful of other passing mentions in Pittsburgh press, plus one or two mentions that the program inspired someone in another city to create an "A to Z." Glenfarclas (talk) 02:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now some of the Colonel's links have been added to the article the notability of the subject seems well established, cant see any remaining reason to delete. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also Weak Keep for Pittsburgh A To Z as while admitedly in need of improvement it has 19 hits on google news archive. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is about the documentary, which gets sufficient coverage. Listing what diners are featured in the documentary, is necessary for a complete article, even if those places don't have articles for them yet. I'm sure since they were in a notable documentary, and thus sure to be mentioned in state news coverage, some will meet the requirements for an article themselves. Dream Focus 11:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pittsburgh A To Z, which is also nominated for deletion. This documentary is a good source for Pittsburgh and nearby places, and should be retained. Other editors, please comment on this article as well as Pennsylvania Diners And Other Roadside Restaurants, and consider whether it can be rescued as well. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a reason to keep. How does it meet our inclusion requirements? Personally, I don't think the other one cuts it even with the newly found links. Doesn't appear to be significant to me, and a nomination for a local Emmy doesn't add to notability, but it's borderline and not a big deal to me if it's kept. This one, however, has no reliable sources to establish, or even suggest, notability. Lara 16:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - These appears to have been the subject of multiple articles in major newspapers, making it pass general notability guide.--Blargh29 (talk) 09:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Notability established with Emmy nomination, and the list of diners featured serves as a starting point for future encyclopedic coverage of the topic. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 03:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Jin Solstein

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

Contested PROD. Subejct is an eleven year old actor, whose first major role is a movie that has not come out. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Singularity42 (talk) 19:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative delete. On one hand, these films (there is a planned trilogy) will certainly be notable, and according to The Last Airbender the first one has already finished filming; also, there is a local newspaper piece about him. On the other hand, his alleged role in The Last Airbender is sourced to a fansite, and IMDb does not list him in the full cast and crew of the picture, nor does it attribute any credits to him. He may well be notable soon, but I would like to see a reliable source for his casting, and hopefully something to indicate how important his character is going to be in these movies. Glenfarclas (talk) 21:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notable now if this kid become notable later deal with then Weaponbb7 (talk) 03:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Though I didn't have anything to do with the creation of this page, as Isaac's father and manager (Eric Solstein), as well as a relative newbie to Wikipedia editing, I can offer some information here, while I correct small errors and add several potentially important additions to the page.

Note: Isaac's role in "The Last Airbender" is confirmed on his IMDB Resume [12] Though I cannot provide a supporting link, Paramount unit publicist, Claire Raskind cited Isaac as #18 in the cast credits, a "featured" role, considered rather high up in a film of this scale. The resume also indicates his most recent theater role as Robby in the American Repertory Theater's "Red Sox Nation," directed by Diane Paulus (director of the Tony award winning revival of "Hair"). This is a major theater piece by one of America's leading directors and acting companies. It should also be noted, Isaac has been acting in regional theater for six years.

Note: Isaac is also a martial arts prodigy, having earned two successive National Championships in Soo Bahk Do. This is the highest level of competition for this amateur sport. Despite competing with older, larger martial artists, (being obliged to compete up in class because of his height), he earned first places in both form and sparring in the 11-13 yr. black belt division, though only ten years old at the time. Additionally, he is the first and only person under 18 to be accepted for special training with Masters (fourth degree black belts and above) at the Soo Bahk Do Moo Duk Kwan Headquarters. I will incorporate externally verifiable parts of this into his page. Though his acting and martial arts may be considered separately, his prodigious karate skills had, and continue to have significant impact on his acting career, and this synergy may be helpful when considering notability. It may also be notable that a search for "Isaac Jin Solstein" on Google currently yields 29,100 links to both his acting and martial arts activities.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Erisol (talk • contribs) 02:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Fulfills basic criteria of notability, with four published, independent, reliable secondary sources included as reference to article. Fulfills criteria for athlete, with two championships while competing at the highest level - US National competition - of the amateur sport of Soo Bahk Do. Fulfills notability as actor when considering six years of stage work in professional theater holding significant juvenile roles, and present high profile projects in both theater and film, under directors considered to be significant: Diane Paulus & M. Night Shyamalan. --Eric Solstein (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My gut feeling is to keep. The two articles cited prove marginal notability, which is almost certain to increase with film's July release. I prefer to err on the side of notability on this one. Evalpor (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: as the nominator, per a discussion on my talk page I would support incubation or userfication of the article until his notability in light of WP:ENT becomes more apparent in reliable sources. As I said there, "I guess I just find it too early for this article; there's too much we just don't know. Or, rather, you might know it, but we, the rest of the general world, don't yet. The deciding issue for me is that it took Isaac's father, not an unrelated fan, to create his article here. Wikipedia:Autobiography#Creating an article about yourself covers this (writing about your minor son is not technically an autobiography, but the principle stands): 'If your life and achievements are verifiable and genuinely notable, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later.'" Glenfarclas (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: My apologies, Mr. Solstein didn't create it article—it sounds like it really was "an unrelated fan." Sorry for the mistake in memory. I do think incubation is probably the best route here. Glenfarclas (talk) 03:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not yet notable and no assurance of becoming notable in the future. The role of "Earthbending boy" does not seem like a major character, and despite the fans' conjectures, there's no reason to believe this character will be more prominent in future movies (which may never get made) and even if it is, they could always get someone else to play the role (á la Kitty Pryde in the X-men series) . Plus, four minor roles in community theater hardly constitute a filmography. I'm tempted to say speedy delete. I've been seeing a lot of "airbender" related shenanigans lately, from non-notable articles (Racebending) to near-takeovers of established articles (Yellowface), and so this article certainly smells fishy AshcroftIleum (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Incubate The article "filmography" erringly includes projects best clased as "Theater". And while his notability is growing for Last Airbender, there does seem to be available coverage for of his stage work. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - at this point, fails WP:V and WP:ENTERTAINER. "Keep" arguments are of the WP:UPANDCOMING variety. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable actor at this point. His most notable possible role is a film that hasn't been released. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:47, 10 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 00:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evolve Mixed Martial Arts

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

Article reads like an advertisement and its sources are either not third-party (Gracie magazine, official website, a search engine result) or do not assert notability (the facility is only mentioned once in each of the Reuters links). Most of the fighters therein do not have their own articles, and existing ones are poorly sourced. sixtynine ^{• spill it •} 18:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jacksonbulldog here. This is my first article on Wikipedia. Please accept my sincere apologies as I am a newbie. The article is factually correct, but I am a newbie and had to edit it many times to get it right. To your points

1) Gracie Magazine does not belong to Renzo Gracie and has nothing to do with Evolve Mixed Martial Arts. Gracie Magazine is an independent 3rd party magazine for Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu and Mixed Martial Arts news. See this link for the owners of Gracie Magazine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GRACIE_Magazine

2) Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) is a new sport in Asia. Reuters wrote an article titled Asia set for MMA revolution and quoted Evolve Mixed Martial Arts in there since it is the leader in Asia. This article was syndicated, picked up, and published by New York Times, Guardian UK, ABC News, Straitstimes, China Post, Taipei Times, Oman Tribune, Kyiv Post, and other major publications in Asia. It was a feature article on Reuters front page when it first ran: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSSGE5BD0CT20091221. here it is on ABC News: http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory?id=9388069. here it is on: http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2009/12/23/sports/sports-us-mma.html. Evolve was featured by CNN of a list of 50 reasons why Singapore is the greatest city http://www.cnngo.com/singapore/none/worlds-greatest-city-50-reasons-why-singapore-no-1-399897 Evolve is also noted in Men's Health magazine in a blog by a reporter - here it is. http://www.menshealth.com.sg/blog/gavintan/gavin-gets-garang-day-01

Morever, independent industry news sources have documented Evolve Mixed Martial Arts as ground breaking in the world of MMA. Here are some articles:

http://www.mmaconvert.com/2009/12/28/the-five-star-mma-gym-you-wont-find-on-this-continent/

http://middleeasy.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1247:remember-that-6000000000-mma-gym-we-told-you-about-well-here-are-pictures&catid=34:organizations

http://www.bjj-asia.com/2009/10/interview-w-leandro-brodinho-issa.html

http://www.sg-pro.com/2009/10/20/sg-pro-interviews-ufc-fighter-and-evolve-fight-team-member-rafael-dos-anjos/

http://www.sg-pro.com/2009/07/07/sg-pro-interviews-chatri-sityodtong/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.14.108 (talk) 19:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.matratz.com/?p=1349

3) The article is factually correct. As a newbie, I might have written incorrectly (ie. not up to Wikipedia standards), but all facts are 100% correct and truthful.

4) There are many more articles in print media form as well about Evolve Mixed Martial Arts.

5) I am a newbie on Wikipedia, but am a walking encylopedia when it comes to martial arts.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article does little to establish that Evolve MMA is a notable MMA school or MMA organization. Google search suggests that the only notable thing is that the Singapore site was expensively built and is very lavish. --TreyGeek (talk) 21:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: reads like a promotion, hardly notable. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 00:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Looking at the WPMA guidelines on notability for schools and organisations, the inclination would be for deletion. The article does need to establish notability, and does need improvement. Having done a quick search for sources, I believe that there might be enough information to allow for merging the article with another, or perhaps even keeping it. I bear in mind, too, that we should try not to be hostile to newcomers (which the primary contributor claims, and appears, to be). Janggeom (talk) 00:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that be supportive of newcomers by firmly but kindly explaining notability and pointing them to unwritten articles that have scads of appropriate source material. --Bejnar (talk) 04:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not (yet) notable, no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Reuters mention is in passing and Graciemag mention is press release regurg. For goodness sake, it is brand new. Write the article in ten years, if it becomes notable. --Bejnar (talk) 04:04, 7 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. Tone 13:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nakatomi Towers

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

Non-notable band lacking GHits of substance and with zero GNEWS. Article references are all trivial mentions of band. Appears to fail WP:BAND. ttonyb (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable vanity piece that fails WP:BAND. sixtynine ^{• spill it •} 18:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I removed the CSD tag because it did not meet the criteria for A7, it did make a claim of notability (which is a much stricter requirement than WP:BAND and WP:GNG). After reviewing the references, while there are mentions of them in reliable sources like BBC and the Irish Times, I don't think I can call those few references significant coverage, and they don't meet WP:BAND. Furthermore, any predictions those news articles are making about their future performance will be in violation of WP:CRYSTAL. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete...to quote the article "New, Unsigned". WuhWuzDat 16:55, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 07:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of timelines in fiction

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

As per WP:INDISCRIMINATE,WP:N and WP:SELF. Every work of fiction every created has contained a fictional time line and as such could be listed here Gnevin (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Utterly unencyclopedic, and necessarily going to be a silly article. THF (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:NOT/WP:NOTDIR --MWOAP (talk) 20:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. i can almost see this as some sort of category, as it relates to articles having timelines in them. not sure of value of that category.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't understand the rationale of this: the appeals to policy as a basis for deletion are invalid. It's a list of articles that give fictional timelines. It's not at all indiscriminate - it is well defined - and it is not a directory of timelines as it only includes notable timelines (i.e. those that have been written about in-depth in reliable sources). It is not self-referential now that I've removed that lead wording. I've improved the format and removed the non-timeline entries. Also, lists and categories are not mutually exclusive. Fences&Windows 14:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You've changed the intro and now the intro doesn't match the text . It's a list of articles which contain timelines. Possible Category here but not an article Gnevin (talk) 16:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Fences&Windows 14:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 14:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 14:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not currently indiscriminate and superior to the category for navigation. Polarpanda (talk) 14:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Fences and Windows and Polarpanda. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 15:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Convenient springboard for finding cruft-laden articles for clean-up or deletion :-D :-D. --EEMIV (talk) 16:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and make into a category. There is no way this list can ever be complete, criteria are unclear, and there's essentially no content here. Jclemens (talk) 17:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We can't list all lists of timelines in fiction, as this article attempts to do, that would be a breach of WP:IINFO and WP:NOT, as well as WP:SALAT. Unless there has been a significant amount of coverage of this collection of subjects, this can't become anything more than a laundry list, without any encyclopedic detail backing it up without the use of original research. Them From Space 18:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an example of a Category:Lists of lists, one of the navigational tools Wikipedia uses. Many of the items are already grouped into Category:Fictional timelines, but some cannot be as the timeline is only a section of an article, eg Ware Tetralogy#Fictional timeline. It only points to timelines that already exist within Wikipedia - it is a navigational tool. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It acts a navigational tool. It only list things that have their own Wikipedia article, and are thus proven notable by Wikipedia standards. Dream Focus 02:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - so do categories, which is my vote:
Change to category. TomCat4680 (talk) 23:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Category's no good because several of these links go to sections within parent articles rather than to standalone articles. Also, the annotation is often helpful. Powers ^T 15:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A useful navigational list. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A "timeline" can be created for many fictional works listing the events described in them. We can write fictional timelines for anything from The Mayor of Casterbridge to Friends. "timelines in fiction" doenst make sense to me. --Geeteshgadkari (talk) 11:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you object to the article itself, or just the name? List of Wikipedia articles for timelines in various works of fiction or List of timeline articles in fiction would work fine also. Dream Focus 13:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article. Every fictional work whose plot runs though a few years has a timeline. We can not go and list all of them, and if we do, is it of any use? In short, can we answer, which are the works of fiction will not make this list? --Geeteshgadkari (talk) 13:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The ones that don't have timelines chronicled in Wikipedia. Powers ^T 14:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is for listing notable timelines. If I were thinking of writing, for example, "Timeline of The Forever War series" I'd need to base it on published, secondary, reliable sources. Fences&Windows 15:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Fences and windows. Edward321 (talk) 16:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Fences and windows' rationale above, doesn't appear to be indiscriminate. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's a basic navigation aid. If the articles themselves are notable enough to exist then a list of them is fairly standard. This can't be covered in the same way by a category, as already explained above, and, even if it could, there's no reason not to have both a category and a list complementing each other. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 05:17, 11 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. Tone 13:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Baiyu Chen

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

This article claims that this person appeared in four independent films, but her IMDB entry does not show it. There was citation made to the MTV show The Freshmen (which does not have an article on Wikipedia right now), but the Web site for that show does not appear to reference her, and the IMDB entry shows her as having appeared in only two episodes despite the article's assertion that she was a video jockey for three years. I think notability is at most tenuous. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 17:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete her own website doesnt indicate enough notability to make WP. um, nice photo, though. good luck, miss sara.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability unproven. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 00:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, basically per nom. Nsk92 (talk) 03:46, 5 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 Snowball closure Enigma^msg 19:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Marissen

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

Marissen is a Canadian Liberal party "backroom boy". As such does not fit the Wikipedia guidelines for notability. Recommend delete. Suttungr (talk) 17:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

VERY STRONG OPPOSE. Marissen is not a mere "backroom boy", he is a major strategist and organizer for both federal and provincial Liberal parties, and is married to former Deputy Premier Christy Clark, and was top man of the "Martin machine" in BC and nationally; too many reasons for notability to provide here; his article is badly in need of updating, not deleting.Skookum1 (talk) 17:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just being the spouse of a notable person does not confer notability in of itself. See WP:BIO#Invalid criteria. Suttungr (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response Well, OK, then, I'll put in the rest of what I left out: married to Christy Clark; together the two of them have been described as "BC's power couple" - at least they were until their house was searched as a result of warrants in relation to the BC Legislature Raids (nothing was found and no charges laid, although Marissen's campaign organizers are in court for money laundering, influence peddling etc) and evidence in relation to that case has shown that those aides ("Basi, Virk and Basi"), acting under party campaign (ahem) orders, conducted dirty tricks against opposition politicians; also acting as one of Marissen's lieutenants was Erik Bornmann, who (not under Marissen's directions but in a later capacity) arranged bribes associated with the rigged sale of BC Rail, involving Basi, Virk and Basi, and has turned Crown witness. For more on all of that have a read through these items and these and these Marissen was in politics before his wife and is far more powerful and influential than she is; it's a given that backroom boys make a point of keeping out of hte headlines; backroom bosses (which is what Marissen is), even moreso. Your claim that a party organizer of this calibre and rank, who is widely associated with many major politicians and has been in charge of highly significant campaigns, is not notable, reeks of either cupidity or collaboration. Worth mentioning that Marissen himself COI'd on his article, which is one reason it's as thin as it is at the moment; I and others have not bothered to update it much since; the BC Leg Raids article needs more work first, but the scope of Marissen's political activities is much, much broader than any second-hand connections to that scandal. He, and his wife, may yet wind up being witnesses at the trial (which still hasn't opened and is only in pre-trial hearings/delays)(, which has been described as "the trial of the century" and "the most important political trial in BC's history". Like most politicians and political figures, their articles are subject to "neutralization" (Clark's article is also very thin on the ground, though more from inaction than censorship, than has been the case with Marissen's article). A major media consultant/spin doctor and organizer/trainer of same - that's who he is. That he tries to remain invisible is only being helped by your AfD.....Skookum1 (talk) 04:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief! All this passion for a Liberal Party hack? It's making me go all misty. Now if only all this effort were to be channelled into a better article... Suttungr (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not just "a Liberal Party hack", but a BOSS hack, the hack (well, maybe outranked in that by Patrick Kinsella). The reason I've avoided adding material to the Marissen article is twofold; one is I have very strong feelings about the criminality of the current BC government and its cronies, whom he helped to elect; the other is that a bunch of Liberal SPAs made life miserable on this article, and on the Bornmann article, and the BC Ledge Raids article, and "exhaustion" took root, as well as aversion. As others here have noted, there's no doubt this guy is notable, and to me highly so. Who's not notable, however, is his brother Michael Marissen....you should have started an AfD there, not here....and postscript, I was informed privately by a reader of this page that Christy Clark and Mark Marissen have divorced, I haven't seen any news copy on that (yet). There's plenty of information that belongs in this article; but it's being monitored, naturally enough as an article about a master spin doctor would be, and any major changes will be subject to edit war and picayune debates....and, again, I'm too POV to add to it (you'll find my username in the Bill Tieleman and BC Mary blogs and on many Tyee forums, so I've recused myself for the most part, other than watching for "political spam" and censorship edits....Skookum1 (talk) 01:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How do these [13][14][15] stand up as reliable sources? I'm staying neutral at the minute...Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 18:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Good grief:
  - BC Business is the leading business magazine in BC, in fact something of the voice of the BC establishment.
  - PublicEyeOnline is one of BC's leading political blogs/zines, in a province where the only real news is mostly found in such places; but even Canwest, the main manipulator of half-factual information in BC, is quoted at the top of that page thus: “...the go-to source for B.C. scuttlebutt.” – Canwest News Service
  - Seven Oaks is a leading political cultural magazine in Canada. "Leadng" not in terms of distribution, but reputation.
  - I suggest you educate yourself about Canadian politics and publications before wondering out loud how it is that prominent sources are actually prominent (they all are). Political blogs from BC have been accepted as valid - and can be shown to be more reliable than CanWest, in fact - look through the materials I linked in my response to Suttungr above; to make it quick and easy use "find/search on page" to find the relevant information about Marissen; there's no doubt this powerful political figure is notable; he'd rather not be, but it's far too late for that....Skookum1 (talk) 04:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Those sources are ones that I found after a search when tryin to establish notability. I put them here for the consideration of others. One would have thought that people wanting to keep the article would moderate their tone when replying, seeing as how I'm trying to establish notability in order to keep the article. You would do well not to alienate those trying to help by suggesting they "educate themselves". Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 04:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I took your tone as meaning you were implying that they weren't reliable/notable, or that you hadn't heard of them (perhaps not being from BC/Canada); they're all notable and reliable sources, as are those I linked in my response to Suttungr.Skookum1 (talk) 05:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep plenty of coverage on google news specifically referring to this individual, not his wife. Seems pointless providing a long long list of diffs here. Polargeo (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Artilce has multiple issues from March '09, but nothing has been done. On the other side it does fit noteability. --MWOAP (talk) 20:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response, well since the AfD is based on alleged non-notability, and you agree it does fit notability, shouldn't your vote be Keep or Oppose??Skookum1 (talk) 04:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject has a notable role in politics and should stay. Have a look at the news link. That the article may need work is not relevant to the issue here which is whether the subject is notable. --KenWalker | Talk 04:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article isn't in good shape, but the subject appears notable. PK T(alk) 15:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to be notable and sourced. There's no wikipedia policy that says the movers and shakers ("backroom boys") are not notable, so the argument for deletion is not supported by policy. Another notable backroom boy. Even his wife has an article. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 21:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep he may be "best known for being the husband of former deputy premier Christy Clark", but he is notable for being Dion's chief organizer, and co-chair of the Liberal's election campaign. DigitalC (talk) 02:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Seems a biased nom. Alio The Fool 18:48, 5 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. Tone 13:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Jones (blogger)

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

New blogger - first blog entry dated 20th December 2009. Notability not established. Claims to be "widely referenced" but no indication of that. noq (talk) 17:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable per WP:BIO, unreferenced, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, and per nomination. MuffledThud (talk) 17:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 18:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References updated to conform to Wikipedia standards - may be relevant to minor parties including caregivers--Fishpunt (talk) 22:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noq - Agree it is an early stage blog - but the author does have some notoriety. He is referenced from Dr Harch's website at hbot.com and is appearing on the PBS special "This Emotional Life" on Jan 4. What threshhold of notoriety are we looking for? If you still feel this is too premature, by all means delete it, but as a parent of a child who suffers from brain injury I would think this is specifically the kind of information wikipedia would want to abstract —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fishpunt (talk • contribs) 17:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The links provided above by MuffledThud should be worth reading. I am sorry to hear about your child but I don't see anything to justify an article about a blogger that has been blogging for less than two weeks. Why is he on the PBS show - surely not as a blogger with no track record? The fact that bloggers link to each other really does nothing to establish notability. noq (talk) 18:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still think we should keep the article but if the consensus disagrees so be it - --Fishpunt (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Armbrust (talk) 06:29, 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 speedy delete. Per WP:HOAX and WP:NOTMYSPACE. Facebook spats have no place on Wikipedia. Fences&Windows 18:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2009-2010 Puerto Peñasco coup d’état attempt

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

This article purports to describe a coup or attempted coup which supposedly took place in the last few days against the "La Jolla de Cortés" regime near Puerto Peñasco, Mexico. However, no explanation of the nature of the government against which this coup was allegedly perpetrated can be found. Purportedly, the coup began when one of the members of the governing council attempted to withdraw from it and set herself up as "supreme dictatress". However, the plotter is identified as "a female and resident of Tucson identified as TEH". I find it hard to believe that a resident of Arizona could have been exercising government power in a Mexican town while also being known only by her initials. Most of the sources used in this article are from a Facebook page, not a reliable source. Furthermore, three of the more promising-looking sources, articles from El Imparcial (a Hermosillo newspaper), turn out to be completely irrelevant. One is about a man who killed his wife in a murder-suicide in Caborca, more than 75 miles away from Puerto Peñasco; another is about the murder rate in Nogales, more than 100 miles away; and the third is a gossip item about Mariah Carey. My guesses are that either this article is a hoax, or it describes a controversy within some small radical group as opposed to a coup against an actual local government. But either way, it should be deleted for lack of reliable sources and being unverifiable. Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sounds like a hoax. :-) Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete this article. All other coverage of the incident is being shunned. Communications in the area are cut off. The author of the article was effectively kidnapped by the La Jolla de Cortés regime for writing this article, because it caused representatives from the Federal Police and the Sonoran Justice Ministry to notice the situation. These heinous crimes will only get the attention they need if the article remains for a few days. Why not wait to delete it until the coup ends? At the moment this Wikipedia article is one of the only hopes for the victims of the brutal administration. (72.222.239.93 (talk) 17:47, 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 keep. Tone 13:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Gilbert Yates

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

Tagged for notability for two years now. To contribute original papers does not invoke notability, and nor does being an editor. Notability, according to WP:PROF, comes from significant impact, including editor-in-chief. -Lilac Soul ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 16:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Listed in “The New international encyclopedia” 1922 edition, provided here [16]. The problem with trying to establish notability for that time period, mid 1800’s to early 1900’s, is that they did not have the resources we do today. In that the individual was listed in an encyclopedia for that time period, is pretty notable, Likewise, my understanding of notable is “…once notable always notable”. Hope this helps. JAAG^Talk 17:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He was just a contributor to that encyclopedia, right? Abductive (reasoning) 04:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep NYT obit, which is fully accepted as proof of notability. DGG ( talk ) 23:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but what does it say about him that is encyclopedic? Abductive (reasoning) 04:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:58, 8 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. sufficient consensus for a keep here JForget 02:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FormatFactory

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

Reason One: Fails to comply with Wikipedia Notability guideline as it neither asserts notability nor shows any evidence of significant coverage from reliable secondary sources.

Cursory web search came up with the following results:

Google Books search came up with no vaild results: Top ten results contain irrelevant thing which were accidentally called "format factory".
CNET Download and Betanews Fileforum didn't feature this product.
Softpedia does feature this product but it seems obscure.
Softonic also does feature this product and in fact has given it a rating of "Excellent". Still, no more than 12 users have written a review for it over a year and a half. Nonetheless, if we accept it as a single reliable coverage, this article's subject is still far from significant coverage.

Reason Two: This article is written like an advertisement.

Deletion is advised. Fleet Command (talk) 16:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 17:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There's no Softpedia editorial review of this product. Those linked are user reviews. Pcap ping 17:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly. That's what I meant. Fleet Command (talk) 06:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a keep though. A sort of review and a tutorial on CNet. Also a review on Stern's website. Included in round-ups netzwelt, and Computerra [17]. ZDnet take in Dutch, and (laugh) tutorial in vi:Dân Trí (top 10 Vietnamese newspaper site--a sort of The Sun). Pcap ping 19:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The CNET blog post is not acceptable per WP:NTEMP: CNET is no longer hosting the download, therefore the review is just a "burst in the news".
  As for the rest, they are blog posts. Personally, I don't accept them as notable. Let's see what administrators think about them.
  Then we get to the second concern: Even a well-sourced article should not be an advertisement; It must be encyclopedic. An article which is well-cited and well-sourced but has no contents other than that of its product website plus some testimonials is not acceptable in Wikipedia per WP:PROMOTION.
  Fleet Command (talk)
  - Seth Rosenblatt is a CNET editor. His blog is not self-published, just like the blogs of journalists at other mainstream media outlets. And he's just one source. You're making up all sorts of rules that simply don't follow our guidelines. Pcap ping 07:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cnet is legitimate coverage. That was a legitimate review by an editor of CNET, which counts as a reliable source. WP:NTEMP says if it was notable once, it remains notable forever. A lot of famous people are totally unknown by anyone these days, nothing ever written about them, but if they got plenty of coverage in eighty year old newspapers around the world, then they still count as notable. There are many reasons CNET may not host the download anymore, the most likely one being that the author wants people to go to his site, so they can see the donation request. Dream Focus 23:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: there are billions of multimedia converter software - why include this one out of all others? what makes this one so special that we don't include articles of all 1,999,999,999 other similarly-featured software? -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 00:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Because multiple sources that pass as reliable for computing stuff wrote at some length about it (and a few other similar software, but not about the majority of the 1,999,999,999 converters you claim to exist)? Pcap ping 07:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:WAX --Cybercobra (talk) 00:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:BIG and WP:LOTSOFSOURCES Fleet Command (talk) 09:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on the coverage it gets from CNET and elsewhere. Dream Focus 23:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, I agree that the article's notability can now be established. We can now wait for nomination period to expire and the article to be rescued.
  However, I still believe that CNET's review is not eligible as notable because FormatFactory is withdrawn from CNET. This withdrawal should also be taken into account. Notability does not need ongoing coverage, yes I know, but withdrawal is different from lack of ongoing coverage.
  Fleet Command (talk) 03:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources listed. I have toyed with an essay about the stages of deletion that nominators go through. The AFD MediaCoder would be the case study.
No sources >> Okay, yes, there are sources, but, those sources are passing mentions in reliable sources >> (I forgot the next steps).
The deletion reason changes, but the deletion stands. withdraw comment, nominator has a very rare and admirable ability to change his stance based on new information. My sincerest apologies Fleetcommand, thank you for the pleasant suprise, the barnstar I gave you for your changed view regarding MediaCoder is very well deserved. mea maxima culpa. Ikip 02:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry but I don't exactly understand your meaning, Ikip. Would you please clarify a bit? Thanks! Fleet Command (talk) 03:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. LotLE×talk 22:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AspNetForum

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

Promotion for non-notable software product. Given sources are non-reliable or trivial mentions, and I have been unable to find any coverage that would indicate the subject passes WP:GNG. Article is by single-issue user. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jitbit, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jitbit Help Desk, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jitbit Macro Recorder. Haakon (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.
Delete: notability not established. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 00:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along with the rest of the articles in this group: non-notable and clearly promotional. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep how can someone judge the product as "non-notable" without even being an expert in the area? Aspnetforum is the most popular forum software for the .NET platform, period. It's well known in the ASP.NET developers community for years, and it is being recommended by the top ASP.NET bloggers. And why, for instance, the article about MegaBBS does have its right to exist (with no references to "reliable sources" at all), and Aspnetforum does not? Is this some kind of a holy war against jitbit's articles? Jazzycat (talk) 14:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You can judge a product as non-notable by not being able to find appropriate independent coverage; there is no need to be an expert to do this. If such coverage does not exist, then the subject is non-notable and should not have encyclopedia coverage. Being popular is not sufficient. Regarding MegaBBS, please note that other stuff exists. I think somebody should nominate that article for deletion, but that does not pertain to this discussion. Haakon (talk) 15:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok, now with the articles almost deleted, let me just explain you guys something. Some niches on the market are suitable for small software companies only (3-7 employees). These small companies never get news coverage (or academic mentions etc) like huge corporations (Microsoft or Apple etc). But Apple will never bother writing a forum-software or a macro-recorder. It's a closed loop, you see... Narrow niche products are discussed and reviewed in narrow communities. A review from a top-rated blogger (like the one mentioned in the article) is the most they can get. Does it mean that they have no right to be included in wikipedia? No - we see a lot of narrow-purpose free products listed here, but as soon as someone tries to make a living from it - bang - "this is promotion, shoot it now". Don't chase commercial software just because you hate it. Instead, ask yourself "is it worth for the users?" Jazzycat (talk) 19:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Free software gets deleted here all time too, for the exact same reasons. Pcap ping 20:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete unless more sources are found. Only one review in a blog, even if it's in the blog of an opinion leader, is not enough for WP:GNG. Pcap ping 20:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Keep~~ added link to another blog Jazzycat (talk) 07:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Struck duplicate keep !vote. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blogs just don't do it for me (or Wikipedia's standards on reliable sources or guidelines for notability). JBsupreme (talk) 18:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep c'mon folks, this forum is officially used by Microsoft-Russia and Microsoft-Australia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.232.10.120 (talk) 20:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC) — 77.232.10.120 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 13:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jitbit Macro Recorder

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

Promotion for non-notable software product. Given sources are trivial mentions, and I have been unable to find any coverage that would indicate the subject passes WP:GNG. Article is by single-issue user. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jitbit, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jitbit Help Desk, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AspNetForum. Haakon (talk) 15:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 18:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, and given the rest of this cluster of articles it's pretty clear Wikipedia is being used as a promotional tool. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: a Google Scholar search is not a source. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 00:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this product was listed in the Comparison of macro recorder software but it has been removed from there because "it has no wikipedia entry". So the only reason I created the article is because the software deserves to be listed in the comparison page. OK, delete this article but put the entry back to the comparison page. Also, could someone please clarify: why the articles about Macro Express and Workspace Macro have their right to exist, but those products are not even close to the popularity of Jitbit Macro Recorder? Stop thinking of witch-hunting, and start thinking of the users. Do they really have the right to know about one of the leading macro-products in the area?
- May I also point out that it was me who rewrote the Macro recorder article to be that full and detailed, and it was me who created the comparison page in the first place, where I have listed ALL available products, not just Jitbit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jazzycat (talk • contribs) 15:15, 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 delete. Tone 14:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Tremor

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

Autobiographical article about a DJ. PROD contested by an IP editor. A Google search turned up a number of hits, but none appear to to be independent and WP:Reliable sources. Fails WP:Bio. PDCook (talk) 15:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Article subject does not fulfill any of the criteria of WP:MUSICBIO. Radio stations mentioned are local pirate stations, not national broadcasters. Although there is a claim of a single release on a major label, two albums would be required to establish notability on a quantitative basis. DJ has received no notable national awards and the entire article is a word for word copy of the article subject's myspace page and should therefore be considered as a copyvio and deleted as such. Fenix down (talk) 20:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: notability not established with third-party reliable sources. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 00:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 01:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to meet WPMUSIC RichardLowther (talk) 13:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Video Converter Ultimate

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

Fails to comply with Wikipedia notability guideline as it has failed to provide significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. Cursory web search yielded the following results:

CNET Download.com and Softonic didn't feature this product at.
Softpedia features both Windows version and Mac version of the product but Windows version is reviewed by no one and Mac version is reviewed by no more than 45 people.
Betanews Fileforum does not feature the Windows version but the Mac version is very unpopular. The standard version of the product for Windows is also downloaded no more than 43 times since 8 December 2008.
A cursory search in Google Books came empty.

I advise the article to be deleted. Fleet Command (talk) 15:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Oh, I forgot to mention: The article is also written like an advertisement as it is mainly a list of features and system requirements. Fleet Command (talk) 15:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I just noticed that the creator of this article, Imtoostudio (talk · contribs), is banned from Wikipedia for publishing promotional contents. Contribution log shows that his major contributions before getting banned was made to this article. Fleet Command (talk) 15:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – This particular Brand is not notable as of today. However Xilisoft Video Converter Ultimate shows well over 50 articles, primarily PCWorld, but several other reviews from the likes of the news againcies such as the Washington Post [18]. Maybe article should be written about them? JAAG^Talk 20:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability not established with third-party reliable sources. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 00:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with JAAG. This article should be changed to Xilisoft Video Converter Ultimate. ImTOO is actually a subdivision of Xilisoft, when you look at their products, they all say made by Xilisoft Corporation. In fact, ImTOO Video Converter is exactly the same as Xilisoft Video converter except with a slightly different interface.(Celicaman (talk) 02:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 10:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but rename to Xilisoft Video Converter. This is a rebranded version of that line of products with a different skin ("Ultimate" is just one edition, they also have Standard, Premium, etc.); see [19] [20] [21] [22]. Although these guys are well-known spammers on other sites as well [23], their stuff appears to be the subject of some independent commentary under the Xilisoft brand. PC World review, reproduced by Washington Post [24], more reviews: [25], [26], [27], [28], [29] (last one is from Mladá fronta DNES). Other mainstream media mentions: [30] [31]. Don't forget to add ffmpeg hall of shame for WP:NPOV. Pcap ping 11:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey! What is this? You use warez website as a reputable source? I did not think your standard of quality is so low! And you take some guy posting in a forum as source? There is no way anyone would accept sources number 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 as remotely reliable! And please do not try to make the list of your sources big by inserting duplicate links. It is dishonest! Fleet Command (talk) 12:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your comments are dishonest or clueless. I used the crack only link as additional evidence that products are identical, not to claim any notability based on that. And I've only duplicated one link for different purposes: (1) part of the discussion that these are identical products, and (2) part of the discussion that these guys are known spammers. The links supporting notability of the Xilisoft Video Converter Ultimate are all from reliable sources. And the first link supporting the fact these products are nearly identical is from a round-up review. Conveniently, you decided to badger me with the last link there, ignoring all other. Please find someone else to harass. Pcap ping 13:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh, on the contrary, I think I hit the spot. Software pirates are immoral and untrustworthy and are not remotely reliable. Shame on you for ever trying to quote a software pirate and putting their word on the same rank as a reliable source, for whatever reason.
      And in case you don't know, blogs and forums posts are not considered reliable sources. Sources #2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are thus void.
      Fleet Command (talk) 20:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I replied on on my talk regarding your repeated accusations and incivility directed against me. This isn't the kind of discussion the closing admin needs to wade through. Pcap ping 22:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, dear Pcap. I think the tension between you and me is now lightened, so both of us are now ready to talk logically and per Wikipedia guidelines, with the goal of improving Wikipedia in mind.
  So, allow me to start: The following is an assessment of the sources which you have provided above. Please state whatever objection you have in regard to my assessments, preferable in a granular manner.

Source	Problem
Hardware Analysis forum	WP:RS and (potentially) WP:POV → The source is a public forum. Everyone can become a member of it and can say anything. There is no reason to think that it can be trusted or whether it is NPOV.
CDR-infO Forum (Posted twice as #4 and #6)	WP:Verifiability → It is a forum post in which its moderator reprimands a user for writing about one or more pieces of horrible software and advertising another. The only mention of ImTOO and Xilisoft is in its topic name but there is no telling whether the horrible software was a Xilisoft or ImTOO product, or the product being advertised was a Xilisoft or ImTOO product. Therefore, it cannot be used as an evidence for the subject of AfD.
A software piracy website	WP:RS → The source is a software piracy web site. Pirates are considered highly unreliable. WP:OR → The site asserts to be offering tools that assist in unauthorized use of ImTOO and Xilisoft products but does not assert that they are actually both one thing. To find out, one must download the illegal contents and investigate—Oh, wait! Apart from the risk of downloading a malware, doing this is original research, which is not allowed in Wikipedia.
I, Myself — I think you are telling the truth. I think Xilisoft and ImTOO are actually one company.	WP:Verifiability → “The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.”
PCWorld Review and Washington Post Review (A duplicate of PCWorld Review) PC.WELT Review ITReviews TopTenReviews (Posted twice as #2 and #11) USA Today article about watching TV on PC	They look good. However, I did not analyze these articles yet because they seem to be on Xilisoft Video Converter not ImTOO Video Converter. First, you must establish that these two products are the same. Other than that, they look good. Note that I reserve myself the right to analyze them for notability, if the two products are proven to be one. Fleet Command (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Linux Insider InformationWeek	WP:Verifiability → They neither mention ImTOO Video Converter nor Xilisoft Video Converter. They only mentions “Xilisoft iPod Video Converter” which is a different product.
iDENS.cz	WP:Verifiability → It neither mention ImTOO Video Converter nor Xilisoft Video Converter. It only reviews “Xilisoft 3GP Video Converter” which is a different product.

- And by the way, people, how do you know ImTOO is same as Xilisoft? Maybe they are two software with the same name under two different brands? Any evidence? Fleet Command (talk) 12:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - "how do you know ImTOO is same as Xilisoft?" They are the same company with the same products just different skins. If you email xilisoft, they will admit to it. someone ask about it on their official facebook and they said imtoo is just a subdivision of xilisoft. I'm no wiki guru, but pcword, washington post, and usatoday seems like reputable sources to me. U can also look at their alexa rating, xilisoft is up there. so replacing imtoo with xilisoft makes sense to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.207.177.237 (talk) 06:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - “I emailed and they denied. Xilisoft accused ImTOO of copyright violation. I even have the email. I send you a copy if you want.” But how can you believe me? Maybe I have faked an email! That's why we have WP:OR: Original research is not allowed in Wikipedia! Fleet Command (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional article written by the creator of the product.—J. M. (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Zilburs

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

Non-notable made-up game lacking GHits and GNEWS. PROD and PROD2 removed by SPA. ttonyb (talk) 15:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I propose a new speedy deletion category for novel campus drinking games. This would constitute the first example. 99.12.243.20 (talk) 15:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is not a campus drinking game. There is no alcohol involved. This article is legitimate, i propose it stays --Tarheelrudy (talk) 17:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)— Tarheelrudy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment – It is still a non-notable made-up game lacking GHits and GNEWS. ttonyb (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Alcohol and venue aside, Wikipedia is not for games that you and your friends invented, per WP:MADEUP. 99.12.243.20 (talk) 17:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not for things that have just been made up. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 18:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Patently non-notable neologism. Article creator also appears to be the same person the article claims is second in the world and has made has made no other edits, so page appears to be a joke. Fenix down (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She is the second in the world because the game is in its fledgling years and has not gained wide exposure as of yet, if it were a joke she would have made herself best in the world. It is most certainly not a joke Tarheelrudy (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)— Tarheelrudy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment Joke or not, aside from notability issues with the article, any individual creating an article in which they are a key element needs to address WP:NPOV, which does not appear to have been done hear, particularly regarding the tone of the article. Fenix down (talk) 11:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I played this game after reading this wikipedia entry and it was enjoyable and i believe if this article is left up russian zilburs will become a widely popular game Pantherswin2010 (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)— Pantherswin2010 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 99.12.243.20 (talk) 21:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Keeping an article in the hope that it might one day become notable is not an acceptable course of action. Fenix down (talk) 11:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The game will become popular? That indicates it isn't yet. Just another student invention (even without alcohol). Peridon (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication this is notable. another madeup game. about time for a speedy delete category. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 23:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - scarcely notable, and if I am wrong on that, then must I add that there are no reliable sources to prove notability. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 00:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but the reason it's not a speedy category is that just relying on one or two people to screen out what is or isnt worthwhile here has been unreliable--people tend to go by what they;ve heard of , & that's not a good way especially with children's games or other child-related things. DGG ( talk ) 04:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment DGG, thanks for your explanation. I was half-joking when I proposed a new category above, but wouldn't a speedy deletion nomination for things recently made up, be it games or neologisms, need to adhere to the same standards as the other categories? In other words, Google checks and news hits would carry weight as they do for the bands, songs, biographies, etc., so not having heard of a game wouldn't be reason enough to nominate it. 99.12.243.20 (talk) 04:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yet another game made up by a small group of friends -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:31, 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 delete. Tone 13:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hexateronic numbers

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

Contested prod. Apparently made-up term: see User talk:A legend#Hexatope numbers. No ghits for either "hexateronic numbers", "hexatope numbers", or "hexateron numbers" (that User:4, the prod contester, claims without evidence appears in the literature.) Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just added no ref tag to article. --MWOAP (talk) 20:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unpublished original work of the author. Jennifer500 (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is basically a clone of Pentatope number. It is example of copy and paste type articles which have dubious notability at best. Creating an article by by copying another one is plagiarism and making the changes needed to make it about a marginally different subject is original research if there are no independent sources. Even if the subject were notable, the article would need a complete rewrite to fix these issues.--RDBury (talk) 14:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. From the talk page discussion, it seems to me like the user just made it up. Insorak ♫ talk 20:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Without any references (and a quick google only finds this page) it's OR.--John Blackburne (words ‡ deeds) 09:24, 6 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 no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spacewalk (software)

(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) 18:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 18:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even though a Google search on the term "Spacewalk Software" only generates 494 hits, still, within the Linux software development industry niche that this software serves, it appears to be noteworthy. Another consideration is the fact that this software is a 'systems level' type of software, so the only people that it will be notable to is software engineers. True, the Linux software development community may not be as large as the Windows software development community, but it is still a noteworthy community, as it represents perhaps only one of two viable alternatives to Windows software that is out there. The other viable alternative being the Mac operating system. Relative to the size of the community, and bearing in mind the fact that it is a specialized 'systems level' type of software, I think 494 Google hits is definitely noteworthy within the noteworthy niche community that it serves. The Spacewalk website itself appears to be a very highly developed site, but the article itself seems to still be a 'stub article', and could use some fleshing out. Thus I recommend Keep, and I would add, please flesh out a little. Scott P. (talk) 19:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Google hits don't show notability. Keeps that ignore guidelines don't help save articles. Joe Chill (talk) 19:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unambiguous advertising (systems management solution) that doesn't even meet the general notability guideline (Linux software development industry niche) . Not every tool used by software engineers is a potential encyclopedia subject: in fact, very few of them are. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that software engineers are a noteworthy community, and that they deserve the ability to use Wikipedia as a reference work, just as much as say physicists or doctors. I was once a software engineer myself, and it seems to me that by removing this article about such an open source free Linux software program, you might be doing software engineers a disservice. By keeping it, Wikipedia loses nothing, and merely enhances its value to its users. The article is clearly not placed as an advertisement for the purpose of financial gain, since the program is freeware. Scott P. (talk) 19:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is User:Ihcoyc's regular POV pushing for his own software notability standard. Just ignore him. Pcap ping 04:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not sufficiently notable to justify its own article page at the present time. See WP:GNG. Even the Red Hat article has no mention of this project. Annette46 (talk) 22:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- magazine.redhat.com/2008/08/06/video-spacewalk/. Pcap ping 04:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 82 google archive news hits on "redhat spacewalk" [32], amongst them The Register [33], Network World [34], CNET [35], InformationWeek [36], Forbes (google link is dead), heise.de [37], etc. Some of the mentions are more trivial than others, but it's clearly an important part of RedHat's infrastructure. The wiki article can definitely be expanded based on all that. Pcap ping 03:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this is an important part of RedHat, then maybe some information belongs there. This is not independently notable. Miami33139 (talk) 07:09, 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, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep sources are somewhat trivial, but seems to meet the letter and spirit of WP:N. Hobit (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well written article that adds worthwhile information to Wikipedia. RHN is the way that sysadmins manage RHEL systems. Richard W.M. Jones (talk) 21:34, 8 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.

As the AfD creator, I'm retracting my nomination; see my comments at the bottom of the page for details. (non-admin closure) KaySL (talk) 15:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio River Trail Council

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

Renominated due to the article being mistakenly speedied under CSD G12; the article creator apparently has permission to copy content from the website of the organisation.

The article is basically a mess; no real notability is asserted as far as I can see, it includes speculation and far too much micro-detail, and is essentially a rewrite of the organisation's mission statement. KaySL (talk) 15:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, 26 total Google hits, no secondary sources. Abductive (reasoning) 23:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I tagged it for speedy deletion the last time without looking to find the copyright permission, for which I assign myself 20 lashes with a wet noodle. I thought it was very unlikely to pass AfD, so I checked for copyvio to see if I could save people some time, but I didn't check further, so, I'm sorry. That said, unfortunately I agree with the above comments that this organization is not currently notable. There's this writeup in the local Beaver County times, but that just doesn't amount to "significant coverage." Glenfarclas (talk) 03:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please refer to the organization's website for significant news articles regarding the progress of the Ohio River Trail Council that are no longer available on-line.--Troiaeye (talk) 05:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I was about to say rename to Ohio River Trail, where this can be a section, as there is much written about the trail itself. It is confusing though and there seems to be more than one thing referred to as the Ohio River Trail - at least one of them seems sufficiently notable but I can't determine which - Peripitus (Talk) 11:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of Ohio River Trails along the Ohio River. Most notably in Ohio and West Virginia under the direction of different organizations. The long term goal is a continuous Ohio River Trail from Pittsburgh, Pa to Cairo, Ilinois.--Troiaeye (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request that no action be taken as a result of this deletion nomination until 7th January; Troiaeye has significantly rewritten the article, and all that really remains is for notability to be firmly established and proven within the article. I've suggested a two-day grace period for him/her to work on it. KaySL (talk) 14:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retract AfD: the article has been significantly condensed, improved, and had references written into it (ideally these should be cited in a more traditional manner, but that can be done once it's no longer being considered for deletion. KaySL (talk) 00:45, 6 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. Cirt (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hybrid Theory (EP)

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

Released by a band called Hybrid Theory, this non-notable EP never charted nor received any media coverage of substance. The fact that the band later changed its name to Linkin Park and went on to become superfamous does not change the fact that this EP does not pass WP:NALBUM: All articles on albums... must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. TheJazzDalek (talk) 12:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —TheJazzDalek (talk) 12:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Might be worth looking into these sources on Google Books. Always worth checking out biographies on a popular band, because it is likely someone has delved into their past and dug up some sort of significant coverage on an EP such as this. kiac. (talk-contrib) 13:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I just expanded the article with information from one of the books found through Kiac's suggestion. The distribution of this EP is an important piece of the history of Linkin Park, this enclopedia would be remiss to delete its page. J04n(talk page) 15:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That same paragraph would just as easily serve the group's history, if not better, by being incorporated into the band's article. The fact that one paragraph is all the coverage you could wring from the book affirms my findings that there has been no substantial coverage of the EP, even looking back on a historical basis. TheJazzDalek (talk) 23:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That same thought crossed my mind as I was typing it, (should probably still add it there) but then thought that if I were reading it at Linkin Park I would want to click on the EP page to see more info on it. In a vacuum, I'd go for delete but as I said, the historical aspect is too much to ignore IMO. Since I'm the only !voter thus far let's see what others think.J04n(talk page) 01:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: the EP plays as an important role in the beginnings of the band which would become Linkin Park. It also contains tracks that are not present in later, fully released albums. Also noting that it has no relation to the Hybrid Theory album, mentioning just in case. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 00:56, 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 speedy delete. WP:CSD#G3 hoax/vandalism; also WP:NEO JohnCD (talk) 14:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zilog head

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

Non notable WP:NEOLOGISM. contested prod noq (talk) 15:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - ~~non-notable neologism, as the nominator says. Wiktionary would be a better place to put this, were it a notable term~~ I've seen all I need to from the article creator and his poor attempt at a sock-puppet. Still fails all inclusion criteria; speedy delete. KaySL (talk) 15:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Nomination. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I PROD tagged it for lack of notability, so not surprisingly I agree with the nominator's rationale. --bonadea contributions talk 16:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NEO. Joe Chill (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a malicious protologism per WP:NEO, WP:NFT, and WP:CSD#G3 - Even before registering on Wikipedia as GEORGIEGIBBONS, the article's creator has been trying to spread misinformation on Wikipedia using a number of British IPs, mostly about game engines. The user has also tried to do the same on the Sega forums and IGN boards using multiple accounts, and has been blocked several times on those sites as an abusive troll. As indicated by comments on the sites, noone else uses the term "Zilog head". Dancter (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it - it is a strong memory of the Sega Forum peoples lifes! - Sketch Style —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.191.75 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it may become a notable reference to the forums but I will happily move it to a dictionary if required —Preceding unsigned comment added by GEORGIEGIBBONS (talk • contribs) 19:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"may become a notable reference" is not a reason to keep it - it needs to be notable now. noq (talk) 19:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I as well as many others had been insulted by that term and it is something memorable therefore it is notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GEORGIEGIBBONS (talk • contribs) 19:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not on Wikipedia - see WP:GNG. noq (talk) 20:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Type in Zilog head and press enter. - GEORGIEGIBBONS xxx —Preceding unsigned comment added by GEORGIEGIBBONS (talk • contribs) 21:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Burn with fire: Wikipedia is not a place for neologisms. Also, the sock/meatpuppeting campaign above only weakens the argument for keeping. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 00:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Dancter (talk) 03:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is being kept, end of story!!!, it MUST not be deleted and now this convo has gone too far! I have taken offence at the nomination and it will not be removed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by GEORGIEGIBBONS (talk • contribs) 13:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think sheer willpower alone is going to save this one, my friend. You spoke about wanting to make a new start on Wikipedia before; I'm afraid this kind of uncivil behaviour isn't helping you very much. KaySL (talk) 13:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SCRABBLE. It may gain notability in the future as you have claimed, however Wikipedia can only cover topics which are notable now. Additionally reliable sources are required, and forum posts are not reliable. --Taelus (talk) 13:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ASAP, that GEORGIEGIBBONS guy was spamming me with this insult on the IGN Boards as well as being an annoying next door neighbor who is stealing my IP address. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mykee881211 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 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. Tone 13:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Schatz

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

Article was on the expired prod list but was already deleted once through prod and recreated. Concern on the prod was a lack of sourcing. After running several searches ([38], [39], [40]), I'm inclined to agree with that concern. No shortage of hits, but I can't find anything that's in depth or reliable, just name drops. There's nowhere near enough sourcing to write a biography here that I found. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was the initial prodder. Note that the content was recreated by the sock of a blocked editor (and maybe the original article, too). --EEMIV (talk) 18:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep expand, and source. I have begun giving the article a cleanup and welcome assistance toward expansion and sourcing. Schatz's being a voice actor on a series with a cult following seems to push at WP:ENT. I believe the article has WP:POTENTIAL despite its colored beginnings. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Mike Schatz was also interviewed by an online website, Banterist, which I think is WP:RS and this source has been appeared in famous publications such as The New York Times, USA Today, CNN, NPR, The New York Post, New Zealand Herald, CBS, Boing Boing, Canada's National Post, The Independent and Guardian newspaper, and MSNBC.com. I've added that interview link as a reference. --Scieberking (talk) 09:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Erm, the tagline from the "source": "From New York, original humor & commentary by Brian Sack. Subject to all the flexible quality standards of internet self-publishing." If a source specifically states it's self published and unreliable, probably a pretty good indication that we should take them at their word. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:10, 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) 00:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet WP:CREATIVE. If he ever gets more than one credit, we can reconsider then. THF (talk) 01:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With repects, the subject does indeed have more than one credit, and seems to merit inclusion per meeting WP:ENT and WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:28, 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, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to meet WP:ENT. If notable enough for his work, lack of nonrelevant bio detail isn't grounds for deletion -- I don't care about his dating history, his childhood or current pets, or the people he went to school with. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Schmidt and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz; he does indeed appear to meet the relevant notability criteria, albeit just about barely. Definitely needs expansion and tidying, but we can't do that with a nonexistant page, now, can we? KaySL (talk) 16:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has been interviewed by notable news sources, one of which is mentioned in the article. [41] They wouldn't all be interviewing someone if he wasn't notable. Dream Focus 20:40, 5 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. Cirt (talk) 18:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Technocracy Incorporated

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

Non-notable, and there has been considerable difficulty in finding reliable sources for this article. Technocracy Incorporated was formed in 1933, after Technocracy's heyday, and when viewed in historical context is probably less important than the Committee on Technocracy (based at Columbia University) and the Continental Committee on Technocracy (led by Harold Loeb), neither of which has a WP article. An adequate overview of all these groups is provided in the Technocracy movement article. Johnfos (talk) 00:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Somewhat faded now, but was a notable organization in its time. Established 76 years ago. There are plenty of references. Articles can certainly be written on the two red links cited. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 23:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Glad to hear that there are plenty of references. Which would you say are the most important ones for this article? Perhaps you would care to replace some of the "citation needed" tags with appropriate references to reliable sources. Thanks. Johnfos (talk) 00:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The organization is still in existence, and even has a number of supporters who have established a YouTube presence. While the group is 76 years old, there are still those who proudly display the Technocracy monad. Unidyne (talk) 00:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm glad that TI has many proud supporters, but I am not sure that is relevant here. The underlying issue here is one of reliable sources. On the basis of published reviews probably the most notable book on technocracy in the USA is Akin's Technocracy and the American Dream, but it has relatively little to say about Technocracy Incorporated. Johnfos (talk) 06:31, 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) 00:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge into Technocracy movement. Nothing reliably sourced and independently notable in this article that can't be included in the overview. THF (talk) 01:36, 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, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep was clearly notable once. That other possibly more notable related groups do not have articles is best interpreted as evidence that we need to make them. As the nom. is familiar with the subject, perhaps he should do so. DGG ( talk ) 23:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an historically important subject and technocracy Inc. is the main technocracy organisation so any article on technocracy will need an article on Technocracy Inc. Isenhand (talk) 10:31, 5 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) 23:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quarter Club

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

I'm unable to find any third-party, independent, reliable sources. Gnews search for "Quarter Club Australia" returned no sources providing significant coverage. Tim Song (talk) 05:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (Discussion) 08:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I have added verifying references Ajhshamley (talk) 12:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it exists. But is it notable? Tim Song (talk) 18:46, 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, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this organization. Joe Chill (talk) 00:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have added more verifying references. This Club organizes major fundraising for the South Australian Olympic, Paralympic and Commonwealth Games athletes and hence I submit that it is of sufficient notability.Ajhshamley (talk) 06:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's look at those refs:
  - [42] is the textbook definition of a trivial mention. Mentioning "Quarter Club" exactly once.
  - [43] and [44] do not mention "Quarter Club" at all.
  - [45] is a photo album.
  - ~~[46] is a 404.~~ [47] does not mention "quarter club" either. added, Timotheus Canens (talk) 09:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- None of these provide the significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources WP:N and WP:ORG requires. Timotheus Canens (talk) 06:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)Note for closer: This account is an alternate account of User:Tim Song, the nominator. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per Tim. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 00:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please note that I have added additional references and links. I believe that an organisation which raises $250,000 per year for Olympic and Commonwealth Games athletes, with support from Government and major business, can fairly be described as being notable. Ajhshamley (talk) 08:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You added references that says nothing or very little about Quarter Club. Adding a bunch of cats does not help it either. You have yet to demonstrate significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources, or establish that any other criteria listed in WP:ORG apply. Timotheus Canens (talk) 09:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple independent and authoritative references, including the South Australian Governor, the Chinese Embassy in Australia and an Adelaide newspaper.Ajhshamley (talk) 09:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...that says little or nothing about Quarter Club. Timotheus Canens (talk) 10:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

... and a lot about:

1. the high profile fundraising event, named for the State of South Australia's Premier- the State's Chief Executive Officer;

2. the high profile guests, including the State Governor and Chinese Ambassador;

3. the high profile sponsors, which have lent their names to the organisation; and

4. the high profile chairman

This is a genuine organisation with a high profile in South Australia.The article has been linked to the Olympic and Commonwealth Games categories as it is associated with Olympic and Commonwealth Games fundraising.

Ajhshamley (talk) 11:58, 10 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. keep arguments are mostly by assertion and the argument that the article is lacking adequate sourcing hasn't been refuted. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simple Instant Messenger

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

This software is not apparently notable by third party sources. No sources exist in the article and searching for them shows a few minor mentions amidst many other hits for the non-capitalized use as a generic phrase. Miami33139 (talk) 20:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 20:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: one just cannot remove an article with 5 years change history and more than 100 changes by 76 editors, covering the opensource product still in use and under development, using "no notability" criteria. And as for boring formal requirements, there is some russian-language coverage in Computerra (reviews at 1, 2). Honeyman (talk) 20:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your initial argument that "one just cannot remove an article with 5 years change history and more than 100 changes by 76 editors" is invalid. It happens here on Wikipedia all the time. JBsupreme (talk) 09:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - And that's a problem of Wikipedia rather than of my argument. Honeyman (talk) 19:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I haven't paid enough attention to the existence of Serverless Instant Messenger article; as I was a SIM user long (two or three IMs) ago and even kept an eye on the development, I never seen it being called "Serverless Instant Messenger". Can anybody provide any significant reference/proof of SIM being officially translated as "Serverless" rather than "Simple"? Unless it may worth to merge most of the contents of Serverless Instant Messenger article into the Simple Instant Messenger article, but delete the Serverless Instant Messenger article itself. Honeyman (talk) 19:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Russian language ~~sources~~articles above, while not devoted to this product exclusively, do amount to "significant coverage" per the notability guideline. Alison22 (talk) 23:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Alison22 has been indef blocked as sockpuppet. Pcap ping 02:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Source not sources. Both of the links are on the same website. Joe Chill (talk) 23:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've revised my comment. Alison22 (talk) 23:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Since when is a one paragraph review considered significant? Miami33139 (talk) 02:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are actually two paragraphs, one in each of the articles, and both are of substantial length. I believe that, collectively, they constitute significant coverage. Alison22 (talk) 04:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Single paragraph is not substantial length. Miami33139 (talk) 20:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of reliable sources with some reviews of the subject: http://www.ixbt.com/soft/im.shtml#10 http://www.thg.ru/software/linux_communication_software/linux_communication_software-03.html --Maxxicum (talk) 06:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And one more: http://www.itc.ua/node/22610 (there is also a message below that this article was published in the journal). --Maxxicum (talk) 06:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Computerra articles above were too; at least one of the articles has a distinct mark that it was published in the paper version of the magazine. Honeyman (talk) 14:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep: it is notable you can merge with Serverless Instant Messenger — Neustradamus (✉) 14:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Neustradamus. Doc Quintana (talk) 14:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not seeing anything in the way of non-trivial coverage from multiple reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 09:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are indeed a number of reviews on Russian and Ukrainian sites linked above. I don't know how reliable or important those sources are. Pcap ping 09:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment2. The exact same product has a 2nd wiki article Serverless Instant Messenger, which was prodded. I've added it to this afd. Pcap ping 15:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep one of the articles an merge the other with it. Computerra is a reliable source for reviews, and so is ixbt.com (Alexa rank 132 in Russia [48]; they have an English version of the site too, but which has less stuff.) The software developers don't seem to have an official explanation for the acronym(?) Sim-IM, so the article should probably just be moved to Sim-IM as well. Pcap ping 15:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Info: Description as in the instalation package (in openSuSE distribution): «SIM (Simple Instant Messenger) is a plugins-based open- source instant messenger that supports various protocols (ICQ, Jabber, AIM, MSN, YIM). It uses the QT library and works on X11 with optional KDE-support.». No comment on notability - 85.240.250.195 (talk) 18:14, 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, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:44, 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, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: notability not established with third-party reliable sources. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 00:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. GPL licensed open-source software. Samboy (talk) 08:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This statement says nothing related to the notability criteria or sourcing requirements. Miami33139 (talk) 10:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously (per most editors). This is just part of one editors deletionist rampage, arising out of a hatred of FOSS, apparently. LotLE×talk 20:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Merge and redirect with the suggested article. It meets notability requirements. I think that no decision should be made on this article without first consulting the people over at the Wikipedia software Project or their guidelines for notability should at least be consulted andyzweb (talk) 05:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : Seems notable enough to have a mention somewhere.. Merge would be okay.. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:58, 11 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. Tone 13:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo You Decide on the Adventure

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

No sources, no evidence these books meet WP:BK. --EEMIV (talk) 14:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The books do meet a single WP:BK criteria, namely the threshold criteria of having ISBN numbers, but as the guideline states, that's not enough on its own to merit an article. KaySL (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, all are unnotable books and fail WP:BK and WP:N, with no significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Existing does not make them notable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found zero sources. Joe Chill (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability not established with third-party reliable sources. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 00:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources are now provided to show they exist. Maybe we can merge with Nintendo Adventure Books this article. --Victory93 (talk) 02:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: as Collectonian pointed out earlier, "existing does not make them notable", and they fail WP:BK on every count bar one, which isn't enough to merit inclusion on Wikipedia. Perhaps they can be merged into Nintendo Adventure Books as you say; I'd advise taking a copy of the page as it currently exists just in case you plan to do the merging work. KaySL (talk) 02:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:06, 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 redirect to Corsham#Education. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Corsham regis

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

Non-notable primary school. Stinging Swarm ^talk 14:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any significant coverage of this school, only a handful of primary sources, listings on school registries, and the like. The BBC has this page, but obviously that doesn't contribute to notability. Glenfarclas (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability not established with third-party reliable sources. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 01:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to locality. - Eastmain (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. - Eastmain (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. - Eastmain (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Corsham#Education. All the necessary information is already at the target so there is nothing more to merge. Further, this is clearly a useful search term so there is no justification for a straight deletion. TerriersFan (talk) 22:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as TerriersFan. I will merge the one useful sentence as soon as I have wrtten this. Such merger is usually the best solution for NN Primary Schools. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Corsham#Education per precedent. This is a plausible search term. Cunard (talk) 06:25, 6 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. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kibaale Community Centre

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

Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Reference included in article is a primary source (funding agency for the center). Zero Google news hits and the Google web hits are either primary sources, blogs or largely adverts for donations for the centre. Not seeing how this might meet general notability guidelines RadioFan (talk) 14:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Keep: All high schools are notable. Joe Chill (talk) 01:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability not established with third-party reliable sources. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 01:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All schools are notable, and much of this organization's work is as a school, including an adult-education vocational school. I added http://www.newvision.co.ug/D/8/19/647675 as a reference. - Eastmain (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. - Eastmain (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 22:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - quite clearly notable; not only contains a high school but an organisation that is pivotal in the community. Further, it is sponsored by several notable organisations and sources are available from which the page can be expanded. TerriersFan (talk) 22:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While schools generally can be shown to be notable, they are not automatically notable (WP:SCHOOL did not pass). This article still must meet WP:GNG through references 3rd party sources which there dont seem to be much of.--RadioFan (talk) 00:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The guideline WP:SCHOOL, you mentioned, is a failed proposal and does therefore not apply here.--Kmw2700 (talk) 03:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot recall any documented secondary school being deleted as non notable in the last two years. We make the rules here as well as on policy pages (which are often at the mercy of filibusters), and this is one of the most consistent rules that is in practice followed, precisely in order to avoid wasting time on thousands of afs with essentially all of them passing. Just as we assume elementary schools are not, to avoid thousands with all of them failing. DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it has a high school with big local impact and is sponsered by notable organisations. --Kmw2700 (talk) 03:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added another reference and removed redundant information. Adress of reference: [49]--Kmw2700 (talk) 05:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All high schools are notable. Cunard (talk) 06:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep and possibly retitle. the Kibaale Community Schools would then be notable, not necessarily the rest of it. but perhaps an article emphasising the school can be written, free of the current promotional tone. DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have never seen a high school deleted from Wikipedia... not one that was readily verifiable at least. JBsupreme (talk) 11:13, 8 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 redirect to Merzbow discography. (non-admin closure) Lugnuts ping 18:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scissors for Cutting Merzbow

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

Can find no independent coverage for this album, does not meet WP:NALBUMS OR WP:GNG J04n(talk page) 12:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 12:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 12:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Merzbow discography per WP:BEFORE #4. Lugnuts (talk) 13:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nom: I am happy to withdraw nomination for redirect. J04n(talk page) 15:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Merzbow discography as per comments above. --DAJF (talk) 15:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Merzbow discography... also as per comments above. I have come across many articles for albums by Merzbow, often when working on requests for cover images through the Albums project. This artist has a very long history and a beefy discography (239 studio albums!!!), but information and artwork for his many releases is largely absent in the English-speaking world because they haven't broken out of Japan very much. Still notable though. For now the discography is the best place for the sketchy info available on the various albums. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree completly with Doomsdayer. All Merzbow releases are notable, and in cases like this, they can be redirected as a likely search-term. Of course if references are found at a future date, there's no reason why not to restore the article from a redirect. Lugnuts (talk) 18:13, 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 merge to Xevious. Tone 14:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Xevios

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

I can't find references to cover WP:GNG; given that it's a bootleg copy of a game, that's rather unlikely. There are things on arcade history websites, but since they list every game, bootleg and variant ever made it's not really evidence of importance. Ironholds (talk) 12:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NN. It is a very obscure topic only die-hard fans would search for. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 12:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I had one of these boards in the 80's. Presumably there are others in existence. This makes it a potential collectible. And should rare items be excluded from Wikiepedia just because they are rare? AND, yhey may be few and far between, but they do exist in virtual form, so there is a potential on-going life of this game through things like MAME. However, if you insist on applying WP:NN or WP:GNG, then should this instead be noted in the Xevious main page in a section called boot-legs or copies or something similar? Or is this too insignificant to be mentioned even there? Pioneer2056 —Preceding undated comment added 12:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

It might be worthy, but probably only as a note that bootlegs were made, such as... and so on. Ironholds (talk) 14:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: few or no third-party reliable sources. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 01:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Xevious. It might be able to fit over there. –MuZemike 17:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Xevious. Its notability if any derives from Xevious. -Thibbs (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Xevious - not notable enough to stand on its own. --Teancum (talk) 18:57, 7 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. Tone 13:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maxx Skytric

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

fails WP:MUSIC. While one of his bands may be notable (and I say "may") the other is certainly not, and individual members of a band are only granted articles when they have been part of multiple, notable acts or where they pass the requirements at WP:BIO. Ironholds (talk) 11:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability, subject fails WP:MUSICBIO. No reliable and independent sources. --Vejvančický (talk) 15:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 18:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability not established with third-party reliable sources. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 01:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 01:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not finding in-depth coverage to suggest this artist meets WP:MUSICBIO. Gongshow ^Talk 04:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I too cannot find any significant coverage to establish notability. Perhaps sometime in the future the band may get more fame to meet our notability requirements. -- œ ^™ 08:42, 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 delete. Tone 13:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GSR (Band)

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

despite the bluelinks, seems to fail WP:MUSIC. A single release on a non-notable label, which (while including a couple of noted session musicians) is not enough on its own. I cannot find any evidence that the band meets any other requirements; while the album was released on an important independent music label, this was merely for distribution; they aren't "signed". Ironholds (talk) 11:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 18:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Myspace and Twitter do not form reliable sources, and thus do not justify notability. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 01:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 01:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not finding in-depth coverage for this group in reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 04:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 23:59, 8 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. Tone 13:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Enos

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

Delete No evidence he meets WP:MUSIC Boleyn3 (talk) 10:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The original request was presented in a bad format. I have edited it to be compliant. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 12:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence that he meets WPMUSIC. RichardLowther (talk) 13:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 23:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability not established with third-party reliable sources. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 01:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 01:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Looks like the vultures are out again coming out for another LGBT artist. I don't understand that this big deal is about people writing articles on Wikipedia about people that they admire.PopMusicLover03 (talk)
- Comment. It is nothing to do with his sexuality, it's all to do with whether he meets WPMUSIC, which blatantly he doesn't. If you disagree, explain why. You are looking at the issue blinked - Other musicians are regularly deleted because they don't meet WPMUSIC, no one says it is because they are 'straight', it's simply they don't meet the criteria. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with rules (look them up if you are not sure what they are), it is not a set of pages where people write about people they admire - if you want to do that, you are in the wrong place. RichardLowther (talk) 13:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not finding in-depth coverage sufficient to meet WP:MUSICBIO. Gongshow ^Talk 04:32, 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 delete. Tone 13:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anamary Lorenzo

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

WP:NN, no reliable sources to assert notability. User:Nenaa is the sole contributor. It is probably an autobiography. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 09:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is also a completely unsourced biographical article. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 10:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete No indication of notability. It is impossible to verify a single fact in this article. Furthermore, the article contains sensitive personal informations and photo, it should be deleted immediatelly, in my opinion. --Vejvančický (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, should be buried in WP:SNOW. Just enough of a claim of significance to survive speedy, by past practice, unfortunately. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I couldn't fit it in any speedy. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 22:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: Twitter is not a source. Fails WP:BIO. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 01:03, 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 redirect to id Tech 3. Consensus is measured by assessing arguments agianst policy rather then counting heads and voting for keep by assertion is really pointless as there is no argument to weight against policy. Also note that new users canvassed to support an article as a flashmob are generally given very little weight. So, after that, what this discussion comes down to is whether the sourcing cuts the mustard. Separate notability requires substantial sourcing and the only detailed examination of the sources was that the sourcing was trivial at best. Since this argument has not been sucessfully refuted the conclusion is that this article does not justify a standalone article. The next question is delete or merge, since there is some sourcing merge could be an option so I have chosen to redirect and leave the history so the sourced material can be transfered across. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ioquake3

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

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

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

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

Coverage of this software is limited to the short "Version X now available" press release variety. This can't really be considered significant coverage, going by WP:GNG. Therefore I suggest deletion on the grounds of notability. Marasmusine (talk) 09:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Marasmusine (talk) 09:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one of many Quake engine clones. Nothing notable about this one. If there's an article that lists clone engines, a passing mention there is plenty. --Teancum (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Curiously enough, the only thing that went through the mind of the bowl of petunias as it fell was 'Oh no, not again!'. Many people have speculated that if we knew exactly why the bowl of petunias had thought that we would know a lot more about the nature of the universe than we do now." Maybe it was referring these repeated deletion attempts? Seriously do we really have to keep going through this over and over again? Anyway, a few things to consider here. This is not JUST a quake clone, it is the leading free software FPS engine, which powers several notable free (as in beer) and free (as in freedom) games, more than many commercial engines. It is packaged in operating system repositories, such as in Fedora or any Linux system that cares about gaming, it is also the one recommended by Timothee Besset (an id software employee who was in charge of supporting Quake 3 before the source release). It has also has had press coverage, as is shown in the articles citations and if you put the engine into Google. Seriously, do we really need to go through this all over again? - http://ioquake3.org/2009/02/20/ioquake3-entry-deleted-from-wikipedia/ - Comrade Hamish Wilson (talk) 22:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This is the first time this article has been taken to peer discussion at AfD. So, yes, seriously. As I wrote above, we need evidence of coverage beyond "Version X now available" press releases.Marasmusine (talk) 09:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am not exactly sure if this is the first time it has gone under debate, but I know for a fact it has been deleted several times, and just keeps coming back. Comrade Hamish Wilson (talk) 11:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The first time it was deleted as a copyvio/advert. The second time per WP:PROD. This is the first actual deletion discussion on this. –MuZemike 17:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This engine is not a clone. Unofficially, but by reputation, it is the community-maintained version of the QuakeIII engine. Failing a "keep" it should probably be merged into Id Tech 3, but that would be a bit awkward. APL (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A valuable piece of software for any Quake III fan and a necessity for any GNU/Linux or even Mac gamer. Highly notable! Comrade Graham (talk) 04:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Highly notable subject. Can be used to power Star Trek: Voyager – Elite Force Holomatch, Quake3, OpenArena, Urban Terror, and many others. It is the defacto standard for FPS gaming in the Unix World, and presents a technical qualify superior to the idtech3 engine it was based on. A valuable Quake3 derivative on Linux, Mac, and yes dare I say Windows. Is this perhaps an issue of refusing to believe that Linux can run games hmmm? Kc4 (talk) 09:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, just in response to the above: Having a reputation, being valuable, or being used to power other games: these are not indications of notability. Nor is my opinion of Linux at all relevant. Marasmusine (talk) 09:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed - What this article needs to survive are some reliable sources that back up the article. I doesn't have any, and it was hard to find any when searching. No matter how useful to a gamer, Wikipedia is still an encyclopedia. If sources can't be backed up with hard evidence, it needs to go. --Teancum (talk) 10:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you look at the citations, you can clearly see several sources that should be more than enough to establish notability. These include coverage from Gaming, Linux, and Macintosh news sources, including both on-line and printed materials. And if you check you can see that statements such as "we need evidence of coverage beyond Version X now available press releases" are inaccurate and false. Out of all the sources, only four can be said to qualify for this distinction, out of fourteen at the time of this writing. Please make sure your arguments are up to date when you post otherwise your comments end up being meaningless. Comrade Hamish Wilson (talk) 11:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - To be fair, those references did not come until after the article was nominated. Additionally the references are no more than an "available for download" for 90% of those sources, and the other 10% talk about the games which use the engine and do not cover the engine itself, which does not satisfy WP:GNG. The games-based articles would be fine as supporting references, but can't stand on their own without significant coverage of the engine itself. --Teancum (talk) 13:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Okay, I'll look through all the citations one by one. The first thing to note is that the sources are pretty indiscriminate in WP:RS terms.

Linux Today: Just a link to a self-published blog, [50].

Betanews: Duplicate of above (wrong address?)

Inside Mac Games, Bluesnews, ausgamers, Phoronix, zeden: Press releases.

Macsimnum: "...according to Inside Mac Games.": copy of above.

Maxiapple.com, MacLivre, XP Games: Trivial content on self-published sources (for example, MacLivre is just a WordPress blog).

OpenArena, Tremulous, urban terror: primary sources

LinuxJournal, The Inquirer, Slashdot, linuX-gamers, JeuxLinux: trivial mentions

In summary, nothing that comes close to the general notability guideline. Once vetted for reliability, some of the trivial mentions can be used to mention ioquake3 in other articles such as Smokin' Guns and World of Padman. Marasmusine (talk) 14:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally neither Smokin' Guns nor World of Padman meet notability guidelines either, but that's for another discussion. --Teancum (talk) 17:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Standing by Delete vote. Sources have been added, put as Marasmusine pointed out not one has any significant coverage whatsoever. --Teancum (talk) 01:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This debate is far from over, and three days is not near long enough to declare that the article is ready for deletion. Some of us have more important things to do than spend all our time chatting on Wikipedia all day, so don't just jump and say "delete it now!" after not getting a response in a day. Especially when you do not have anywhere close to consensus. I was hoping to expand this more, but you are rushing me to post this reubtal:

Your above list is your critique about what the sources do wrong, as a counter here is a critique about what the sources do right, based on the Wikipeida guidelines:

No original research is needed to extract the content: CHECK
Sources directly support the information as it is presented in an article: CHECK
Wikipedia articles should be based on secondary sources: For most of them, CHECK
Multiple sources are generally preferred: CHECK

Another thing to keep in mind is even though some of these sources might contain information from what could be considered "press releases", this information was gathered by the news sources themselves independently of ioquake3. They just posted them on their website/twitter/other. Once on the news website, it would seem to me that they would then be placed under that news sources reliability and not that of the original source, as they have found it reliable enough to post. The news sources posted this information because they thought they were notable or interesting, not because they were paied or pressured by the ioquake3 project to do so.

Also, why is being used to power several games not considered important for notability? It proves the engines popularity and shows why it is important. I have seen nowhere in the various guidelines that you link to anything that says that engines can not be valued based on the number of notable games that use them. As a parallel, a persons notability is often establish by the works he/she has done. I do not see why this does not also apply to engines.

In this discussion we have also seemed to have forgot two other points which help establish notability: It's inclusion with Linux distributions and it being recommend by an important id Software employee. I have added this information, with citations, to the article to help demonstrate these facts. These, coupled with the sources, even with your criticisms of them, add enough to establish notability in my mind at least, and I am sure ion some others as well.

The false Betanews link was my bad though, and I have fixed the link. Comrade Hamish Wilson (talk) 02:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, in fact, not to go on a personal attack, it is rather tasteless to claim consensus when the debate still rages on. If anything consensus points more in the direction of a keep, or at least a draw. It seems to me that you are only tired of talking about this. In which case you may learn a lesson from this, if you aren't willing to stand and discuss this than avoid Wikipedia discussions. That aside, let's keep talking about this. If Wikipedia is to be the great encyclopedia people should be willing to talk about things for more than just a few days. Devotion is the only way to build this site up. Hamish has talked about this in detail enough to keep the ball rolling so I just want to say to steady on and let's talk about this. And I still stand by the sources he has posted, granted they are hardly a mention in all the major news outlets, but them in total, combined with the inclusion in operating system software repositories and the recommendation by Besset is more than enough to make me still feel assured that this is strong enough to be worth the minuscule amount of hard drive space it is taking up on Wikipedia servers. We have read the guidelines and we can't understand your interpretations, so please elaborate and let's keep talking. Comrade Graham (talk) 02:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I didn't and wouldn't claim consensus. My point was that even with updated references none of them are published, reliable sources, meaning that though the gaming community may/may not deem this engine notable it still doesn't fit into WP standards. No amount of self-published, wordpress, etc sources can fix that. And for the record I like the engine, and see its use. But just like a paper encyclopedia it's got to have reliable, hard facts to back it up. To sum it up, I reiterated my choice per Marasmusine's pointing out that none of the sources added since the AfD are reliable sources. --Teancum (talk) 13:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a fantastic novel project which I feel deserves its own wikipedia page and more widespread attention. I see no reason for deletion. --Lieutenant Colonel Frank Slade (talk) 05:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)— Lieutenant Colonel Frank Slade (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep As an uninterested visitor when I read the article it certainly fits my definition of notable. 216.136.119.130 (talk) 06:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)— 216.136.119.130 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

lol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.188.250.94 (talk) 06:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC) — 216.188.250.94 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Tea and cum needs to get a life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.66.136 (talk) 07:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC) — 66.69.66.136 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Um, I am sorry, but no personal attacks. Please keep that to yourself, for the sake of good conduct, Comrade Hamish Wilson (talk) 09:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I may not be anyone special, people need to feel welcome and invited. Sure the Wiki standards are a great thing, but give people time to build up the Wiki listing before trying to flush them away, which will leave a bad taste for everyone except the people trying to get their Wiki edits up. It would be better and more encouraging if more experienced Wiki people would help to improve articles instead of trying to get rid of them. The Ioquake3 page is as good as these unchallenged ones IMHO:
- DarkPlaces
- FTEQuake
- TeamFortress
- OpenArena
- CPMA (OK, this one is a bit better)
- Quake_Army_Knife —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigger-oN (talk • contribs) 11:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC) — Tigger-oN (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

While I'd agree on DarkPlaces, FTEQuake and CPMA - TeamFortress is the mod that turned into a commercially released game, with a highly successful sequel, Team Fortress 2. Quake Army Knife cites several reliable sources. OpenArena is sortof on the fence. Regardless, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid argument. If you feel they don't fit the criteria, you can nominate them for deletion, or likely someone here will do so in time. --Teancum (talk) 12:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note off-site canvassing (If TimeDoctor is reading, see Wikipedia:Canvassing) For those of you coming in to the discussion from the ioquake3 community please take note of the message at the top of this page. Insults and WP:ATA arguments from the ioquake3 community aren't really going to endear themselves to the closing administrator.

In response to Comrade Wilson, AfDs last for at least seven days and no-one has called for an early closure, so there was no need to rush. To clarify: I'm going by the general notability guideline, which asks for significant coverage. Short news posts about release dates and passing mentions in other sources just don't cut it for me. But if the other indications you present satisfy the consensus of established editors, then I'm happy to go with that. Marasmusine (talk) 10:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – I'd be willing to concede that [51], [52] and [53] may be considered reliable enough to barely meet notability. –MuZemike 18:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that's not being generous? The last of the three points to another article which is merely a couple of lines of text with a press-release, the other two only mention Ioquake3 in passing. It's not anywhere near 'significant coverage' IMO, which is one half of the notability equation. Someone another 18:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to id Tech 3. There is a large volume of sources plastered across the article, but that isn't what the notability guideline is about. What's being asked for is significant coverage in reliable sources, IE do the bricks exist to build a proper wall. In this case I'd say no, by a mile, outside of press releases, copy-and-paste jobs etc. it's just passing mentions which are by definition no good for building a standalone article. If Ioquake3 is part of Tech 3's story then that's where it should be, it's still present on WP but as part of a larger subject rather than a standalone which isn't working out. Someone another 19:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because of Ioquake3#Improvements_over_the_original_engine. --Leladax (talk) 21:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements over the original engine don't establish notability. --Teancum (talk) 22:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the way I read that at least, it was not an argument for notability, but rather an argument against a merger.Comrade Hamish Wilson (talk) 07:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because the many millions of downloads in themselves IMO prove notability. (1.5million from this page alone: [54]). The ioquake3 article should be rewritten to show it's status as an independent project and not just a derivative and most of the GPL projects listed on the idtech3 page need to be moved over to the ioquake3 page. — DavidSev (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)— DavidSev (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
No, number of downloads is not a notability criteria. Marasmusine (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not in of itself, but it adds another log to the bonfire as it were. Still, he makes an interesting point about diversifying the article. Comrade Hamish Wilson (talk) 08:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How is the fact that there are millions of interested people who might reasonably expect to be able to find information here not relevant? I really couldn't give a toss what the guidelines say (and your link isn't even a guideline, just an opinion piece), there are a significant number of people interested in this project who would expect there to be a page here. No one is disputing the accuracy of this page, so it's in the best interests of the end-users to keep the page. Surely what's in the best-interest of the end-users and readers should be the only criteria that matters in the end? — DavidSev (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)— DavidSev (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Also, just because I've only made a few edits over the 3 years I've been here doesn't make me a Single-purpose account. I find it kind of offensive that you would say my input in this discussion has no value just because my edits have been few and minor. — DavidSev (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)— DavidSev (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep no matter how loud people and guidlines scream for reliable sources, many, many people use it and work on it and that makes it notable. If the press is not able to reliably represent this reality it's not a fault of the project and reality is a higher standard than reliable press. What do you need press for an Open Source project? Just looking at the SVN log proves more than any article could ever do. -- ioquake3 maintainer for the FreeBSD project
I believe this is the "it exists" notability fallacy. Independent, reliable sources are a fundemental principle of Wikipedia. If we have further members of the ioquake3 community posting here, please can they note our civility policy? (these edit comment and editing of other peoples comments don't help) Finally, I'm open to the possibility of a partial merger, following APL and Someoneanother's comments.Marasmusine (talk) 15:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've got no idea how that space got in there. There's obviously a lot of stuff wrong with the way things happen in Wikipedia (now that's something there's a lot of press coverage available for). I'm out of here. --that FreeBSD guy again —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.130.217.51 (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC) — 88.130.217.51 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

So the solution is for your online community to scream and yell. Sounds like Threshold all over again IMO. –MuZemike 19:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just added a section on academic uses of ioq3 plus references. I think the distinction between "published" and "online" is going to be harder to make going forward. Most academic print media (and print media in general) has been transitioning to an increasingly online distribution method over the last decade. In addition, computer-based research often comes out in the form of online-only "whitepapers" which is a pretty standard industry practice. I was able to find a real published article with an ISBN reference but I don't know that online-only "publishing" would have that type of reference. I think at some point you'll have to give up looking for hardcopy references (is an online-only Wall Street Journal article invalid?) as more and more publishers try to push people to their online presences with exclusive content to drive ad sales. Also, what a "notable" publication is is very opinionated as well... most people not in the computing field have never heard of ACM though those in the field know it's a highly-regarded publication.

I understand the reservations of using blogs as references but due to the dynamic nature of the web, they may be the only references out there unless you want to use the Internet Archive or Google's cached files for sites that have ceased to exist. If indirect observation of something is good enough for scientific proof (see: black holes, gravitic lensing, dark matter, etc.) shouldn't it at least be given some weight for a works cited page? A blog post about an article about ioquake3 might be the only reference online for that article, for example. Not every wiki contributor has access to a library that just happens to subscribe to the publication that had the article to pull out more specific reference information. Wikipedia is supposed to be an online encyclopedia that caters to the common man, isn't it? Access to knowledge for everyone? It seems like there are MANY more wikipedia entries that are single lines or have absolutely no references or explanation that would be far better candidates for deletion than this article which actually has informative content. At what point does persisting to delete this article while leaving other worse-off articles online actually serve the readers? If I find some articles that don't meet your criteria but aren't in danger of deletion, then modify the ioq3 article to be just as bereft of information, will you then leave it alone? The implementation of your policy seems random, at best, or with a personal agenda, at worst. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.110.18 (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC) — 64.81.110.18 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Thank you for your constructive comments: the scholarly papers are compelling evidence of notability. It would be good to get some figures on how many times the papers have been cited themselves, as this is what will give them weight towards notability of ioq3. With regards to using blogs as sources, the main issue is with them being self-published with no editorial control, but that's a conversation that should be taken to the WP:RS talk page. I'm not sure I understand your final questions, as I personally cannot give equal attention to 3 million articles. Marasmusine (talk) 18:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, stuff like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lundquist_number has only a single reference but is in no danger of being deleted because it's not notable. Is it because it's a specialized topic? I see other mathematical and scientific articles being put up for review with more references. It just gives off the impression of inconsistent enforcement especially since the ioquake3 article was put up for deletion at least one other time before as well. I guess it's been different people putting it up for deletion each time but at some point one would get paranoid and wonder if some wikipedia admins have it out for ioquake3! Hopefully the addition of some academic references will show that ioq3 is actually being used by more than just a few games or enthusiasts--not popularity per se but more utility. As for whether or not the cited academic papers are referenced elsewhere, I'm not sure how one would note that in the footnotes.

For example, one of them seems to be referenced in many places when doing a search on the title, http://www.google.com/search?q=VMM+Independent+Graphics+Acceleration&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7DKUS . First page I see the ACM, two different virtualization companies citing or hosting that work, and some more publishing mirrors, second page has it referenced by IEEE and Microsoft's academic research site. I guess by looking for how many times these are cited, you'd want that info in this talkback section, not the main article? But what if someone else comes along in a year wanting to remove it because they don't know that the papers had been referenced elsewhere enough times? It seems like it could get very drawn out as a worst-case scenario. Last deletion was talked about on an admin's personal talkback page, not the article itself, so I would wonder if this whole process would have to be followed yet again. It seems like a yearly thing for ioq3 at this point (though I could be wrong, I haven't exactly been keeping records of this kind of stuff). I'm sure the academic section could be fleshed out a bit more with some more papers if it's still a bit thin, but is there anything more specific that would sway your opinion about the notability of this article? More references? More references with ISBN? References that are cleared referenced themselves by other papers or publications (though not sure how to denote that)? It seems like the addition of the academic category helped quite a bit and I am just wondering if there is anything else that comes to mind that would help further. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.110.18 (talk) 09:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC) — 64.81.110.18 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

While the concern is understood, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid argument. Likely that article should be deleted too, but most of us here only focus on video game articles. --Teancum (talk) 12:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ioq3 is being used by many very popular q3's mods, thousands of people play them every day, isn't that not popular enough for you?
It's not evidence of popularity that we've asked for :> Marasmusine (talk) 21:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wiktionary:notable we're looking for "Worthy of notice; remarkable; memorable; noted or distinguished". So I'd say popularity is certainly a subset of notability, being "pleasing to people in general, or to many people" counts as "Worthy of notice" and "memorable" at least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidSev (talk • contribs) 15:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On Wikipedia notability refers to the notability guideline, which has a specific set of criteria, the dictionary definition of the word 'notable' isn't what's being asked for. The presence of the kind of sources stipulated by that guideline give contributors the building blocks needed to build proper articles. Nobody here is being so petty as to suggest that the article shouldn't be here because not enough people give a damn, sources are what WP is built upon and without them we have a problem. Someone another 16:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From e.g. Google Scholar one can easily find many academic papers mentioning specifically ioquake3 (1) and some of them are referring directly to its homepage. One of the papers is cited by others 17 times (2) and another 7 times (3). The linked examples are published by researchers in Carnegie Mellon University, University of Toronto and University of Tromsø.

I appreciate people who continuously try to make the relevant information more easily accessible in constructive manner. However, I don't think that merging or let alone deleting this particular article would be constructive or benefit the style and purpose of Wikipedia. The id Tech 3 engine is a proprietary piece of software which is a vastly different thing from the current ioquake3 community project, even though the latter shares common DNA with the former. The information the ioquake3 article already contains about the technology, history and usage of the ioquake3 engine is valuable and much harder to find without a dedicated Wikipedia article. — PracticalPhilosopher (talk) 10:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)— PracticalPhilosopher (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Reply but are any of the cites significant, or are they passing mentions? No sources listed did anything more than a passing mention, which unfortunately doesn't fit under significant coverage. --Teancum (talk) 12:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General Comment - While most here would not deny that your average PC gamer sees the value and notability in IoQuake3, we have to remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and like any good encyclopedia its sources have to be reliable and published and provide siginificant coverage to ensure factual information. Nobody is questioning whether its popular, or even whether its a good program. The issue comes down to those two things, no matter how popular the engine may be. Should those things ever be satisfied, or if sources are found now that fit that criteria then it's always welcome as an article. --Teancum (talk) 12:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't follow game development, but the subject appears to be notable, and the article is well-supported by independent sources.—DMCer™ 21:13, 11 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. Tone 13:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Survivor 22

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

Article has been dePRODed twice, the show will be unknown at that time and CBS hasn't announce to air any future season of Survivor. Fails WP:CRYSTALBALL. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 09:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: If it doesn't exist yet, then why do we have an article on it? -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 01:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: until such time as the show becomes real. Eeekster (talk) 01:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: put it back only when there's concrete evidence that suggests the season will be produced and aired DanielTAR (talk) 07:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per the above and deletion of Survivor 21. —tdltrombonator 09:42, 7 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 speedily deleted as not having enough context to identify article's subject (CSD A1)--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

منطقة عجمان الحرة

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

The page only seem to be a gallery. The title of the page make it somewhat difficult to pinpoint what the purpose of it is. FFMG (talk) 08:49, 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 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 [55] [56]. 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. [57][58] 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.[59][60]. 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,[61] 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 [62] 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 delete. Tone 14:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Autumn War

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

Non-notable book scheduled to be published almost two years from now. Said to be based on a Flash game, and the author is twelve years old (click "about"). Glenfarclas (talk) 05:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient coverage and no reason to believe WP:CRYSTAL should be overlooked. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 06:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: notability not established with third-party reliable sources. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 01:11, 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 Speedy delete Clearly does not meet the guidelines for inclusion. Enigma^msg 05:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Black Magic (50 Cent album)

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

This article's sources consist of youtube and z-share, which cannot be seen as reliable sources. 50 only confirmed the name of the album, so it vioalates WP:Notability and WP:CRYSTAL. DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 04:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 07:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: complete violation of WP:CRYSTAL, for it no further confirmed information is given. --Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 19:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:CRYSTAL. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 01:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. I can't find confirmation of the album title, release date, or track listing in any reliable sources. This does not appear to meet WP:NALBUMS at this time. Gongshow ^Talk 04:23, 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 delete. Tone 13:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One Sonic Society

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

As a successor to the Grammy-winning band, Delirious?, I'm willing to bet that they will be notable - but they aren't yet. There's not significant coverage in reliable sources. (contested prod) Fences&Windows 04:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 04:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication they meet WP:BAND, borderline A7. Jclemens (talk) 05:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: zero sources that are unrelated to the topic. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 01:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge/Redirect - I agree with the nominator. They have a chance of becoming notable but it is now way too early for a separate article. All text can be added to the Delirious? and its existing section on "Future activities." The present article can be deleted and the band name redirected to Delirious? as well. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No need to merge, this project is already mentioned at Delirious?. But a redirect would be OK. Fences&Windows 23:33, 6 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 delete under criterion G4. There's even less in this article now than when the first AfD was held. —C.Fred (talk) 05:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Teflon Don (album)

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete Article has still not improved since it was last deleted and no information on the album has been released as of today. Taylor Karras (talk) 04:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Teflon DonTeflon Don is a redirect. This nomination is malformed. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 04:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This has now been fixed to point to the correct article. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until and unless there is anything more to be said about this album. WP:CRYSTAL certainly seems to apply. Glenfarclas (talk) 04:53, 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. Nothing to merge, all info is included in Principality of Sealand in sufficient detail. Neither the original title nor the moved-to title are supported by reliable independent sources, so no need for a redirect either. Fram (talk) 13:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sealand War of Independence

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

All three of these articles are POV forks from Principality of Sealand and are lacking in independent reliable sources, in many cases they are mirrors. The "War of Independence" gets zero google hits, the "Conflict" seems to be little more than a disagreement between the two groups on Sealand, and the "Royal Family" are not recognized as such by any country on earth. Delete all three as redundant, poorly-referenced POV forks. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because same problem as above, POV forks:

Salvage whatever can be salvaged into Principality of Sealand, then delete. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't object with the article being deleted. However many conflicts, in particular civil wars, have description pages and are listed on the conflicts page despite the potential for exageration of their significance and the POV issues - one persons terrorist is another persons freedom fighter. It is important on these types of pages to maintain objective neutrality. Consequently I think that it is better to retain the page but rename it, than to be pejorative and delete it. I have now renamed the page as the "First Sealand Incident" which describes the conflict in an appropriate way. I have also renamed The Sealand Conflict as Second Sealand Incident. Hope this improves things and hopefully I haven't confused things furtherUser:Marlarkey ^{User_talk:Marlarkey} 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- That page move was inappropriate in the midst of a deletion discussion, and the new names are only more vague, rather than more descriptive. Your arguments for keeping are not persuasive, by the way, as there is nothing said in those articles that could not be, or is not already, said in the main article. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 18:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- AfDs are mainly about page content, not titles... so the "move of moving it" didn't help much. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Firstly as I said, sorry if renaming it was inappropriate. I wasn't aware of that restriction. I am now. Secondly, I have no connection with Sealand and have no vested interest. Thirdly, renaming it as 'incident' was intentionally vague because the incident does not confirm to more conventional conflict descriptions eg "war". It is an 'incident' in the same way as the Yangtze Incident is an 'incident', eg "A definite and separate occurrence; an event"^[1]. Fourthly, the page First Sealand Incident does have independent references. "Sealand incident" gets >15000 hits on google. There is also a link to the transcript of the Essex County Court case where the incident is described. There are many pages where the unsubstantiated claims of different sides to a dispute are decribed in a neutral and objective fashion. Fifthly, the incidents (both the first and second) should be separate pages because they are discrete incidents in the chronology of Sealand and there are links to the pages from other pages eg List of conflicts in Europe which is a complete list of links to similar pages that describe conflicts and incidents. For instance Insurgency in the Preševo Valley links to a page describing that conflict rather than the insurgency being incorporate into the page for Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. That is exactly the same page structure as First Sealand Incident and Principality of Sealand. Sixthly, many incidents linked to from List of conflicts in Europe are internal disputes between unrecognised factions eg 2004 Adjara crisis. Just because the Sealand case is smaller and more unconventional does not mean that it is not conceptually the same type of incident deserving of description. If the Sealand pages are removed they will have to be delisted from the list of conflicts and by extension so will many other incidents and their respective pages User:Marlarkey ^{User_talk:Marlarkey} 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- In your favor, I'm assuming you are joking -- you seriously want to compare 42-52 dead and 39 wounded (including 2 "blue helmets") to two guys throwing firebombs on an oil platform? Besides, this is about the nominated article only... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I'm not joking ! I should also point out that List of micronations lists many similiar scenarios where there are self-proclaimed rulers eg Giorgio Carbone, Nick Copeman so the proposal to delete Bates (Royal Family) should either be extended to all these pages or they should all be kept. Many of them are even flimsier than the case of Sealand. The point is that I'm not making any judgement at all about the relative merits of the Sealand claims, their legitimacy and relative significance of the dispute versus other disputes. What I'm highlighting is the structure of the information - nations, rulers, conflicts - and that it is legitimate to apply that information structure consistently and objectively regardless of personal judgement about the circumstances of the case concerned. That is the basis of my argument to keep the pages - that these pages fit the consistent structure used for describing nations, rulers and conflicts that has been adopted elsewhere. Thanks for the link by the way.User:Marlarkey ^{User_talk:Marlarkey} 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- "Sealand incident" gets >15000 hits on google? Surely you are joking. For me, "sealand incident" gives 7 hits. --Jmk (talk) 17:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - They may not have included quote marks. --Thin boy 00 @065, i.e. 00:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Perhaps, but they should have, if they meant to say something about the phrase "Sealand incident" instead of isolated words. --Jmk (talk) 04:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - "they" didn't use quotes. However, to be honest, number of google hits is a pretty poor measure but it was referred to by RepublicanJacobite in his original post. Marlarkey (talk) 09:00, 6 January 2010 (GMT)
  - FWIW, I see exactly eight google hits for "sealand incident" as a phrase. Two of them are these articles, and one is a Wikipedia mirror; two are about a fire at a Korean amusement park; one is about an aquarium. This leaves two, which are both comments (one on a blog, one on a forum), both of which seem to be referring to the Sealand "project" as a whole rather than a specific incident in history. The name's better than "war of independence" or the like, but no-one else calls it that. Shimgray | talk | 22:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or partially merge per Seb az86556. Low notability and POV problems does not allow a separate article. The same for similar "wars" etc.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability. Silly pretend country's "war of independence" does not merit an encyclopedia article.Edison (talk) 02:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as massive POV forks. The events have not been covered in sufficient detail to merit separate articles, and as such they amount to POV forks. "Sealand incident" is not a widely used term contrary to the assertion above. The argument about against the Bates Family article being deleted is specious. Nobody is suggesting deleting the articles on various family members yet (although that may change after looking at the sources on one), what is objected to is the framing of them as a "royal family" when they are nothing but self-proclaimed royals not recognised as such by anyone non-fringe. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per Malarkey, or spin off History of Sealand. Sealand was featured on the American television show, That's Incredible. So if we're gonna call silly happenings, you might as well include World War I-- someone made a wrong turn and stalled the car, seriously? MMetro (talk) 20:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone's seriously out of touch with history - how many people died due to that WWI... "incient"? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The size of the "incident" isn't relevant, Just because it didn't involve many people or much fighting doesn't mean it shouldn't be described. For consistency compare with the extensive article on the Anglo-Zanzibar War which was the shortest war in history. That too was a "trivial" incident in comparison with WW1 and other wars, conflicts and incidents that have articles Marlarkey (talk) 09:00, 6 January 2010 (GMT)
  - Yeah. Right. Except for... this time you're bringing up over 3,000 people involved. At least your comparisons become more megalomaniacish. Way to go. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Toledo War is another example, no lives lost, but very important to Michigan's statehood. Sealand's skirmishes are issues of micronational sovereignty. Choy calls me out of touch for calling WWI silly? Note that I described Ferdinand's assassination, which precipitated the events-- an utterly silly, stupid, preventable mistake by the chauffeur and those handling the Archduke's travel plans. Silly is merely someone's POV. And in regards to the articles attached to this AfD, that POV belongs to someone else. MMetro (talk) 09:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

U-ha. Case A, Result: Michigan Statehood. Case B, Result: WWI. Case C, Result: err? Some guys voluntarily kept freezing their asses off on an oil-platform?... awesome. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your POV re how to describe Result C... to those on the oil-platform it is their declaration of independent nation status. Sealand is recognised as a micronation and the issue of micronation sovereignty is a notable subject, so from a neutral POV it seems reasonable to include an article on how a particular micronation come into being Marlarkey (talk) 16:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just leave it. But let me also say that in the unlikely event that these articles survive this AfD, I will take it as a precedent. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How can X be a POV fork of Y when X and Y are about distinct subjects? I'd go for notability here instead. Thin boy 00 @061, i.e. 00:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- PS WP:N recommends merging where possible since it applies to articles but not their contents. --Thin boy 00 @067, i.e. 00:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite easily, really - by making Y seem much more important than a treatment under X would give it. Shimgray | talk | 10:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly recommend merging into Principality of Sealand. I've just stumbled across these "incident" articles when trawling for miscategorised pages, and I really can't see how characterising them as wars or conflicts in their own right is useful in any way. They have no independent significance outside of the history of Sealand itself, and the history section of that article adequately summarises them in that context.
The articles were (I've since made a stab at fixing the first) pretty misleadingly presented; we talk of "belligerents" when it's POV to characterise it as a state action at all, make entirely unsourced and lurid claims of military participation, and all for what it basically a single arrest warrant on a firearms charge with no actual violent crime.
If we merge, we allow these minor incidents to be treated appropriately - as solely relevant to Sealand, and not to any other entity - and we avoid a lot of creeping POV problems from thinking of them as wars, or from edits outside the mainstream consensus on Sealand, both of which seem to be the problem here. Shimgray | talk | 10:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- well Shimgray you've managed to make a complete pigs ear of this haven't you. All your edits change the content of the article and the content is what justifies whether it should be deleted or not as proposed by RepublicanJacobite. Your edits anticipate the result of this deletion proposal... if the deletion proposal is confirmed then the article is deleted, if the deletion proposal is not confirmed then that is validation of the article meeting the notability criteria etc and all your edits would have to undone to make the content of article consistent with it being a notable conflict worthy of an article. Right now your edits make it neither one thing nor the other. And it can't easily be undone either to put it back to how it was for the duration of this AfD Marlarkey (talk) 20:45, 7 January 2010 (GMT)

- - Of course my edits change the content of the article - they were meant to, because I was removing content which was both wrong and impressively misleading, and that's what should be done whatever the situation. I stumbled over the article, noted it was being debated as possibly a fork, looked at the content, found something which didn't look right, and corrected that material both there and on the main page. Then I commented here, explaining the problems and how they related to the issues under discussion; I don't have a dog in this fight, but I see no reason to leave an article being wrong just because we're debating precisely just how bad it already is.
  - I am not sure why you think these edits would need to be undone if the article was kept - that material is factually incorrect, and needed removed, and the decision of this discussion won't magically make them true again. There is no doubt more like it, but I am not familiar enough with the sources to dig any deeper than removing the most obvious errors. Shimgray | talk | 22:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Marlarky's first comment. This seems notable enough to me for inclusion. Outback the koala (talk) 21:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is WP:SYNTHESIS and a WP:CFORK. Sources are a blog, a court record (a primary source), and an article in Wired that might be appropriate for the main article, but not strong enough to support this page. Abductive (reasoning) 01:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mocha Joe

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

There seems to be no implication of notability of this fictional character apart from the statement that he "first appeared in the notable tenth episode of the seventh season of the American situation comedy Curb Your Enthusiasm episode...". I furthermore have BLP concerns as the article states that "Mocha Joe is a parody of famed celebrity barista Jeremy Gursey..." however provides no references to back this claim up (furthermore, a google search revealed no reliable sources that states this either).
Also note that the first reference has nothing to do with the episode, the second is a broken link, and the third is just the IMDB page of the epiosde. Aka042 (talk) 21:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing seems to make him particularly noteworthy of a 'character study' in Wikipedia. I could find no dedicated 'character studies' of him anywhere else, let alone from reliable sources. Scott P. (talk) 23:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete The noteworthiness of the "seinfeld" episode in which "Mocha Joe" makes his debut is sen in the ratings for the episode. The show had ratings unprecedented for the series during the "Seinfeld" episode.

(ref-[63]) As for the link to the possible parody of the famed Barista Jeremy Gursey, it was easily found on Google. In fact on the first page I searched. The page not only makes mention of his work for not only movie sets but also TV sets including Seinfeld, but has a video of still pictures and there is indeed a resemblance to "Mocha Joe". (ref-[64]. It took but 5 minutes to find sources online. If I had more time I could find even more. The Mocha Joe article is no less worthy of a place in Wikipedia than are a multitude of articles. Umihime (talk) 18:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)User: Umihime[reply]

Comment: Note that your second link does not explicitly state any relationship to the character on the Curb episode (as far as I could tell)...Synthesis is to be avoided when writing articles on wikipedia, along with WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS arguments in afd discussions. --Aka042 (talk) 23:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A minor character in a cable sitcom that doesn't enjoy significant notability away from the series itself. If you need to keep, merge and redirect it to the article List of Curb Your Enthusiasm recurring roles. But a stand alone article? Nope. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I had originally set out to do this (merge) but then realized it did not make sense because as far as I could tell, Mocha Joe does not even seem to be a recurring character (was just in the season finale episode). --Aka042 (talk) 23:33, 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, JForget 03:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge per Niteshift. I wouldn't merge, but if someone decides to, I don't have issue with it. Doc Quintana (talk) 03:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move/redirect to Jeremy Gursey (which appears to be the real subject of the article), and then reevaluate whether Gursey meets WP:N (which I'm skeptical of, but is barely within the realm of possibility). THF (talk) 05:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, very minor character. I would support merging to List of Curb Your Enthusiasm recurring roles with a note that he never actually recurred, or, better, changing that article to List of Curb Your Enthusiasm characters. Basically, Mocha Joe is a character so minor he doesn't even fit into the list of minor CYE characters. Glenfarclas (talk) 06:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge to the episode. A separate article here is not even remotely sensible. DGG ( talk ) 23:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Seinfeld (Curb Your Enthusiasm) Not notable enough for his own article. And he doesn't qualify as a recurring character, since he hasn't recurred. Relevant information can be placed in the article. ~ DC (Talk|Edits) 05:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to the episode's article, and add any relevant information there. Character appears to be minor and doesn't merit inclusion in the list of recurring characters until he appears in more than one episode. Cocytus [»talk«] 16:24, 10 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. Cirt (talk) 18:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roark's Formulas for Stress and Strain - Seventh Edition

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Roark's Formulas for Stress and Strain - Seventh Edition

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

I do not believe that this article about a book meets the notability guidelines for books. After searching the internet, I was unable to find any significant coverage independent of the subject, and there is no evidence to suggest that it has received any literary awards or meets any of the other criteria listed at WP:NB#Criteria.

Furthermore, I am concerned with the author of the article, User:UTSWeb, which at the very least may have a COI as the external links section contains a sentence stating: "Software is available through 3rd party vendors. Universal Technical Systems, Inc. has computerized the formulas for use with either TK Solver or Excel", and also contains a link named "Roark's Formulas Product Page on UTS Website". Aka042 (talk) 20:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: COnsidering the book is not literature, it's not surprising it hasn't received any literature awards. If anything, it would have been reviewed in engineering journals. It's possible it's required reading for engineering students as well, and may be considered a reference for engineers of many flavors. I've notified the Engineering WikiProject so that someone with more idea of what this book is—and possible sources in which it may have been reviewed or discussed—will be aware of this discussion. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 13:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Thanks for posting this over on the Engineering Wikiproject. This book is definitely notable per WP:NB#Criteria point 4. However, I'm at a loss for finding any online references to support this at the moment. I can tell you that I learned about it in college and that it is held in high regards among mechanical engineers and professors. Wizard191 (talk) 13:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reference: [65], [66] Wizard191 (talk) 16:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article has been moved to Roark's Formulas for Stress and Strain. --Aka042 (talk) 17:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This book is clearly an important reference work in its field. The very fact that it has been published for 70 years, with updated editions every 10 years or so, indicates its importance. --MelanieN (talk) 19:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)Melanie[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 03:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the references found. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article needs some work, but this is a standard reference work used by a multitude of Mechanical and Structural Engineers. Turbine1 (talk) 05:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – A search of Google Scholar, shown here [67], shows the publication being cited in excess of 1,300 time. In addition ranked:

10 in Books > Professional & Technical > Engineering > Materials > Strength of Materials
17 in Books > Professional & Technical > Professional Science > Physics > Nanostructures
17 in Books > Science > Physics > Nanostructures

as shown here [68]. Hope this helps. JAAG^Talk 07:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I imagine this lack of coverage by WP:RS must be endemic to many handbook articles. Look for example at the ASHRAE Handbook. I don't see any other sources covering this article other than the publisher's. The Roark manual is clearly notable because of its widespread use. Academic notability is harder to establish because a manual of formulas is, by definition, not an academic book. But that's the problem faced by many, if not all, manuals. Maybe we can change the book notability guidelines to reflect this. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:36, 5 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 no consensus. Sandstein 07:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Seaborn

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

Bio of an evangelist with no evidence of notability. Sgroupace (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seemingly unnotable subject, no significant coverage by independent third parties. No objection to recreating should sources appear that back up notability, and as this is the authors first article userfying it might not be a bad idea. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If he is not notable as an evangelist, then perhaps he is notable as an author per the list of published books? Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 22:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If he really was responsible for the What Would Jesus Do phenomena. Even if he's not then a borderline keep for list of books and evidence that he's on the national evangelical circles. JASpencer (talk) 09:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That phenomenon's ultimate roots lie in the 1896 book In His Steps: What Would Jesus Do? by Charles Sheldon. This article claims Shelborn is responsible for popularizing the query again in the form of bracelets. Related citations are in the article What would Jesus do?; both citations there credit the bracelet reminder to a youth minister named Janie Tinklenberg. The Christianity Today source says that "The catalyst for the explosive popularity of the bracelets may have been Paul Harvey, who mentioned them on his syndicated radio broadcast every day for a week during the spring of 1997. ..." Given the lack of citations here, and citations to reliable sources with different answers elsewhere, I'm rather doubtful of this claim myself. GRBerry 23:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Not sure if he was responsible for the WWJD deal, but he is a legitimately published author (small publishers, but reputable ones). Could use work on sources and a less promotional tone. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:41, 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, JForget 03:22, 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. Tone 13:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ramanananda Maharshi

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

Self referenced and blog referenced BLP. There's one article from The Hindu listed in the references, but that's a daily calendar with no mention of this person. I haven't been able to find anything in Gnews or Gbooks or anything from reliable sources on the web. The books in the bibliography are self-published. Delete -SpacemanSpiff 03:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 03:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 03:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why these references are not enough..In the sai newsletter there is a review of book as well....

Sri Ramanananda Maharshi Books
Sri Ramanananda Maharshi Book review The Secret of Shirdi Sai's Benevolence
Sri Ramanananda Maharshi Book listing —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paramagurusai (talk • contribs) 03:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The blog paramagurusai.blogspot.com also is not related to the Peetam. You can verify the authenticity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paramagurusai (talk • contribs) 03:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first one is an advertisement, the second is from a devotee newsletter and is classified as a user contribution (akin to a forum posting) and third is again an exhaustive list of books for devotees. The fourth is a blog. I don't see any reliable source references in the article, and I haven't been able to find any either. -SpacemanSpiff 03:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tried to clean this article up when it first appeared, but was concerned about the notability from the start. When another editor later {{prod}}'ed it, the PROD was denied by the author with the note on the talk page that references would be added. I figured a few days for that should be sufficient, but the references that were added were all primary sources: blogs, advertisements, a list of books at Scribd (which is essentially a ~~wiki for book lovers~~ free document sharing service, allowing users to upload whatever they want), etc. I.e. no reliable sources, no independent indications of notability. I'm afraid this article doesn't really have a chance of becoming an independent biography, and will only serve as a coatrack for this particular sect of Hinduism. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 16:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I don't see anything that satisifies WP:N or WP:RS. PDCook (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your insights. Well after seeing the rules I have to agree on Delete as well. Even though it is my article, I have to follow what wikipedia stands for. My only other question is can I adjust the article to just keep the biography and remove everything else (including image) in the page because that does not have any claims? and would the provided references work for atleast that? Else please go ahead and delete entire article. Thanks Again. Paramagurusai (talk) 22:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC) paramagurusai[reply]

The issue is that there are no sources that demonstrate notability. As such, this article does not meet the criteria for inclusion and trimming it down won't fix that problem. PDCook (talk) 16:03, 8 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 for both articles. general agreement, & article withdrawn by main contriubtor DGG ( talk ) 23:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Tourism World Hungary

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

A non-notable national beauty pageant, part of a non-notable international beauty pageant, Miss Tourism World. Zero coverage. Fences&Windows 02:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also nominating: Miss Bikini World Hungary. Fences&Windows 02:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 02:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 02:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm assuming that both of these are qualifiers (for want of a better phrase) for Miss Tourism World and Miss Bikini World. Neither of these have an article, so I can't see why qualifiers need an article. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 14:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure this article is relevant enough to be included in WP, but if the main events did have an article, would you say the qualifiers are encyclopedic too? – Alensha ^talk 22:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't seem to pass WP:EVENT; I am not confident that there are enough reliable, 3rd party sources to merit inclusion. Cocytus [»talk«] 13:57, 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, JForget 02:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am the main editor of this article. As everyone wants to delete it (and I understand it) I moved the content of it (and of the Miss Bikini World Hungary article, too) on my subpage because I don't want to loose its content. Maybe one day it can be an article again. So now it is ready for deleting. - Perfectmiss (talk) 07:56, 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 00:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty Guv'nahs

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Dirty Guv'nahs

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

Failed to establish notiability despite warning placed in May. All sources are independent media from band's hometown. Shalmanese (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC and probably violates WP:COI. Sluggo | Talk 21:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:07, 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, JForget 02:55, 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. Cirt (talk) 18:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Britney Spears

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

This article is supposed to be about Britney Spears' nominations and awards, all of them, but the article is irrelevant and unnecessary given the fact that there is another article about Britney Spears' awards, the only "difference" between those articles is that this one includes the "nominations", but in an incomplete way. There are like fifteen awards and nominations, making this article a really incomplete and unnecessary article. Fortunato luigi (talk) 02:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 01:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nomination, this article's notable content is in duplication of the existing awards article. Un-won nominations for Britney Spears not notable enough to keep this separate article going. --A1octopus (talk) 19:07, 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 no consensus. Listed for 20 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough comments to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whitley Neill Gin

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

I found this whilst reviewing the brands listed in the gin article. I can't find significant enough coverage to be certain that this product is notable. I don't consider "The liquor snob" to be a reliable source and other coverage appears to be regurgitated versions of press releases. Smartse (talk) 20:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added a reference. - Eastmain (talk) 08:02, 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) 00:05, 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, JForget 02:53, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Leigh

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

Someone objected to the PROD, so bringing this to AfD. No real notability established. Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 02:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If her memoir is to be believed (ISBN 1401038859), she had a romantic interest with Elvis Presley, and IMDB lists 18 credits for TV and movies. Besides, how can you write about Vampirella without her? Edward Vielmetti (talk) 02:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well-known, if not terribly durable, T&A babe of the early 1970s. Career pretty much evaporated after a featured Playboy pictorial didn't boost her profile, but once notable, always notable. Iconic as Vampirella. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:38, 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, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz; once notable, always notable. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. added imdb link, which while not reliable, i think easily shows enough camera time to make it here.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I first nominated it for deletion when it contained considerably less information. (See [69]). Given the recent additions, I, too, believe that it should be kept now. Nymf _talk/contr. 22:55, 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 keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William Adams (baseball)

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

Possibly non-notable minor league manager. He did manage two teams to league championships, which may be notable enough. However, I leave that up to you to decide. Alex (talk) 07:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Alex (talk) 07:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Alex (talk) 07:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only sources cited are statistics sites; doesn't meet notability criterion for minor league players/managers in WP:BASE/N. (Note that Wikipedia is not a directory.) BRMo (talk) 19:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are two sources for this article. Alex (talk) 20:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and neither source covers the subject in substantial depth (per WP:BIO). Both sources are compilations of statistics. BRMo (talk) 20:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His league championships make him notable in my opinion. - Spanneraol (talk) 21:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The problem is with lack of references in the article, but I believe we can assume given his history that the sources exist and the solution is to find them, not delete the article. I'll bet that the Times-Picayune morgue--if it survived the flood--would be able to come through. There doesn't seem to be much online--I found only this, which is probably reliable but not substantive. Ma^t_chups 03:22, 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, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - definitely needs more RS to be added. However, I think that his accomplishments are enough to merit inclusion, if only barely. Needs to be expanded/verified more. Cocytus [»talk«] 16:07, 10 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. Tone 13:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Special Needs Learning

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

Article is WP:OR and cites no WP:RS Basket of Puppies 02:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced original research per nom. WWGB (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOT#ESSAY and WP:NOT#OR, just like every other article this editor has created to date. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:43, 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 delete. Tone 13:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disability Issues

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

Article is WP:OR and cites no WP:RS Basket of Puppies 02:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced original research per nom. WWGB (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An original research essay which, while no doubt a noble cause does not belong in Wikipedia. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 06:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOT#ESSAY and WP:NOT#OR, just like every other article this editor has created to date. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:43, 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 delete. Tone 13:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disability Symptoms

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

This article is WP:OR and has no WP:RS Basket of Puppies 02:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced original research per nom. WWGB (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So what? That can change, and the topic of Disability Symptoms is notable. Strong KeepHello, My Name Is SithMAN8 (talk) 05:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research, unreferenced....I would think that such a broad topic as symptoms of disability would be unlikely to fit in a single article. With this in mind, we don't need this article or any other article with this name, so delete. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 06:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOT#ESSAY and WP:NOT#OR, just like every other article this editor has created to date. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try snd comment on the article not the creator Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 02:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to the mention of WP:BITE:

My !vote was based on WP:NOT#ESSAY and WP:NOT#OR—which are about the article.
He created his account over 18 months ago—at what point isn't he a newbie anymore?
In that time period, this editor has created (at least) six new articles. Two have been deleted (one speedy, one AFD) and the other four are all currently up for AFD (the others can be found here, here, and here). These articles all have identical problems—they're essays without references.
His user page was recently deleted for being advertising (which makes it seven, I guess).

I'm a big believer in WP:AGF, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't notice trends. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 20:24, 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 Speedy delete per author request and lack of keep !votes here. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Show for the Gods

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

Contested PROD. There is no indication of notability in this yet-to-be-released book. There are no references or other reliable sources listed, so it fails WP:RS and WP:GNG. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 02:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- ArcAngel (talk) (review) 02:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom... and most likely spam. And WP:CRYSTAL. And whatnot. Should've been speedied. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except that book aren't covered under CSD's that I can recall. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 08:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found zero sources. Joe Chill (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This AfD can be closed now as the author has blanked the page, and I have added db-g7's to the pages. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 20:48, 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 Speedy delete per author request. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ShadowFall

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

Contested PROD. There is no indication of notability in this yet-to-be-released book. There are no references or other reliable sources listed, so it fails WP:RS and WP:GNG. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 02:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- ArcAngel (talk) (review) 02:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom... and most likely spam. And WP:CRYSTAL. And whatnot. Should've been speedied. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This AfD can be closed as the author has blanked the page, and I have placed db-g7 on the page. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 20:50, 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. Tone 13:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disability Motivation

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

Not encyclopedic. No WP:RS and written like an essay. Basket of Puppies 02:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR. Eddie.willers (talk) 02:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreferenced original research per nom. WWGB (talk) 02:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOT#ESSAY and WP:NOT#OR, just like every other article this editor has created to date. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:42, 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 delete. Tone 13:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James LePage

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

I can't find significant coverage for this martial arts fighter. I could verify that he won at least one competition[70] but that's all. Fences&Windows 01:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 01:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 01:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete "an article about a real person that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject." 2 says you, says two 02:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I declined the speedy as the bio makes claims to competing at world championship level in Karate, which could pass WP:ATHLETE if verified. Fences&Windows 02:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unproven claims of sporting and music notability, fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:MUSIC. WWGB (talk) 05:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have been unable to find any references to support the subject meeting any of the WPMA guidelines on notability for martial artists. Janggeom (talk) 02:06, 6 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 delete. WP:CSD#G7 - author requested deletion JohnCD (talk) 13:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Economic reforms after the collapse of socialism

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

A poorly written essay that gives a cursory synthesis of topics that are covered in depth in several other articles. No new information is presented, and what is given here is completely unsourced. 2 says you, says two 01:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately delete — this article has been covered in depth on other pages such as Decommunization (though that page does not contain an abundance of sources either, and to be honest it doesn't really go into depth). I suggest redirecting this page to that article or whatever other article goes into depth on the subject. Master&Expert (Talk) 01:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing more than a POV essay. Everyking (talk) 02:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article lacks focus, and the subject is as Master & Expert points out, covered elsewhere. I also agree with Everyking that the article is a POV essay, and I would add that I object to the term "collapse of socialism", when the system which collapsed is communism. Socialism is a different political standpoint, and while I no longer subscribe to that policy either, it is unfair to equate socialists with communists. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:19, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 16:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bailout! The Game

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

Contested prod. Article is about a non-notable game, with no significant coverage in reliable sources. Only sources found are trivial or press releases. TN X Man 21:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Actually seems like a fun game, but there's also COI as the author is the creator. Reywas92^Talk 22:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My local TV station just covered a family in my area playing this game; I don't think that would be non-notable. It just needs a rewrite. Killer Magikarp (talk) 22:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite and keep. The article's a mess, but the subject matter meets WP:N. THF (talk) 05:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep bad game, but has coverage enough to meet WP:N. Added a review (which adds little to the notability but adds a bit of balance). Hobit (talk) 18:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've cleaned up some of the blatant promotional language. Still needs help, but I think the COI issues have been largely dealt with. A lot of formatting help is still needed. Also note this has apparently seen coverage on MSNBC since deletion was first proposed (I didn't wait through the ads to watch the video link in the article). Hobit (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep But only if coi editor stops filling it with unencyclopedic promotion... the article is a mess as it stands. Teapotgeorge^Talk 23:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've found sufficient quality refs to show that it easily passes WP:GNG, and I've updated the article accordingly. Now, if only the article creator would leave it alone… Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 09:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, an editing restriction based on COI might well be needed here. Hobit (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It got news coverage. Dream Focus 11:34, 5 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 no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 13 days with no participation aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Ran-Tan Waltz

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

fails WP:MUSIC. They've been played once (not in rotation) and the sourcing is nothing impressive; the fact that the Pontefract Express mentions a band from around Pontefract is not a sign of notability. Ironholds (talk) 19:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 19:32, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 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 no consensus. sort of leaning towards a weak keep at this point. Cirt (talk) 18:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mukala

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

Would seem to fail WP:MUSIC guidelines, having only released one album. Geschichte (talk) 18:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 19:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All that I can find for significant coverage is [71]. Fails WP:MUSIC. Joe Chill (talk) 20:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have made some additions to this article. Gongshow ^Talk 21:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. May pass the general notability guideline at this point. - Eastmain (talk) 00:17, 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, JForget 01:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this seems notable enough at this point. Alex Muller 14:35, 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 keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Sterling (entertainer)

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

No WP:RS cited, fails WP:N. Delete. Basket of Puppies 01:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added sources., 3rd party references for this article and would like you to re-consider your "nomination for deletion" You will find info on Mr. sterling from MTV.com, The New Times (Miami), itunes, youtube.com and more. Thank you Msmayer (talk) 04:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article says the song "Lovers and Friends" peaked at #3 on Billboard, which would meet WP:BAND, but [72] says it never charted. Is there any source asserting the peak position? --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here is the info where you can find that Lovers and Friends peaked at #3. It's right her on wikipedia under Usher (entertainer)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usher_(entertainer) and also here: http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:i4qGhLjeFNYJ:www.lyricsparadise.com/billboard-top25.shtml+lovers+and+friends+billboard+25&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us .Msmayer (talk) 19:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Ah, now I understand. Michael Sterling is the writer of those songs, not the performer. That means WP:BAND #2 does not apply. However WP:COMPOSER #1 and #3 applies for that song, through the section WP:NSONG which details "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable." However we really need a verifiable, reliable source still. The site "lyricsparadise.com" does not strike me as meeting that criteria. Additionally, we cannot use a circular reference. However this source which was used in Usher (entertainer) seems to be reliable to me. Based on that research, I'd go with keep. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 20:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on [73] he meets WP:PEOPLE's basic criteria, regardless of any special notability based on his performance or production of music. Assuming mtv.com is considered a reliable source, that would also prove notability as far as WP:COMPOSER because he would be "credit[ed] for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition." Fleetflame · whack! whack! · 02:07, 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 redirect to Earl of Onslow. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rupert Onslow, Viscount Cranley

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

He's only a courtesy viscount, failing WP:POLITICIAN. The only notable thing about him is his choice of wife, and notability isn't inherited. Ironholds (talk) 00:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (and this is a comment rather than a keep). Before nominating a living British peer or holder of a courtesy title, I would suggest checking the person's entry in Who's Who (which I don't currently have access to, but which is available at many good libraries). The sources used to create the current article don't list his occupation or volunteer activities, and I have no information myself. I have been unable to find anything else about him, so perhaps he really isn't notable. It seems likely, though, that someone with his advantages would have a good chance of doing things that would establish his notability. A search for "Rupert Onslow" or for "Lord Cranley" doesn't turn up any useful new information about him, but perhaps he is better known by a nickname or another of his given names. - Eastmain (talk) 01:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but you could expect that from the person who established the article. I think your proposal has flaws, and I hope that you and the community will accept that there is good reason for such people to have their own entry.
- At what point in their life does an heir apparent become notable? From your proposal, it appears that this person's choice of spouse is notable to you. (Is notability only related to what a person does? If so, then there are various people who should not be mentioned in the Wikipedia, such as Rosemary Kennedy whose only claim to fame may be to be the most famous person lobotomised (although that claim is also arguable) but who seemingly 'did' not much at all.)
- At what level of the nobility does an heir apparent become notable? Let's agree (I think) that the heir apparent to a royal crown is notable, but is the heir apparent to a Duke? Perhaps a European Count, but not his heir apparent? (Be assured that I will be adding to the entries of the Count of Harmel, which has just changed hands from Pierre Harmel.) But, what about Belgian Viscounts? Do we leave them to the Belgian Wikipedia, so we should delete any entries in the English Wikipedia?
- Are you also proposing that all other British courtesy Viscounts should be removed? If not, why not? Would you move to block the creation of articles on those without entries already? If not, why not? Would Linley make the cut? Is heading up a furniture business and an auction house enough? Macmillan, the fashion label owner? Dangan, the securities trader? But, they are Viscounts!- Peter Ellis - Talk 05:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  An heir apparent becomes notable when they pass WP:BIO. Macmillan and Linley do this; Onslow does not. My comment about the choice of spouse was what is known as sar-ca-sm. There's no need to go off on one; it's a long-established principle that other than members of the House of Lords pre-1999 and post-99 members with seats, all peers are expected to pass WP:BIO; courtesy peers particularly. Ironholds (talk) 14:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Earl of Onslow. Only to have and use a courtesy title is not enough to pass WP:Notability. ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 18:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I originally edited this article in 2008 becasue I had wanted to know who the Lady Cranley was who is on the board of Invicta Plastics. If the article is deleted (something I don't necessarily support) please ensure that this and any other information is merged into another article in a sensible place so that it's not lost, rather than blindly deleting it and people's research with it. JRawle (Talk) 11:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With some regret, Delete article and redirect to Earl of Onslow. His father is notable, since he is a member of the House of Lords, but there is certainly that he will follow his father. Currently he is a NN insurance executive. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to recreation in the future. Doesn't appear to qualify for inclusion yet as it has been noted due to the fact that it is a courtesy title. Cocytus [»talk«] 15:14, 10 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 no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 13 days with no participation aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Itsu (comics)

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

I'm a big fan of comic books, but this entry about a relatively obscure character fails WP:N. All it has is a detailed fictional biography, and no indication of why the character is notable beyond the comics it's been featured in. I can't find any usable references; just the comics themselves and Wikipedia. otherl left 14:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 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, Ron Ritzman (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. Tone 13:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Sinergy

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

I can find zero coverage in reliable sources about this pageant, despite all its Google hits. The closest thing to coverage might be [74], but that alone doesn't cut it. Fences&Windows 00:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 00:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 01:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete tend to agree, most of the refs on there were self sourced apparently. Doc Quintana (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this pageant. Joe Chill (talk) 18:04, 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 06:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Adlam

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

Potentially non-notable player/manager of minor league baseball. He did have notable achievements in both playing and managing, however they still may not be notable enough. Alex (talk) 07:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Alex (talk) 07:20, 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]
Delete. Only source cited is a statistics site; doesn't meet notability criterion for minor league players/managers in WP:BASE/N. (Note that Wikipedia is not a directory.) BRMo (talk) 19:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 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 merge to 88.3 Southern FM. Seems like a reasonable option given the lack of substantial input. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Swift Impulse

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

The article has no assertion of notability and is written like an advertisement. Additionally, its only external are non-neutral and non-verifiable (their official website and a MySpace page); there are no citations at all. Shirik (talk) 05:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into 88.3 Southern FM, which has a list of shows; it would be easy to put it there, and it would add to that page. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 05:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 06:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 06:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Delete: not notable on it's own. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 06:35, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 18:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just Kait

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

Not yet a notable performer: The "career highlights" on the linked press release make it clear that she doesn't make the notability guidelines. Slashme (talk) 05:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 06:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google returns 251,000 results. Page may need expansion, but keep. Alex (talk) 07:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a very weak article, with little to show notability. --DThomsen8 (talk) 20:46, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That "theme song" is a twelve-second instrumental piece where we don't hear a voice at all. No notability. Nate • (chatter) 01:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: So far the only "keep" argument has been based on a Google hit count. If that were valid, we would be comparing with other new performers, for example Pixie Lott who gets 11 million hits, but it is in fact an argument specifically to be avoided in deletion debates. --Slashme (talk) 11:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And even then the result is just an estimate of all results containing "Just" and "Kait". Narrow it down with quote marks and we're down to 678 unique G-hits. Nate • (chatter) 12:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless additional notability can be established Vartanza (talk) 20:33, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 18:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If It Ain't Broke...

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

This AfD concerns three EPs and two live albums by Matt Wertz. While Wertz is a notable artist, I don't believe these recordings of his are sufficiently notable for their own Wikipedia articles. These articles are unreferenced and consist of little more than track listings. Per WP:NALBUMS, these may be notable because they are by a notable artist, but that doesn't mean they're definitely notable. I don't see evidence of notability under WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC for any of these five articles, hence this AfD. Other than If It Ain't Broke..., I'm nominating:

Orange EP
Live in Paradise
Today & Tomorrow
Where We Started A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 06:06, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:NALBUMS and WP:MUSIC. 2 says you, says two 01:57, 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. Cirt (talk) 18:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Swan Airport

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

This new article is about a non-notable, former airport. Canglesea (talk) 04:57, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

meant Delete — Per nom not notable, even as a closed airport. See the airport notability requirement here. Gosox5555 (talk) 22:37, 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. Tone 13:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Camollywood

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

Non-notable neologism. Fails Google Test. Gosox5555 (talk) 00:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:NEO. Joe Chill (talk) 00:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete self-admitted NEO. 2 says you, says two 01:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NEO. Eddie.willers (talk) 02:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sounds too similar to the name of the technology reporter Molly Wood of CNET and might trigger something. JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 09:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Burn with fire: Wikipedia is not the place for neologisms. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 06:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete SNOW applies.—Ash (talk) 20:34, 5 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. Nominator seems to have !voted keep, no other arguments for deletion.. Fences&Windows 03:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Walt de Heer

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

This page looks great in design ... but I am not sure that it satisfies the notability criteria. In addition to being mentioned in a couple of newspapers and websites, only 2 of the prizes look good to me. Then I searched further. First, I found ~100 Scientists listed in Scientific American 50 in 2006. Not many of them have wikipages (I checked a dozen or two only), and among those who have, this Sci Am 50 is not even mentioned. "The Nanoscience prize" sounds great but this is not the Kavli Nanoscience Prize but an award given by an organizing committee of some conference! Basically, the best in a dancing competition during a summer camp. I do not mind to have extra pages on Wiki but I know many more professors who have got real prizes and distinctions but no wiki pages.

I am not sure but it is strange to see a rather average professor (for his age and his School/University) being listed on Wiki. Sicfriend (talk) 02:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An h-index of 50 is hardly trivial and more than establishes notability in itself. --Googolit (talk) 04:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep. In addition to the h-index data mentioned by Googolit he has three papers with over 1000 citations each in Google scholar, one of them solo-authored. He clearly passes WP:PROF #1, and also #5 due to his Regents' Professorship. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep. I agree with Googolit and David Eppstein. I just wish to add that who the "The Nanosize prize" is given to is not chosen among the participants of a conference. Awarded researchers are chosen among the research community and invited about half a year before the conference in order to receive the award by the "Atomically Controlled Surfaces, Interfaces and Nanostructures" organizing committee. Also, Sicfriend argument about other researchers and professors awarded with the same prize not having a Wikipedia entry would only be meaningful in order to establish the notability of this article, if all other professors not having an entry are actually not notable. The fact that other professors who deserve Wikipedia entries do not have them is not a criteria of notability for article deletion. --Slaute (talk) 08:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep Strange nomination, it is unusual to see a new user master the intricacies of AfD so fast. In any case, this case is so obvious, that I think it is snowing heavily. --Crusio (talk) 11:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For an explanation of this pointy nom, see the edit history of Andre Geim. --Crusio (talk) 11:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it, I'm afraid. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Gasupporter (talk · contribs) repeatedly vandalized the Geim page claiming that it was incorrect in attributing the discovery of graphene to Geim. The nominator has the appearance of someone in the Geim camp deciding to take revenge. Despite WP:AGF I think we should seriously consider the possibility that Gasupporter and the nominator are two sockpuppets of the same troll, trying to stir up trouble — why would someone who actually works in the labs of either of these highly successful scientists stoop to such juvenile tactics? —David Eppstein (talk) 08:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I note that there is a contentious discussion of priority on the graphene talk page. In view of the anonymity afforded by Wikipedia one cannot rule out such Machiavellian tactics as attacking one's own side and hoping that the opposition will cop the blame. Who knows what is going on! Xxanthippe (talk) 09:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Speedy Keep, stick fork in it, etc. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Googolit. Easily meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed), and probably other related criteria as well.--Eric Yurken (talk) 21:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons clearly expressed above. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep although I despise pages written by close associates or maybe even by people themselves. Some references (see, e.g., [7]) are very specific and cannot be found if you are not working for this group. Oh, well. These days every professor wants his/her home page on Wikipedia. Importantly, please do not forget to donate to Wikipedia! KlausMn (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google walt de heer > 2nd result > left side. You seem to have deep loyalties of your own ... --Googolit (talk) 06:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:PROF I can NOT believe that this was Walt de Heer himself craetingg the page (not so low) but obviously he encouraged one of his lieutenants (probably the guy who runs the graphene news blog in Georgia). No signature. Have to keep friendly relations. Sorry.Sicfriend (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

... and I will exercise the same privilege. --Googolit (talk) 06:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who stands to what he writes and edits under his own name, I hope it is not necessary to detail what I think of the above two comments. --Crusio (talk) 09:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please closeGiven that the original nominator has now voted "keep" and that there has not a single !vote for deletion, I hope that someone will speedily close this improper nomination so that we can stop wasting out time. --Crusio (talk) 09:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can non-admin close for those reasons. MMetro (talk) 22:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, looks like a bad-faith nom. Nsk92 (talk) 02:55, 5 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 withdrawn by nominator Enigma^msg 20:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Mandel

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

Doesn't meet WP:ARTIST or WP:PROF. An orphan for over a year. Doc Quintana (talk) 23:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. See these references from The New York Times: http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00813F83B5C1A7493C2AB178AD95F458785F9 and http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0A15FA38551A7493CAAB178FD85F478785F9 - Eastmain (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to meet WP:N. There are also articles in the LA Times which seem to cover him. (I'm unable to view the links to the LAT from Gnews for some reason). Hobit (talk) 00:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll withdraw after the Times links. Doc Quintana (talk) 02:39, 5 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.

^ [75]

[1] [75]

[1]