Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 January 11

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< 10 January 12 January >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. More sources emerged as the discussion progressed, and a consensus to keep emerged. The article still is in a state flux, however, and will need developement. Still, true of many articles here. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Josef Schultz

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

Contested prod. Subject notable for only one event as per WP:BIO1E. --> Gggh talk/contribs 00:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a poem about the alleged incident. I agree that the latent 'facts' seem to be supported by it but IMO its not a reliable source for our purposes. Anotherclown (talk) 09:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In English sources his name has been anglicised to "Joseph". There are several sources including this and also this (on page 15) which seems to correspond with part of the version of events, but I don't think sources help overcome the WP:BIO1E issue. I think that the story, while perhaps apocryphal, has been used to symbolise the bravery of standing up against the group will when your conscience tells you otherwise. Where that leaves it in terms of an AfD, I have no idea. - ManicSpider (talk) 04:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further - Or perhaps not apocryphal? This is apparently the photo of him walking towards the other side... — Preceding unsigned comment added by ManicSpider (talk • contribs) 04:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, one more - there have been two very short documentaries made on Schultz. One was by Predrag Golubvic, Yugoslavia, 1973, 13 mins and the other was made in the 1950s. Honestly, I think this is sounding to me like a keep' but as I say, I'm not sure of the ins and outs of WP:BIO1E. - ManicSpider (talk) 04:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The photo is completly unsourced (as I said above) and of the two other sources you linked above one is a collection of 'Funeral Homilies' and the other seems to be a novel ('Shadow'). Again neither are reliable sources IMO. The question that needs to be answered is "is the subject notable"? Currently there seems to be an assumption that he must be because of the act that he is said to have committed. Yet as far as I can tell the subject was not awarded a major military decoration as a result (which I accept the Germans would have been unlikely to have done at any rate - but maybe the Serbians did after the war), nor does there seem to be significant coverage of him beyond questionable internet forums, books of poetry and non-fiction. Perhaps this guy existed and did what he did, but so far we can't verify that. Even if he did though that doesn't make him automatically notable, no matter how much his actions might seem worthy. For me no sources = not notable. Anotherclown (talk) 08:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect as per discussion below Keep - I'm sorry if I was unclear, I was typing as I researched. Firstly, the first two sources I mentioned were just the first two I found under the search for the anglicised version of the name - you're right, the Shadow one is bad and I wouldn't use it - but there are plenty more including this and this from from the Centre for Holocaust and Genocide Studies (which mentions another source book) . Secondly, there are plenty of sources for Schultz - in fact, the documentary made on his life is recommended in several places as a teaching resource. There are sources to prove notability. Whether I can prove he was a living person is a different matter, but that doesn't matter for the purpose of this discussion. Fictional characters have articles as well. - ManicSpider (talk) 09:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I could suggest renaming the article 'The death of Josef Schultz' if the problem is the biographical aspect? Because really it is his death that has been notable, not his life. - ManicSpider (talk) 09:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These sources are more promising but they are very limited. As such I have some questions and comments:
  • Re: "Jouney to the White Rose in Germany" by Ruth Bernadette Melon. Specifically what is this? Is it a work of fiction or non-fiction? Its not immediately clear to me (my internet is very slow so Google books isn't always functional to me). At anyrate it hardly seems like an academic reference so I'm not sure this is reliable.
  • Re: Cohen Center for Holocaust Studies website. This seems to be a very short synopsis of the video documentary ("Joseph Schultz" 1973 by Predrag Golobovic). But I think this might qualify as a reliable source.
  • Re: "The Holocaust: an annotated bibliography and resource guide" by David M. Szonyi. This is also a very short synopsis of the documentary and claims that it is based on a true event. IMO it is also a reliable source.
As such is this "significant independent coverage"? A short 13 minute documentary from 1973 and two synopsis of that video. I'm not convinced but at the very least they could be used to flesh out some of the missing details in the article. Anotherclown (talk) 10:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge/redirect: I'm not sure that there is enough notability for a biographical article, but the Ruth Melon book Journey to the White Rose in Germany listed by ManicSpider seems like a reliable source. Thus, I would support adding a brief mention of the incident in a parent article (maybe German resistance perhaps) but I don't believe that there is enough coverage in reliable sources to support an individual article. Of course, any merge would need to be done in a manner so as to not breech WP:UNDUE. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this could be a workable solution. Anotherclown (talk) 22:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, having looked at the Melon source again, I am also confused by it. Is it a novel? If so, I believe that Anotherclown would be correct and it couldn't be used as a source for a biographical article. Nevertheless, I still think that a merge/redirect is probably the best solution, given that there doesn't appear (to me, at least) that there is "significant coverage" in reliable sources as per WP:GNG. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that merging into "Resistance in the Army 1938–42" in German resistance would be appropriate. As a sidenote, I'm fascinated by the weird sourcing for this, and plan to go to the National Library to see if they have any better information - ManicSpider (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC) (Yay for teamwork!) [reply]
I have a problem with the addition of these images. I have seen no reliable source which proves that they are of the subject (Josef Schultz). If such a source exists please add it to the article as well. Anotherclown (talk) 04:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the images do not seem adequately sourced. Currently it says "Taken by a German soldier present at the event". Ok, they probably were taken by a German soldier at the event, but from where did the uploader obtain them? E.g. were they scanned from a book or taken from a website? That is what needs to be included in the source field. Currently there is no proof that they relate to the subject of the article, and without proper attribution I think they should be removed. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed the problem [1], [2]. Sorry, that was sloppy of me. walk victor falk talk 05:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Both of these are internet forums and as such neither of these sources are reliable IMO.Anotherclown (talk) 06:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why does it seem notable? Anotherclown (talk) 06:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why attempt to delete something 41 minutes after its creation? Its obviously a notable event. There is now a link to a documentary about this. And they erected a monument to the guy, he going down in the history books. Dream Focus 06:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So WP:ILIKEIT? Regardless of when it was nominated to this point no one has been able to find "significant independent coverage in reliable sources." Can you? Anotherclown (talk) 06:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like sources could be found, but they are probably dead-tree media in libraries, and might be in foreign languages since this guy was from somewhere in Eastern Europe. IT is a bit hasty to expect all those sources to be found with an hour of starting the article, or even within the one week that this AfD will run. Already we see editors coming forward with a few sources and leads to possibly more. That should be enough to keep the article around for now. Jehochman Talk 07:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No we don't. So far all we have is a bunch of non-fiction, several collections of poems and homilies, and internet forums and discussions. None of these are reliable sources. The only things approaching reliable sources located so far is a 13 minute documentary from 1973 and two internet summaries of that documentary. This is hardly "significant independent coverage" under the general notability guideline (WP:GNG). Anotherclown (talk) 07:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's clearly notable, but let's work on developing the article and getting authoritative references. --Bermicourt (talk) 07:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Got a policy? "Its clearly notable" has been used as an argument to keep this a number of times, so again I ask why. Because you think it is worthy? Anotherclown (talk) 07:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • non-fiction = not-fiction, which means truth. If you have a collection of truth, its fine. The only policy is WP:Verify and the documentary proves this exist. Do you think an event like this, notable enough to have a monument erected and a documentary made for it, wouldn't get newspaper coverage? Dream Focus 07:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake. I meant fiction of course, apologies (therefore not the truth). I was distracted by the cricket. Anyway where is the reference to prove there is a monument? Anotherclown (talk) 07:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Google translator is having problems with this. We need to find someone who speaks the language to look at that community's official website at http://www.lokve-sanmihai.rs/ They should list all monuments and history they have. Can even email one of them and ask them to check a local map. Dream Focus 08:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to say my reading of the White Rose book is that it was a travelogue written by a history teacher about her trip. Just on the fiction/non-fiction thing. - ManicSpider (talk) 08:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a Google Books source ("Serbien ist judenfrei": militärische Besatzungspolitik und Judenvernichtung by Walter Manoschek, footnote on p. 189) that cites evidence that this is a legend, Schulz (spelled thus) having died from wounds the day before. I haven't checked further yet. The coverage would seem to indicate that the legend is notable. --Boson (talk) 07:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. I have included this in the lead, but it needs to be covered in the article's body, too. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eternal Mystery

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

Notability tag has been up since March 2009, I have searched for notable mentions and have not found any

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. As normal, if deleted material is required for later article creation it can be restored for attribution purposes. Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Humanism (life stance)

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

This is described as an ideology or worldview (or "life-stance", an apparent neologism associated with the worldview) allegedly associated with a great number of organizations. The article's core problem is that it does not cite any substantial coverage of the subject "humanism as a life stance" in reliable (preferably academic) sources; instead all sources are associated with the organizations claimed to be related to the topic. Because of the genericness of the label "humanism", any relevant sources are not easily found via Google. This lack of sources means

  • that there is no basis for a neutral, verifiable article,
  • that the notability of the subject is indeterminable;
  • that we can't disprove the contention that this whole article is original research by synthesis about a topic that does not exist as such (or is not distinguished from secular humanism) in the view of reliable sources.

The article should therefore be deleted unless, per WP:BURDEN, reliable independent academic sources which describe this topic as a whole are provided.  Sandstein  23:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. There is a weak consensus to keep, although there a strong merge strain as well; this close should not be construed as prohibiting a merge if someone is inclined. There is however, no consensus to delete. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 17:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Otago University Debating Society

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

not all university debating societies are notable. the first 3 references merely confirm it's the university's oldest society. that in itself does not make it notable. most of the coverage is local. gnews merely confirms that it holds meetings. LibStar (talk) 23:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment editors should read the commentary on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Otago University Debating Society to come to a considered decision, Stuartyeates (talk) 08:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

my nomination contained a google news search. the coverage does not qualify as indepth. it merely confirms the society existed in 1894. LibStar (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to University of Otago#Student life. The organization certainly deserves to be mentioned in the University article because of its longevity, but the independent reliable sources are just not there to justify a free-standing article. Yes, local newspapers from the 1890s are found which mention it, but in those days it didn't take much to get into the papers. More significant is that a search of Google News for the last 50 years [18] finds absolutely nothing. --MelanieN (talk) 04:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've added some more detail (and four more references00:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)) about notability in the lead – sorry about the late notice but I've only just discovered the scanned 19th century newspapers at http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz. I'm still convinced that debating was (briefly) an important part of the development of NZ self-government in the late nineteenth century, which is why it was one-third of the New Zealand University Games and why kiwis still point to Ernest Rutherford's debating successes at Canterbury before he became a big crocodile at the Cavendish. The problem is we need more participation by NZ-based editors, which deleting this article is unlikely to encourage. - Pointillist (talk) 23:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of characters in the Hunger Games trilogy. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 01:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

President Snow

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

Not notable and few reliable sources; it could easily be summarized in List of characters in the Hunger Games trilogy. Glimmer721 talk 23:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Clar-Rosselló

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

fails WP:Notability (sports) for tennis players - no ATP Tour main draw matches played in, no ATP Challenger titles, and not a WP noteworthy junior player Mayumashu (talk) 23:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that while the event may be notable, a person is not automatically conferred notability by winning the event. Mkativerata (talk) 23:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kathryn Anne Feeney

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

Is winning the Rose of Tralee sufficient to satisfy WP:N? I don't think so and if so, this person is just not notable enough for an article. Mattinbgn (talk) 22:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was as follows: This is a web page, so the relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Notability (web)

Nicely, this was raised and debated.

  1. On "multiple non-trivial published works "
    • This specifically excludes "a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication." The sources provided late in this debate, Mental Floss and Mumbai Mirror, clearly fall into that category.
    • The other sources have all been, in the opinons of the members of this debate, found to be similarly poor.
  2. On "a well-known and independent award," neither "pick of the day," nor "site of the day" are awards. It must be noted that this criterion is the subject of frequent debate at Wikipedia talk:Notability (web), and in most cases consensus there interprets "award" quite strictly.
  3. On "distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent," Rock's Backpages appears to lacks the editorial oversight.

I would be remiss in closing this to not make special mention of the comments by Opbeith. Yes, there are times when these debates verge on arbitrary. However everything is arbitrary. "What, 99 kmh is ok, but 102 kmh and I get a ticket?"

If, as is the rough consensus here, this article fails to conform to the guideline but really needs to be included in the encyclopedia, then the appropiate thing to do is to attempt to get the guideline improved.

Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Songfacts

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

First AFD claimed that two personal websites were "reliable sources" and was closed as "keep" after only two !votes. As I pointed out in the last AFD, the only hits on Google News were "Songfacts said X about song Y" and nothing more, and the only hits on Google Books were along the same lines.

The sources currently in the article are somewhat better than what had been there before, but let's look at them:

  • A barely two-paragraph, first-person review from Mental Floss. Reliable source, but trivial.
  • A snippet from a segment on WGN radio that mentions it only in passing.
  • An article in USA Weekend that I'll give benefit of the doubt.
  • A solitary, short listing in Men's Journal in a totally arbitrary "100 best" list.
  • A primary source.

The second AFD closed as "no consensus". There, the "keep"s consisted of:

  • One user who added sources that were trivial to the point of irrelevance (Yahoo! pick of the week)
  • An WP:ITSUSEFUL !vote
  • One who cited a book with a one-sentence mention that literally amounted to "I just looked something up on Songfacts".
  • One user who turned up a handful of articles whose mention of the site was limited to similar "lists of cool websites" and/or otherwise trivial coverage.

In short, I still see nothing that constitutes multiple non-trivial third party sources. The fact that it's been online for 12 years means nothing. The fact that they interview lots of artists means nothing. The fact that the site is useful means NOTHING. I remain completely unconvinced that it meets any criterion of WP:WEB. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I thought hard about this as I'm a big fan of songfacts, but I don't think it passes the established rules for notability. To quote WP:WEB, "Articles which merely include an external link and a brief description of its contents may be deleted." Wickedjacob (talk) 06:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There seems to be a narrow dividing line at Wikipedia between encyclopaedic rigour and erratic autocracy. When an article shows evidence of "pragmatic notability" even if beneath the bar of Wikipedia criteria and there has been a reasonable amount of evidence of support for the article's retention, repeated and emphatic pursuit of deletion suggests a determination to force the issue - supporters of retention have to return to the issue and use up more time and effort or let the issue go by default, alternatively they simply don't notice that it's been revived. Wikipedia contributors do not have an infinite ability to participate in debates about deletion and constructive input. There comes a point where enforcement of Wikipedia criteria becomes a mechanism of haphazard damage rather than systematic improvement. "May be deleted" is not "Must be deleted". Opbeith (talk) 10:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • All good points. I still don't think it meets notability as written, though. Exactly because there isn't infinite ability to debate, there are times where letter of the law must be allowed to do its job, which is to keep us from having to reinvent the wheel at every situation. If the policy is not working, the solution is to work toward a rewriting of the policy, not to eternally fight for articles that fail the community accepted policy. Wickedjacob (talk) 07:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be frank, when people know how much of a bloodbath it is trying to argue the details of notability in reference to specific articles, who is going to waste life attempting to raise the general issue in the face of the bit-between-the-teeth determination to purge that's so often evident? Opbeith (talk) 11:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Just to be specific, the cumulative weight of references and recommendations by Bloomberg, Daily Mirror, USA Today accompanying other information is indicative of non-triviality however laconic individual references may be. Opbeith (talk) 11:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seattle Times, Bloomberg, the list goes on, just click on the link. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those are the first two I saw. The Seattle Times mention is only one sentence, and Bloomberg only says "X said Y according to Songfacts.com". Tell me how that's non-trivial. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If Songfacts is cited by the likes of Bloomberg, that's not only a pretty strong case at RSN, but the many, many times its been cited in different media suggests notability as an information resource, independent of the "WEB" guideline. Squidfryerchef (talk) 20:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The podcast[22] from WHO-AM was pretty good. A 25-minute interview with the founder of the website. That's the kind of source that establishes notability. Though, it looks like that's already been restored along with some of the others. Thanks. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: At first glance, I would have voted keep, but the examined sources are very brief and trivial. JacksOrion (talk) 07:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It passes WP:WEB, which states "Web-specific content may be notable based on meeting any one of the following criteria"

It meets all 3 of the criteria, not just one:

1) The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.

The site was created by DJs and gets a lot of coverage in radio segments, which are hard to cite, but these segments on major news/talk stations demonstrate substantial coverage and notability:

I understand how the Men's Journal, Chicago Tribune, Howard Stern, NPR and many other numerous media mentions might be considered trivial, but these are not:

  • Mental Floss [25]
  • Mumbai Mirror [26]
  • USA Weekend

2) The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.

  • In May, 2002, Yahoo! was the dominant search engine, and a Yahoo! Pick was a well-known and independent award from a major organization. [27]
  • More recently, it was twice named "Site of the Day" by the Daily Mirror

3) The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.

[28][29] Ndugu (talk) 20:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Jennifer Hudson (album). (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 01:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pocketbook (song)

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

Redirect to Jennifer Hudson (album). Per WP:NSONGS this song is not notable as it did not chart. Before anyone claims that the song has sufficient independent coverage if you look, the only coverage comes from album reviews. There are no sources speaking of this song as an independent piece of work. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 22:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep per WP:ATHLETE and WP:NFOOTBALL Mandsford 17:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Manolis Moniakis

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

I could find little information about this person on the internet except for birth date, gender, and other listing of statistics. Wikipedia should not reflect such a list of stats about a single person. The article also claims that he played in a notable team, but just because the team might be notable (and warrant an article about it) does not make this person notable. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 22:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Why does this make him notable? Have you read WP:CRYSTAL Spiderone 11:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussions are not speculation. There are numerous articles about this defender, who is already notable in my opinion, in the Greek newspapers. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 13:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands, you've not demonstrated any SUBSTANTIAL coverage of the player. Nothing more than passing mentions Spiderone 13:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Spiderone, I have to disagree. Moniakis has received plenty of detailed coverage (particularly his doping incident). There is plenty available to flesh this article out when time permits. Deletion would be unnecessary and unhelpful. Jogurney (talk) 13:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A 4-year contract with Olimpiakos, signed this week, for a footballer who played internationally with the national under-21 side is notable enough. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 14:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: My keep counts for both players since Kritikos is currently playing for a Gamma Ethniki team at Zakynthos which meets WP:FOOTBALL and is on loan from Olympiacos which is the most successful team in Greece (according to Wikipedia). Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 00:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Galleryhosted

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

Non-notable website. Referenced articles sufficient to avoid speedy deletion, but the coverage appears to be rather insubstantial, and possibly advertorial. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also listing the article for this site's founder and CEO:
Anis Ayat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

- WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is already several references about GalleryHosted (links in the reference section). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imageination (talk • contribs) 21:37, 11 January 2011 UTC

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. the delete votes have the p;olciy edge but I'm happy to userfy this if someone wants to claim it. It can be movd back to mainsopace as soon as its released. Spartaz Humbug! 20:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Screaming Bloody Murder (album)

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

An article for the upcoming Sum 41 album was deleted five times as Complicity (album) in 2009–2010, and twice as Screaming Bloody Murder in 2010. Complicity was salted due to multiple authors continuously recreating the same article with zero verifiable facts. Screaming Bloody Murder was created into a redirect to Sum 41 due to it being a plausible title (at the time it was unconfirmed), and it received full-protection to avoid yet another pre-mature article being created. As it stands, there is still not enough verifiable information for the upcoming Sum 41 album to have it's own Wikipedia article. The source for the release date is again coming from an online retailer, and that was one of the issues last time this article was created. Both WP:HAMMER and WP:CRYSTAL still apply. Fezmar9 (talk) 20:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per Criteria G4 and Salt - I just tagged it for you. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - But speedy deleting and salting are probably not necessary this time around. It looks like the album really will be released this time, given preparations by serious retailers like Amazon and CDUniverse. However, the album is still a few months away and there is not enough confirmed information available for an album article. When (if) it is truly released, and assuming this is the real title, a viable article can be created at that time. Meanwhile, the "cover" shown in this article sure looks fake to me, and the image file is backed up by equally fake copyright info. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment – It should be noted that the article for Screaming Bloody Murder that was created in July 2010 was entirely based the Amazon.com listing which gave a title and release date. However by the given August release date, the album was still being produced and the title was only tentative as later discovered in subsequent interviews. I have been monitoring the Amazon.com listing since July for possible new information, and instead of removing the alleged product all together, they simply removed the release date have since continued to accept money for a product that still does not fully exist. Fezmar9 (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I got a different impression from recent interviews about the so-called "upcoming release" but you've surely been following things more closely. The article is ripe for deletion in any case! --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rebuttal – Actually, on Sum41's homepage (www.sum41.com), not only can you see that the title "Screaming Bloody Murder" has been confirmed as the album title, but also, the album cover used in the article is indeed the same from the unreleased album. There is also a confirmation of the release date. I don't see why the article should be deleted if the information has been confirmed by the band themselves. LunaEclipse7 02:38 15 Jan 2011 (GMT)
    • The general consensus among editors of album articles on Wikipedia regarding upcoming albums is to wait until either: a reasonably detailed multi-paragraph article can be written, or the album's title, release date and track listing have all been confirmed. This article doesn't go into anymore detail than what's on Sum 41, so why have a separate article for the same information? This album likely will meet the general notability guidelines, but just not at this time. Fezmar9 (talk) 07:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - article has been massively improved, with plenty of sources, including one on the bands website, confirming the release and the name. --Ezhuks (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The content you are referring to was copied and pasted directly from Sum 41 without proper attribution. See WP:CWW. As of today, the information here does not go into any further detail about Screaming Bloody Murder than the band's article does. Why have a separate article for the exact same information? Fezmar9 (talk) 20:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, content that was moved from one article to a more suitable one is a completely different issue, in fact, it's not an issue at all - if someone, indeed, is worried about that, we should just follow WP:SPLITTING#For use on talk page. --Ezhuks (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well okay, you can say where the information originates from, but that's not really a solution. Those templates are for articles that were cut and pasted, not copied and pasted. The exact same information word-for-word can't exist in two different places. It has to be trimmed down and reworded, or deleted entirely, in one place or the other. Also, the Sum 41 article became a dumping ground for minor details on the album since its article had been deleted so many times. If you actually read the information, it's just a bunch of glorified studio updates that give little factual content beyond "the band worked on the album some more." If you boil the entire seven paragraph section down to raw facts, you know: that this album was originally intended to be an EP in 2008, Gil Norton was hired to produce the album but the band did it themselves, Tom Lord-Alge mixed it, one song leaked and one song was officially released. That doesn't tell me much about what the album is, which is what an encyclopedia is for. It only tells me what the band did over the course of three years. Information that's far better suited for an artist's article. Fezmar9 (talk) 22:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - besides giving someone the joy of a power trip deletion, there is no reason to delete it just to build it again in two weeks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.28.53 (talk) 08:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy - The delete opinions are correct in policy, this article violates WP:crystal, and Amazon and CDUniverse aren't sufficiently reliable to use as sources to confirm a release date. The correct policy-wonk response is to delete the article and then undelete it when the album is released. However, I appreciate what I think is the real argument of the keep votes, which is 1. the album probably will be out in a couple of weeks and 2. people want to keep working on the article. All of these concerns can be addressed by parking the article in user space where it can be improved even more, and brought back when the album is released. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Overall, consensus at this AFD discussion is for Keep, with strong consensus that the subject matter passes WP:NOTE, with coverage in multiple WP:RS secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 00:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Freakum Dress

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

This article has been nominated for deletion twice before, and deleted twice before. It has also been speedied twice. My last speedy (as a G4 repost) was contested, so here we go on a third AFD. First, this article fails WP:NSONGS. It has not charted. It has not been covered by multiple notable artists. It has not won any awards. It is a run-of-the-mill album track from one of Beyonce's albums. It is precisely the kind of song that WP:NSONGS intends when it says "Most songs[note 5] do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song." The references used attempt to shore up some kind of independent notability are weak at best. http://www.amazon.com/Freakum-Dress/dp/B00137OIDY shows that you can buy the song as a track from the album (true for most album tracks). http://music.aol.com/song/freakum-dress/8760153 shows that the track is available for sale. http://www.allmusic.com/song/freakum-dress-t15815692 shows that it is an album track. http://allhiphop.com/stories/reviews/archive/2006/09/20/18134780.aspx mentions a contributor, but not what he contributed (beyond "his brand of modern funk"). http://www.popmatters.com/pm/review/beyonce-b-day/ is an album review that mentions the track. http://www.musicnotes.com/sheetmusic/mtdVPE.asp?ppn=MN0075650 shows that the sheet music is available for sale, like nearly all Beyonce songs. http://www.mtv.com/bands/b/beyonce/videos_07/news_feature_040207/index2.jhtml documents the existence of the video. http://www.metrolyrics.com/freakum-dress-lyrics-beyonce-knowles.html is a copyright violation of the lyrics. http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,1516025,00.html mentions that Jay-Z contributes to the album, including this track. http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2006/09/04/beyonce_shows_rage_and_range_on_new_release/ is an album review. http://www.slantmagazine.com/music/review/beyonce-bday/939 is an album review. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/04/arts/04choi.html?_r=2 is an album review. http://www.webcitation.org/5rW98J9Id is an album review. http://web.archive.org/web/20071223104612/http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/beyonce/albums/album/11463836/review/11736807/bday is an album review. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gq0iUS_jdY4 is a copyright violation. So there we have it: two copyright violations, album reviews, and documentation of its existence as an album track. Nothing that makes it reasonable to override the standard advice of "Most songs[note 5] do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song.". Because of the history of constant recreation of this article by fans, and the fact that it contains no useful material that isn't already in the album article, I want this version deleted, and a protected redirect installed in its place to prevent further edit warring over it. —Kww(talk) 19:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing
This AFD may have been influenced by canvassing: Message to Cprice1000 Message to Legolas2186 Message to Novice7 Message to Candyo32 Message to Ozurbanmusic Message to Ratizi Message to Petergriffin9901 Message to Adabow
Note that they are in the wikiproject of Knowles, it is not a canvass, just because they are in the wikiproject does not mean that they are watching the wikiproject. Either way, neither of those users have commented, so there's no issue. TbhotchTalk and C.
  • I think you're having a dumb day. I'm saying that a protected redirect would not be a viable alternative to deletion, because it would almost invariably lead to a slobbering fanboy re-creating the article's content at a different title and/or bawwwwwwing on the talk page of the redirect. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current history includes four separate previously deleted versions, for one thing. I restored everything to give people an opportunity to peruse it. There's wouldn't be any valuable text under a protected redirect, so deletion is the appropriate action. It wouldn't be required if people didn't keep resurrecting the article despite contravention of existing guidelines. I'll agree that TPH seems to have lost his way somewhere in the middle of his original comment, but his clarification is on-target. Keeping the history would make it easier for people to circumvent the redirect through cut-and-paste.—Kww(talk) 20:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep Okay for first things, i didn't realize this article was deleted twice and speedy deleted twice (THATS A LOT!), so if anything i suggest redirecting, so if anyone in the future was to attempt to restore it they would see in the history it has already been done and to not attempt.
That being said, i really don't think the article should be deleted/redirected at all! The critical reception, although taken from album reviews, is still critical reception about the song itself! ONE comment or a WHOLE paragraph is still critical reception. And in the critical reception, they discuss the songs composure! And this isn't just any regular song from the album, the song saw a music video release through the "B'Day Anthology". This isn't just some scantly article put together for the heck of it, the article has more coverage than some GA articles (example: "I've Just Begun (Having My Fun)" "My Only Wish (This Year)"). And even more coverage could be added through the performance of the song during live shows! I understand the two copyright violations, and agree that they should be deleted. The "Musicnotes" website gives a preview of the official music sheet, which gives a good idea of the composition of the song! and the other refs i've discussed already. The songs article should stay, as the coverage is perfectly fine and the song is more notable that song GA Article and official single releases! It's shenanigans to delete this!!! Theuhohreo (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (later) I'd prefer it if this argument wasn't lost in among the allegations of canvassing and rather weak "keep" arguments that follow. There are "keep" arguments in this debate that deserve little weight, but this is a strong one:- It is not necessary to delete this article to achieve what the nominator wants. A protected redirect could be achieved without deleting the history. See WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD for the background.—S Marshall T/C 23:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Once again I would like to say that this article still remains a valuable addition to Wikipedia. One must remember that guidelines are GUIDES not rules, you can go out of some of these guides. This is an example of that situation.--Blackjacks101 (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:IAR doesn't give you carte blanche to say that an article should be kept because you think it's useful or about something you like. Try again. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did not just say that I liked it. But if you would like more detail I will do so. That album is not just a regular album track, it very much acted as promotion for the album, which is evident with the over 8 mill Youtube views. I will also continue to stand by statement that these are GUIDES and not RULES, exceptions are inevitable. The article stands as a valuable piece of information for Wikipedia--Blackjacks101 (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - being 'generally well received by music critics' does not make it pass WP:NSONGS. pablo 20:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "generally well received by music critics" isn't the debate... coverage is the debate, which this article happens to be more covered and better made (bad english sorry... lololl) than some GA Articles and Single articles on wikipedia. Theuhohreo (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, Kww nominated the "incorrect version". Check at the history, before its deletion it was 21,189 bytes, it was returned with 10,269 bytes, the rationale of Kww for deletion does not exist anymore, it is now 22,079 bytes. TbhotchTalk and C. 21:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The changes only shift the sources, but don't introduce better ones:
  • So if I as a critic comment ""Freakum Dress" was a bad addition" won't you add it? It's a critic; or ""Freakum Dress" is apropos", it is incorrect?. Those are critic of the song not THE album. Also, you argue that some sources never mentioned the song. Taking Fox source, which "doesn't mention the song." It "doesn't mention the song" as simple as it is not used for mention the song. it is used for the comment "She and Harrison had previously collaborated on her 2003 single "Crazy in Love" (2003).[3]". So before try to find problems to sources, check what are sourcing those links. TbhotchTalk and C. 21:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point is that none of them are saying something unusual or noteworthy that would make it reasonable to override WP:NSONGS. You keep telling people to ignore it, but you don't have any argument that explains why anyone should ignore it.
Nowhere in this AFD I commented "Ignore Kevin (if you are Kww)" or "ignore this AFD he is crazy and WP:Pointing Wikipedia", even I'd never commented "WP:IAR", nowhere in this AFD. TbhotchTalk and C. 23:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Tbhotch has gone ahead and added in the missing information, which seems to support even more the notability of the song. True, it is not a single, however, the fact that it has a music video due to the re-release of the expanded edition of the album, it is essentially a single for that. For this reason, and for the references used in the article, I feel that it should be kept. SilverserenC 21:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no harm in keeping this article, and sufficient value in it to justify keeping it. (Despite the claims made above, IAR does indeed provide a reason to vote "keep" on something that would normally not be kept if, in the editors' opinion, the article is useful or improves the encylopedia. Notability guidelines cannot trump a policy, and IAR is a policy.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided, WP:NSONGS states "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable." This song doesn't have any of those, and while some people argue that there is lots of coverage I would argue that it is not significant coverage or independent coverage. Independent coverage means coverage from 3rd party sources about the song separate from the album. Use of lots of sources about the album does not make the song notable. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 21:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that significant coverage is not a notability criteria... its a requirement for independent articles. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 21:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can I get a distinction between notability criteria and requirement for independent articles, because wouldn't an subject essentially need to be notable to have an article independent of the parent topic? Candyo32 - Happy New Year :) 21:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but NSONGS says... Notability aside, there should be significant coverage from independent reliable sources to make a detailed article. That means then when creating an article on a song editors must consider: 1) is it notable? (charts? awards? covers?) 2) does it have significant coverage? Notice how the to elements of NSONGS are described separately. Nowhere does the page suggest that lots of coverage is sufficient to establish notability. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 22:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that's mentioned as a minimum requirement. To pass WP:NSONGS, "All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." as a minimum standard. All the additional tests are things that have to be true after basic notability has been established. The way I usually describe it is that WP:N and WP:V describe when it is permissible to have an article. WP:NSONGS is about whether it's a good idea.—Kww(talk) 22:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect Pretty much all the coverage of the song is part of coverage of the entire album. Give it its own section at the album's article, any content worth merging can be pulled form the page history. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I strongly believe that if this article were to go under GA review, it would pass! I know I've stated this before, multiple times, but; This article has more information and importance than most GA Articles and Official Singles that are on this site! Theuhohreo (talk) 22:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - Just so we are clear, i was asked to comment here. With that said it was a neutral comment asking for opinion, wasnt a canvas violation. Okay, so back to this article, WP:NSONG has been cited for the deletion, although i agree with this rule i also disagree due to inconsistency on wikipedia. What i mean is, according to WP:GNG, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." Charting is not always a necessity in establishing notability, in this case, this is a well written article that has received a fair amount of coverage. Im leaning more towards keep but not enough to say keep. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 23:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article rather clearly now satisfies the GNG. Both significant and independent coverage have been established in the current text. Some of the comments appear to rest on a clear misunderstanding of the meaning of "independent" coverage. As WP:Independent sources sets forth, echoing [[WP:V] and WP:RS, "An independent source is a source that has no significant connection to the subject and therefore describes it from a disinterested perspective. Independent sources have editorial independence (advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflicts of interest (no potential for personal, financial, or political gain from the publication). For example, in the case of a website, an independent source would be newspaper coverage of the site rather than the site itself; for a recording artist, an independent source would be a professional review of the artist rather than album sleeve notes or a press release." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It possibly passes the GNG. I would argue that a lot of the mentions are passing mentions, but at least there can be an honest debate about that. Can you tell me why you didn't discuss WP:NSONGS, which is the relevant topic-specific guideline? It's more stringent than the GNG.—Kww(talk) 00:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because I don't believe that NSONGS (or any of the other specialized guidelines) are exclusionary, to the extent that they would override the GNG. NSONGS is brief, informally phrased, and focused on a narrow (if prominent) niche in the commercial music market. Those aren't the only kind of songs that should be notable, and doesn't represent the broad range of song articles that exist (and therefore, the in-practice community consensus). There's a large swath of songwriters with important work that won't fall under songs but nonetheless is generally regarded as influential and satisfies the GNG: later Dylan, much Ellington, much of the Velvet Underground, a significant amount of Jimi Hendrix . . . . There was a Bruce Springsteen song, whose name escapes me, about a notorious NYC police shooting, which received substantial TV and news coverage based only on his live performances of it, before he'd even recorded it. Even footnote 5 to NSONGS discusses notable songs which don't fit into its specific pigeonholes, and shows the GNG governs songs. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 06:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you need to read WP:NSONGS more closely. It states at the outset that you have to pass WP:N first: it says that "all articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.". The exclusion for footnote 5 is for songs that preceded the era of electronic recording, which certainly doesn't include this one. Reading WP:NSONGS as an inclusionary guideline simply doesn't work logically: any song that fails WP:N automatically fails WP:NSONGS, so it can't include anything that WP:N excludes. It only works as an exclusionary guideline: WP:N establishes the presumption, and WP:NSONGS rebuts it and provides more tests. Are there exceptions? Certainly. Is "Freakum Dress" one of them? I haven't seen anyone argue why it would be beyond "it had a video", which certainly doesn't cut it in my book.—Kww(talk) 13:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect - could not find evidence that there is coverage (charting/cover versions...) independent of the album. A whole lot of puffery for one song.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 23:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral First, I got two messages – one is already pointed out here and other was a neutral message asking for opinion [30]. I am neutral to this per Lakeshade. Novice7 | Talk 03:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The song didn't receive a conventional physical release as a single, but it was given promotion independent of the album, so the statement "[i]t wasn't released as a single" is rather misleading—particularly given that digital downloading is redefining the definition of a "single" (see Billboard). Also, Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Albums and songs states, "A separate [song] article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; permanent stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." I'm not sure how "reasonably detailed" is defined, but I'm pretty certain that the article isn't a stub. The B'Day article is already very long, and though at a glance it appears to be in need of a little tightening, I'm not sure it would be appropriate for content containing information specific to the song to be included in the album article. In any case, AFD is for proposals for deletion, not merging—if you think the article should be merged somewhere, please follow the instructions at Help:Merging and moving pages#Proposing a merger. Notability is rather the issue here. But notability does not mean a song should be released as a single. Also, maybe in other place the song is not notable enough but in Europe, it is. I was thinking also of merging; B'Day was just revamped by me and I personally assert that its long and need professional copy-editing. Everything important in the article is already mentioned in the mother article. Jivesh • Talk2Me 16:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, the version Kww nominated for deletion was only 10 kb long. Mine was 23 kb long. He must have got some confusion. See this. Jivesh • Talk2Me 17:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
G4 cannot be used as a shield. And i do not consider it as "inadequate". It deserves an article because of what i posted above. Please read it. Jivesh • Talk2Me 18:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The reason given by the nominator seems to be the perceived lack of notability. Wikipedia's guideline on notability states that an article is presumed to be notable if it has been covered substantially by reliable, independent sources. The article in question references multiple such sources, such as the Daily Record and the New York Times. Therefore the article is notable per WP:GNG. --Joshua Issac (talk) 18:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • (response to comment on my talk page) According to Wikipedia:Notability, "a topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below and is not excluded by WP:NOT. A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in any of the subject-specific guidelines..." (emphasis mine). Thus notability may be achieved either through WP:GNG or the subject-specific guideline (or that is what Wikipedia:Notability seems to suggest). Otherwise, a professor who passes Wikipedia:Notability (people) but fails Wikipedia:Notability (academics) would be considered non-notable just because he is an academic. There does not seem to be any "do-not-include" criteria at WP:NSONG, and there are no statements in NSONG suggesting that the consensus is to ignore the either...or implication from WP:N for articles about music. --Joshua Issac (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was actually trying to avoid more discussion on this page, because it's starting to appear as if I am badgering, but no. WP:NSONGS functions as an exclusionary criteria. It sets, as a minimum bar "All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." It then sets further criteria that need to be met before an article should be written about an individual song. This song meets none of those additional criteria. The guidance in WP:NSONGS rebuts the initial presumption in WP:N, and sets further standards. This is basically to prevent us from having articles about every album track, and to avoid having an inconsistent state where people can generally find trivial passing mentions of tracks by recent extremely popular artists, thus potentially justifying an article on every track by Beyonce or Lady Gaga, where such is not possible for the majority of still quite notable performers.—Kww(talk) 20:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a specific notability guideline for music because songs and albums can often pick up media attention for lots of different reasons. WP:NSONGS clearly states that shows that songs are only notable where they have charted, received awards or been covered by multiple artists. This leads me to the conclusion that songs have to earn notability. However every keep vote here is suggesting that that the song has inherited notability because it was mentioned in album reviews. Subjects cannot inherit notability from a parent subject. They most be notable in their own right. I stand by my original comments that the song has received very little significant coverage as a separate body of work from the parent album. I get the impression that people are under the impression that if an article about any song can be written it should be written. - That's a very slippery sloap to head towards. I'm now leaning towards delete. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 20:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Striked Cprice's vote as he's already made his keep vote and those comments b4. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 23:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, lol, I was told it was a new page! Sorry for the mix up, I deleted it. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 23:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Lil Unique1, it's got to go. ozurbanmusic (talk) 23:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral, leaning towards Delete - Sorry, but I still can't see the necessity of having this article in existence. Just because something, particularly a song has some information on it and coverage does not make it notable. I can assure you almost nobody has ever heard of this song, I for one was never familiarized with it. While I respect the fact that it indeed is a nice article, with an informative background, I don't find it necessary. I honestly am quite annoyed at the creation of all the new song pages that are unnecessary. Additionally, whether or not it has sufficient information, remember, it never charted anywhere. If anything, Merge with the already enormous and substantial album.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 00:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just hope that all of you who are learning towards delete have at least read what i wrote. If not, read it again. And i hope you know which article was deleted. It was not mine and that's why G4 was being used as a purpose of deleting it. And how many songs do you think have so much information. Please see my reason for keeping the article. I have also cited a valid source. Jivesh • Talk2Me 15:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jivesh • Talk2Me 15:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Jivesh, I G4'd your version because none of the changes addressed the reasons the article was originally deleted. When Theuhohreo created a new version, I took it to AFD because my G4 on your version had caused so much controversy. Neither your version nor his address the reasons that the article was deleted in the previous AFD. It wasn't deleted in the previous AFD for lack of sourcing, it was deleted because it's a topic that Wikipedia should not have articles about, per WP:NSONGS. It really doesn't matter which version I G4'd or which version I put an AFD tag on, because the question isn't the quality of the article, it's the suitability of the topic.—Kww(talk) 15:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the canvassing and the repeated re-creation cannot obscure the fact that this is a song of surpassing unimportance that nobody other than hardcore Beyonce fans is ever likely to find of any interest at all. Don't they have their own wiki? Tis is right up there with articles on individual Ewoks. Guy (Help!) 20:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to make clear to you Guy, i created this page only once and when i created it using my sandbox, i did not even know that this page had been created in the past. It is only when i published the article in Wikipedia that i found out about its previous existence. Moreover, it does not depend who is a fan of Beyonce. There are 11 members in the group and only four of them have commented, among which one said that he was neutral. So please avoid me these types of comments. One last, Beyonce has so many songs, but i chose to create this one only because it got promotion independent of the album and there is a lot of detailed information about this song about recording, production and live performances ++ its theme concept and video on reliable sources. Jivesh • Talk2Me 04:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Tbhotch. --Ahmetyal 21:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Note: the song has garnered attention aside from the album, including interviews with Knowles, and an official music video release! That IS single attention aside from the album! Although it has not charted (which seems to be the main point), it does stand notably on its own, from the album. Theuhohreo (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • I totally agree with you. This is why i said the track got promotion independent of the album. Beyonce explained the song's concept to Daily Record . Read the article. You will all see. Jivesh • Talk2Me 16:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Exactly! Per WP:NSONGS, "a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". Which basically means this also passes WP:NSONGS!
  • Keep Basically per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, I agree that the coverage is sufficient to pass the general notability guideline and as such is fine to have it's own article. The subject specific guideline cannot and should not exclude articles that pass the general notability guideline and there has never been consensus to make them do so. Davewild (talk) 19:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete as a test page. (by Jimfbleak (talk · contribs)) (non-admin colsure). →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 20:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Masters academy

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

I originally tagged this as {{db-corp}} but then noticed/remembered the line that says schools are not eligible under that criteria, so I'm nominating this article here with the same argument (article is about a subject of dubious notability that does not indicate why the subject is notable). I also did a quick google search and found no reliable, third party references. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 19:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Linksvayer

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

We have three sources from Creative Commons (primary), a paragraph in a CNET news article where he does his job and encourages scientists to use CC licenses, one IHT article about veganism that mentions him for a couple of paragraphs, and a link to his Wikipedia userpage. That is not enough for notability, in my opinion.

Note that on his userpage, he says "I am the subject of Mike Linksvayer, which I would strongly advocate deleting if I were a deletionist (be my guest)" NW (Talk) 20:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You only list the sources currently in the article, which suggests that you didn't search for further sources. You quote Linksvayer's comment about "strongly advocating deleting", but these comments are quite clearly sardonic if you read his blog - I'm noting this so that the closing admin doesn't conclude that this is an argument for deletion from the subject. This said, based on the coverage I can find, I suggest the best course is a selective merge to Creative Commons#Governance - he hasn't been the subject of substantial coverage, but details about him would fit within the article about the organisation for which he is VP. Fences&Windows 20:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deletion as a copyright violation (in addition to being, obviously, a tendentious POV fork). Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proofs against the hypothesis of Aryan Invasion

edit
Proofs against the hypothesis of Aryan Invasion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

OR, POV-fork, Synthesis - it reads like an essay more than anything. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Objection per nom. IndoWarrior I object on the grounds that all f you are Europeans and are obsessively biased. No Indian has viewed this page and thus you dont have any Indian opinion. You lack the ability to judge as I have pointed out earlier. Your "Indo-European Migration" article is baseless and no fact supports it. The genetic evidence is also against the Aryan migration mythos. So, in this light we need a large number of Indian scientists to review this page. Not Westerners as it is connected to INDIAN history. —Preceding undated comment added 20:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC).
  • Objection per nom. IndoWarrior You have also not spent any time validating my biblography or references either. You are very biased and obsessed with the baseless Aryan invasion Mythos —Preceding undated comment added 20:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is that there is insufficient coverage in reliable sources to confer notability. Mkativerata (talk) 18:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Shot (2010 film)

edit
AfDs for this article:
The Last Shot (2010 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Student Movie, not notable, was deleted before here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The last shot (2010 film) CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 16:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. As I noted in the previous AFD, we can't have this article without some indication of notability, especially when it had yet to be released. Now that the film has actually been released, there is absolutely no indication that it is notable - no articles, no critical response, no nothing. The author indicates (on the article's talk page) that an IMDB listing is sufficient, but that's precisely incorrect - an IMDB listing doesn't confer notability, because IMDB is not itself a reliable source. This article differs enough from the deleted version so as to avoid a G4 Speedy Deletion, if you're wondering - but there is no notability to speak of. Indeed, I don't see a claim to notability. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 21:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per G4 Winner 42 Talk to me! 22:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Films are not speediable, but I do agree that it does not have the required notability and support deletion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Films are absolutely speediable, if this article were a duplicate of the one that was deleted at AFD. I believe the phrase from WP:CSD is "Substantially similar" or some such. In this case, though, there are enough differences to trump the G4 rule. You're right, though, that a film doesn't qualify for A7, which is the "credible claim of notability" rule. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I should have stated not "generally" speediable and clarified as to A7 in my statement. I was referring to your G4 only in reference to Ultraexactzz's earlier noting that content and assertion were "just" different enough. However, yes... this one is still WP:TOOSOON, so we are not in disagreement on that point. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While the film's subsequent release prevents the prior AFD from controlling, there's simply no suggestion of notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TOOSOON (if ever). While happy to congratulate these high school filmmakers for their creative efforts, high school films by student filmmakers rarely achieve the coverage required to meet inclusion criteria. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that there is insufficient coverage in reliable sources to confer notability. Mkativerata (talk) 18:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Shot 2

edit
The Last Shot 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Student movie, not notable. Author has been doing this before Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The last shot (2010 film) CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 16:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. The consensus is that there is insufficient coverage of this film in reliable sources to confer notability. Mkativerata (talk) 18:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Reporter (film)

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

Student movie, not notable. Author has been doing this before Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The last shot (2010 film) CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 16:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hiroshi Hara (director)

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

Unable to find significant coverage in any reliable sources to sufficiently establish notability of the anime director. J04n(talk page) 15:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DreamFocus, I was given to understand otherwise, when I read WP:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Online_reliable_sources#Situational it says, with regard to ANN, In addition, because the encyclopedia portion is user-edited, that information is not reliable by Wikipedia standards. I take it that that is not your understanding? --j⚛e deckertalk 15:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contrary to what User:Dream Focus says, anyone can register an account at Anime News Network and then add information to encylopedia pages. However, while anyone can add information, only staff memebers can remove or edit information submitted by other people. Because the information is added by users and ANN staff doesn't look at it unless someone marks it as erroneous (and even then, it can take years for them to get around to fixing reported errors), it can't be considered a reliable source. However, there is a "source" field included with every piece of information, which can be viewed by clicking the "look up sources" link at the bottom of each ANN encyclopedia page. Because people do not have to provide a source when submitting information, this is often left blank, but it never hurts to click the link and then check the sources to see if someone provided a source for information that could be used as a reliable source for Wikipedia. Calathan (talk) 16:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would think some of these companies would list on their official websites the names of those involved in them, but so far haven't found anything. I added one review sight which mentioned he was the director of a series being reviewed. I used Gwern's search tool [31]. I don't suppose any of you own something he has worked on, and can just check the credits? I'll see if Amazon.com list him in the credits for anything they sell. Dream Focus 18:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've found an architect, a dentist, a lawyer and (confusingly) a cinematographer with the same name but no RS for this guy. Some reviews on ANN but those aren't RS. There's no page for him over at ja.wikipedia either (which is quite telling, I think).--Plad2 (talk) 09:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, reviews at Anime News Network would be acceptable RS for this topic, though their encyclopdia would not. Can you please share the links? And his not having an article elsewhere is telling only of en.Wikipedia being bigger and having more editors. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jamshid Arian Assl

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

Blatant auto bio. Lots of ugly naked URIs by way of reference but do any show that he is notable? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Belle Vista

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

Stub non-notable article. Sottolacqua (talk) 15:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SWEP International

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

Blatant advertising, using company website as source. Even if originator finds independent sources, username suggests COI. Haploidavey (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. A self-written biography is useless without third-party verification in a significant form; similarly, brief mentions and soundbites, even in a lot of places, is not enough. WP:BLP1E takes priority; I would advise anyone, in any AfD, of any opinion, that one of the hallmarks of a good argument is to actually address the opposition. This hasn't been done. Ironholds (talk) 19:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Abraham Varghese

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

This person does not seem to be notable. He is mainly known for just one thing, ghostwriting one book, which led to some minor controversy. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The point of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" is that such topic-self-published 'biographies' are not to be taken as demonstrating notability. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Deleted by Admin Jimfbleak. (Log) UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mixing and Mastering Vocals in Audacity A complete Guide By Dr. Faisal Wadood

edit
Mixing and Mastering Vocals in Audacity A complete Guide By Dr. Faisal Wadood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Original research, unencylopedic how-to-do guide Travelbird (talk) 12:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy close. For starters, this redirect should have been sent to Project:Redirects for discussion, not AFD, for deletion. On top of that, even Britannica's "Tibeto-Burman languages" article acknowledges that "the North Loloish subgroup" is called Yi by some people. Where this redirect should point, and how the language family should be discussed overall, is not a matter for AFD. Uncle G (talk) 19:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yi language

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

Yi != Nuosu ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 11:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 02:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Photon belt

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

This article was previously deleted, but was given a second chance on the condition that it retain a neutral point of view. That has not happened. The article contains an overwhelming bias towards New Age philosophy, such as claiming in the intro that "This interaction might cause..." implicitly suggesting that it will happen, and describing The Shift of the Ages as a "masterwork" and Edgar Cayce as a "great healer". It also reads like an essay; there is an almost total reliance on primary sources, with no sense of context. I do believe that the photon belt is a notable New Age idea, but I can't see how to include this article without reducing it to one sentence. Serendipodous 11:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well they certainly look nicer now but I don't really see how they're any more neutral or better sourced. Serendipodous 14:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The reasons for recreation was that sources found demonstrate notability. In general we don't delete articles due to NPOV, since deletion is not clean up. The article is crufty and while I feel that one sentence is too harsh, do feel free to prune the article down. It's odd that the nominator suggests doable steps for fixing the article in an AfD. Taemyr (talk) 13:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is I don't see any reliable sources about this. No one has taken the time to analyse the history behind this in a coherent manner (I don't just mean no one on Wikipedia; no one at all). Since this article is entirely reliant on citing the original material, there is no way to verify it. How can we know if Hesse was the first person to come up with the photon belt idea if this article just cites Hesse's book? How can we know if the belt's appearances in various New Age magazines indicate that it is particularly popular in New Age circles? I'd rewrite this but I don't know where to begin, because I have no idea what to base the article on. Serendipodous 13:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a key issue I think. Compare and contrast with the Barry Setterfield issue, for instance, where there's plenty of obvious 3rd party editorial. There's definitely some in this case, but certainly nowhere near as much. I still err on the side of my keep, but only marginally. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The topic is notable as a New-Age concept, or catch phrase anyway. The article is probably as good as can be expected and gives interested people information on the history of the expression, as well as links to debunking for those interested in that. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this article is to be kept, can I at least get it semi-protected, so it has time to breathe? Most of its edits have been from anonymous IPs. Serendipodous 16:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. In general protection and semi-protection is used to stop ongoing disruption. So with no edits from ip's the last week, and no edit war or similar the responce will likely be that there is no recent disruption. This is because one of our guiding principles is that we are an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. So before protection we should try dialog. Meaning that you will have to wait for the next wave of IP and also should try talking with whoever arrives. Taemyr (talk) 14:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per G3/G5. Prolog (talk) 20:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Adventure

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

No indication that this game actually exists. No discussion of such a game can be found on Google, which is odd considering that video games are one of the most well-covered topics in internet forums, etc. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 10:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: crystal ball. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Maury--UnquestionableTruth-- 22:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perendev motor

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

not notable magnetic Perpetual motion machine. Aslo, was a spam Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/perendev-power.com a5b (talk) 10:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Rescue:' The article in its current form is a bad stub. However, as a part of the history of perpetual motion machines, an article on this topic is a Very Good Idea. I'll rescue it if given a chance. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I generally believe the Wiki is precisely the place to talk about these bogus devices, to counteract all the crapola floating around the internet. It is, for instance, the very first place I go when looking for information on things I might ingest. I will get to this article in its proper time, and if I can't beat it into something presentable, then by all means, AfD it again. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If Maury sees some potential to turn this into more than the uninformative and unsourced article that it is now-- basically, it's an excuse to say the words "Perendev motor"-- I'm in favor of a rescue attempt. It won't take long to see if there can be some notability, such as prominent mention in magazines or books about inventions (or bad investments) touted as "perpetual motion machines". There's not enough at the moment to even make it a redirect or a mention in another article. Mandsford 16:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably delete No book hits, all news hits are press releases. There's a lot of web discussion but so far I can't see anyhting that says much more than what we have now. Perhaps merge into perpetual motion as an example. Mangoe (talk) 17:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, regretfully. I agree with Maury Markowitz's point that this site can serve as a great go-to resource filtering a small amount of good information from a large amount of chaff, but I am not finding in depth coverage by independent sources sufficient to write an article. No problem moving it to user space or Wikipedia:Article Incubator. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
History of perpetual motion machines has a partial list. I think that there has been discussion (at Talk:Perpetual motion, maybe?) regarding the difficulty maintaining such a list. Modern perpetual motion machines tend not to call themselves perpetual motion machines because, well, everybody knows perpetual motion machines are impossible so nobody would ever invest/take the time to investigate/whatever. This creates sourcing difficulties, especially since by and large they are ignored and dismissed anyway. List of perpetual motion machines might be viable anyway, though, if you want to give it a whirl. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The distinct class in this case is the "magnet motor", which they all seem to call themselves. I think it's reasonably distinct from such devices as over-balanced arms and such. Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cinderella Cleaners (book series)

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

WP:NBOOK, only related GHit sources available appear to be from publisher, or blog reviews. RoninBK T C 10:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 01:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ajmer Dargah attack

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

Non-notable incident sourced to dubious government-controlled propaganda outlets in India. Indian media do not count as reliable sources unless their claims are backed by international non-partisan sources. Indian media and newspapers, notorious for plagiarism (see User:YellowMonkey/Times of India), fabricating and aggressively promoting demonstrably false claims (see recent expose by Anderson Cooper on India's "premier channel" NDTV making up stories concerning Obama's visit to India here, as well as Indian media making up tall tales of racial discrimination against Indians in Australia), promotes anti-Semitic conspiracy theories concerning allegations of Jewish/Israeli/Mossad involvement in 9/11 and 26/11 [34][35][36], as well as downright sensationalist and dubious reporting (see Radia tapes controversy), are bogus junk, the equivalent of supermarket tabloids, and completely unworthy of inclusion into an encyclopedic enterprise. Delete per WP:RS, WP:N,WP:EVENT, and WP:HOAX Meanstheatre (talk) 08:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article is a very brief stub which says little more than that the blast occurred and was originally attributed to a Muslim group and then to a Hindu one. The argument seems to be it should be deleted because Indian media are never WP:RS. Respectfully, I believe under the circumstances the article should be saved for expansion including additional sourcing. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "Indian media do not count as reliable sources unless their claims are backed by international non-partisan sources." - is this your personal opinion or a general consensus among Wikipedia editors? Salih (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The independent" is a right-wing tabloid that repeats Indian media crap. The British rightists have targeted Indians for discrimination before. The claims made in that article need to be taken with a huge sack-o-salt.59.160.210.68 (talk) 07:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have initiated a WP:RESCUE of the article as it requires improvement. Perhaps the "sack-o-salt" discussions can be moved to the new talk page instead? KimChee (talk) 07:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Kirby Music

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

Neologism, I can't find any pertinent hits that prove the existence of a sub group of music named "Robin Kirby Music" Travelbird (talk) 08:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have already spent an extra hour on here following around your admin editing, you guys are slave drivers for free labor. Give me a chance, or enjoy losing another helper. Thank You. finding dreams 08:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Bad nom, for an otherwise debatable article. The nom is apparently based on the editing cruft at the top of the article, and not the body which has a clearer description of the topic, a music promotion company and band. Found several real hits on Google, but still has questionable N. Does not appear on iTunes, which I find to be a reasonable razor in many cases. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know, most of the articles I'm editing at the request of wikipedia have very "Band nom" as you put it. Yet here will all sit fixing them. Can you haze someone else please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Findingdreams (talk • contribs) 13:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment The article is quite badly written. It is still not fully clear whether the article is on a genre of music or on the musician Robin Kirby. From what I could originally gathered the prior seemed more likely, but after multiple subsequent edits it now seems to focus more in the musician - also of very questionable notability. I might also add, that the article was originally tagged for a speedy delete by User:Wuhwuzdat. When the author of the page removed that tag (against Wikipedia rules), I opted to go the slower route of Prod and then AfD instead of restoring the speedy tag to give the author a bit of time to improve the article. However Findingdreams has repeatedly removed these tags from the page as well, despite several messages explaining that he shouldn't do so. Travelbird (talk) 13:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: having watched the evolution of this article from something potentially interesting to something else entirely, I'm changing my vote. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I wish you guys would just delete and shut up. I really don't care. I was trying to make a decent article when "freebird" up there scared the hell out of me. So I made it more abstract, like a lawyer would to stop the attack on my efforts. I'm not here to write. At least not now. Not after seeing this. I'll just edit, and help where I can. It's not like this is the only place in the world to post something about "Robin Kirby Music". I vote it down too! : ) finding dreams 00:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC) Can you guys go be anal retentive somewhere else now? I'm not worthy.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Findingdreams (talk • contribs) 01:16, 12 January 2011 JamesBWatson (talk) 12:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chartered valuer

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

Dead end page, no GHits of "chartered valuer" or "Institute of Chartered Valuers" by name apart from Wikipedia mirrors, one company's website [38] and one Facebook page for the Institute with very little content. [39]. If there was more context, I would be happy to expand rather than delete, but I have no idea where to begin. RoninBK T C 08:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move: many hits on Goggle for "Institute of Chartered Valuers". Suggest moving topic to that name. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of those GHits you see, do you see any of them that support the idea that this "institute" actually exists? Aside from the Facebook one that I already linked, which appears to have been created from the information on Wikipedia? -- RoninBK T C 23:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.
  • Delete. This would also appear to be redundant to appraiser, which seems to me to be the usual term for a professional who assigns a money value to property. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article doesn't state which country this applies to. One possibility is Canada, where the correct name is Chartered Business Valuator (CBV, a.k.a. Expert en Evaluation d'Entreprises) and the designation is awarded by the Canadian Institute of Chartered Business Valuators. New Zealand had an Institute of Valuers (not Chartered Valuers) and in that country people are known as Registered Valuers. India has an Institution of Valuers, but no recognized designation therefrom (ISBN 9780792375531 pp. 378).

    As can be seen, without the context of which country this even applies to, this article is useless, uninformative, and downright wrong. Uncle G (talk) 16:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Top Taekwondo

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

No support found for notability. Janggeom (talk) 08:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because the web sites used as references (irantkd.ir, haghshenas.ir, impunion.ir) are all owned by Seyyed Ali Haghshenas. jmcw (talk) 11:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seyyed Ali Haghshenas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Iranian Taekwondo Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I did not nominate the two additional articles because I have not had time to conduct a reasonable search for independent sources for them yet, but I have no objections to jmcw including them in this deletion discussion. Janggeom (talk) 09:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as hoax/spam. There is in all of this material one court case reliably sourced by the Iranian Student News agency - the rest is self-published by one person with a vanity article. jmcw (talk) 11:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The new reference added to the Haghshenas article (Jan 14 asiasavate.ir) is also registered to Seyyed Ali HaghShenas. These article appear to be an active hoax by Seyyed Ali HaghShenas. jmcw (talk) 08:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I found nothing to show these topics are notable. The style is not notable, the man's accomplishments might make him notable if there were any sources besides his web page, and the ITA lacks sufficient coverage to show notability. Astudent0 (talk) 18:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For all the reasons previously given. Papaursa (talk) 18:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Canadian football players

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

Not linked from anywhere, woefully incomplete. Category does the job just fine. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 05:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • It varies from case to case. In this case, we have a list that's unsourced, not even 10% complete, and completely lacking in any other content than "This is a list of..." (which is not the way to introduce a list). Since it's so woefully inadequate, precedent says it should go. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 14:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Team Fortress 2: The Pyro

edit
AfDs for this article:
Team Fortress 2: The Pyro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD  • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is the only TF2 class that has an article, and its not a very good one at that. Seems more like it should be a subpage of the main TF2 article.The Phoenix Enforcer(talk) 05:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wedding Bands & Co.

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

Unremarkable jewelery store in Chicago. Only assertion of notability is an unsourced claim (author was given several days to add cite after protesting speedy) that they are the largest full-service jeweler in Chicago's Jeweler Center--a fact that really doesn't demonstrate WP:N even assuming it is true. No reliable sources cited. Zachlipton (talk) 05:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well known landmark that is well known in the area therefore has notability and should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carol1946 (talk • contribs) 05:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC) [reply]
User blocked. Nakon 06:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kinusa Shimotsuki

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

Can't find reliable, secondary sources on which to demonstrate the notability of this manga illustrator under the WP:GNG. j⚛e deckertalk 05:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because you have to take a few seconds and look for them. They were in other articles linked to already, I going to those official websites and finding it without problems. Dream Focus 10:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I added references from official sites of two of the three things he is credited for, which do mention him as the artist. You only need references to two notable works that he had a notable role in to convince most he is notable, so I didn't bother with the third. If anyone cares, just run the official site through Google translator, find the product he is said to have done art for, and then once you are on that page, search it in the official Japanese for his name in Japanese, to find it. Dream Focus 10:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not seeing sufficient in-depth third-party coverage here to establish notability. --DAJF (talk) 12:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: there is not sufficient coverage in independent, secondary, reliable sources to meet WP:BASIC. J04n(talk page) 13:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lissack

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

This is a case of WP:BLP1E. Hater of Spam (talk) 04:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC) — Hater of Spam (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. we now seem to have consensus Spartaz Humbug! 17:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Double Trouble (nickname)

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

While the nickname possess some notability, I do not feel it deserves it own article. It just sums up the careers of two young running backs, and presents information that could easily go into their respective articles or the Carolina Panthers. Unlike the Purple People Eaters or the Steel Curtain, this nickname has yet to be solidified in NFL lore.  StarScream1007  ►Talk  00:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I believe the article should stay, because the two backs created the nickname themselves, and it is a part of Carolina Panthers lore. The duo also became the 1st set of teammates in NFL history to each rush for over 1,100 yards in the same season, a fairly notable acheivement. 24.74.42.80 (talk) 00:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the relevant information into the player's respective articles. SeaphotoTalk 00:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article shows info related only to the nickname/them as a duo as well as info and starts from their articles. It is also, again, part of Carolina Panthers lore, and like the Purple People Eaters and the Steel Curtain, should remain.24.74.42.80 (talk)

Purple People Eaters and Steel Curtain have been around for decades and have become associated with NFL Lore. They respectively combined for eight Super Bowl appearances (well actually 7). Double Trouble is an important part of the Carolina Panther's current history, but a three-year old nick name is not lore. As of right now, it seems like something that could belong in Carlina Panthers article until it becomes more associated with NFL lore. -  StarScream1007  ►Talk  20:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 04:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some policy based arguments would be really helpful as there isn't anything policy based here for the closing admin to evaluate except the delete votes. Maybe I should close this as delete? Spartaz Humbug! 04:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not individually notable; information present in other articles, slight WP:SYNTH as the sources don't back up the use of the nickname so much as they parrot what's already in existing articles. I say close as delete; "Delete and merge" doesn't work because it would screw up the authorship. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 15:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at least for now, per StarScream. It would be one thing if these guys set more records. As it stands now, they're part of just Panthers lore and not NFL lore yet. And I'm a Panther's fan. Blueboy96 16:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is definitely part of Carolina Panthers lore. These two running backs are great young players, and if they get better, then the nickname will get more and more popular. We should keep this article unless, they fall off the map within three years. Soxrock24 (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. WP:NOTINHERITED means that a he isn't notable just because his father is notable. The fact that the sources also mention his father is irrelevant as long as they provide significant coverage of his son. The ones mentioned by Ron Ritzman, in particular, serve this purpose. Granted, those sources might not be there without his father. But inherited notability, when picked up by reliable sources in a non-trivial way, is enough. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Samuelsson

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

College hockey player who has not yet established himself to meet notability requirements per WP:NHOCKEY. Sources provided in the article are mostly about his relationship to his famous father, and do not provide enough significant coverage about the subject to support this article. Notability is not inherited, and Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball. Dolovis (talk) 23:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The above listed sources fail to demonstrate that the subject has received independent and significant coverage in reliable sources per WP:GNG.
1 – is about his father and does not provide significant coverage about subject
2 – is about a non-notable accident and provides only a passing mention of subject
3 – one sentence stating that the subject is the son of Ulf Samuelsson
4 – is about his father and does not provide significant coverage about subject
5 – is a USHL press release/game summary and provides only a passing mention of subject
6 – is a promotional blog interview and cannot be considered to be an independent source
7 – is about his kinship to his father and provides only a passing mention of subject
8 – is about a non-notable accident and provides only a passing mention of subject
9 – is about a non-notable accident and provides only a passing mention of subject
10 – one sentence stating that the subject is the son of Ulf Samuelsson
11 – USA Today article on how some sons of former NHL players were selected as part of the 2009 Draft, and does not provide significant coverage about subject.

Dolovis (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE as he has yet to play at a fully professional level, and a lack of substantial media coverage means that he fails the general notability guidelines. This article can be easily recreated if and when he makes his pro début, but delete until then. Bettia (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All of the notability he has is inherited. Fails GNG. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't think Dolovis' purported rebuttal of the sources presented by Grsz is accurate. For example, source 1 is not "about the father" at all. The sources Dolovis identifies as being "one sentence" are because the full article is behind a paywall. We know enough from the title and first sentence that the articles are likely to give significant coverage of the son. "Notability is not inherited" is a much over-used reason for deletion, based only on an essay. It overlooks the subtelties of distinguishing between people who don't receive significant coverage in their own right, and those who do. The sources clearly indicate that the son here does receive coverage in his own right. He's not as notable as his father, which means his father will usually be mentioned in articles about him, but that doesn't adversely affect his notability.--Mkativerata (talk) 03:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 04:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Keep. SPI investigation opened. (non-admin closure) Dusti*poke* 22:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zoosk

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

Subject Lacks Notability, Article was created and edited by someone with a conflict of interest (user Juliettetang an employee of the company that the article is about), suspect article was created for promotional/advertisement purposes AnonNeedsAnAccount (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. There is no agreement on whether he is independently notable. Regarding Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, there is no evidence that this publication is "major." However, the status of his peer-reviewed papers has not been determined one way or another, hence the no consensus. As a side note, it has been proposed that Sternberg peer review controversy be merged into this article. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Sternberg

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

This person seems to be notable only for one incident, which already has an article: Sternberg peer review controversy. Is this article really needed? Wolfview (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep First of all meets WP:PROF as editor in chief of an important journal. Second, Second, he has 27 published peer-reviewed papers, most of them in international recognized journals. At least 12 are in Scopus, with citation counts of 28, 26, 13, 11, 10, for the highest 5 , all in major international journals other than the ones he has edited. For invertebrate systematics, that's not bad. I notice the nature of the controversy, and see that the article on it needs some serious POV work, btw. I have not the least sympathy with any variant of intelligent design, but a fair presentation is essential. It helps to understand the general topic to see full bios of people supporting it. Removing articles on scientists involved in such is more than a little questionable--if people here generally have a bias against this view, we should go out of our way to avoid deleting articles on it. There is a reason for 2 articles--first, because the controversy is known in its own right, second because merging his general work into it is unfair, using a possibly derogatory title when the plain name is available. Karenjc is right that if we do merge, it should be into this article. DGG ( talk ) 17:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am curious how you come to the conclusion that the "hitherto obscure" & "a sleepy scientific journal" Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington is "an important journal." I would further point out that this article does not have any information on "his general work", just a short resume. Finally, Karenjc makes no claim that "if we do merge, it should be into this article." HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My suggestion was indeed to merge this article into the one about the controversy, rather than the other way round. This was based on my perception of the Proceedings as a non-major journal (thus not valid for establishing notability under WP:PROF), and on a lack of clear evidence (in the article itself or in a Google search) that Sternberg's work has been significantly influential in his field. However, DGG's points are well taken. If we merge the current version of Richard Sternberg into the current version of the controversy article, with no attempt to improve either, it will associate Sternberg's name in the encyclopaedia only with a negative event and could (and almost certainly will) be regarded as part of some anti-ID, anti-Sternberg crusade. I agree with DGG that Wikipedia should take pains to avoid the appearance of partiality, even by omission, in such an inflammatory subject area. So, merge B into A instead of A into B (and add details of the controversy to Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, since it's probably the most exciting thing that ever happened in the journal's history?) That doesn't work either, because the controversy satisfies WP:N#Events and a deletion proposal would doubtless be defeated. I'm striking my !vote for now, but I find neither article satisfactory, Richard Sternberg because it doesn't assert or demonstrate his notability outside the controversy, and Sternberg peer review controversy because it's POV as it stands, particularly the title. I'm off to see whether I can help improve them at all. Anyone fancy joining me? Karenjc 20:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – It’s funny that I tagged this AFD to revisit after I brought my thoughts together on the rational to keep both articles. It seems DGG has explained my rational better than I could. First, the primary AFD piece Richard Sternberg shows through Google Scholar searches that he has made substantial impact outside academia in his academic capacity and is or has been an editor-in-chief of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area ,which qualifies him with a place here at Wikipedia under Academic Profession. With regards to merging the Sternberg peer review controversy into Proffesor Sternberg bio does an injustice to the controversy piece in that the article itself gained notoriety based on the controversy alone, though Proffesor Sternberg involvement was the major contributing factor. The controversy is still separate and distinct from the Sternberg bio and should stand as a separate piece. Thanks for listening and Happy New Year. ShoesssS Talk 19:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, (i) Google Scholar finds mainly hits on an unrelated 'RW Sternberg'. If you restrict to 'RM Sternberg' as the author, you only get a handful of hits. (ii) NO, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington is NOT "a major well-established academic journal" -- every indication is that it is quite a minor and obscure journal. (iii) None of this comes even close to meeting WP:PROF. (iv) To claim that "the controversy is still separate and distinct from the Sternberg bio" when the majority of the bio is on the controversy is ludicrous. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: before somebody else makes a comment like "editor in chief of an important journal" or "editor-in-chief of a major well-established academic journal", I would suggest that they provide evidence supporting the claim that the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington (the only journal he has been editor-in-chief of) is especially prominent because, as far as I can see, the claim is WP:BOLLOCKS. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hrafn,
I have no idea where whether the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington is prominent.
The Biological Society of Washington seems to be focused on biological classification/taxonomy of eukaryotic organisms. PBSWis their primary publication. If I read BSW's article correctly, PBSW has been regularly published since 1882.
When I click on Special:WhatLinksHere/Biological Society of Washington, I see that the PBSW has been used as a reference for taxonomy information for over 20 articles.
Curious about the source of "sleepy" and "hitherto obscure": Do the phases come from a Washington Post article? <ref>Powell, Michael (August 19, 2005). "Editor Explains Reasons for 'Intelligent Design' Article". Washington Post. Retrieved 2011-01-04.</ref>
--Kevinkor2 (talk) 13:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The quotes were from the W[ashington]P[ost] piece. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, it is cited for such things as fossil tsetse flies, a new species of leptostracan and a new species of Alvinocaris -- but given the shear number of invertebrate species (living and fossil), introducing a few more can hardly be considered to be "prominent". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Page 1 of the Post article calls the journal "hitherto obscure" and page 2 calls it "sleepy." Yopienso (talk) 14:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 04:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: I think he meets wp:prof #7 (The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.) via the Sternberg peer review controversy. I also think the editorship of the well-established academic journal should be enough. The only note in the guidance for WP:prof 8 reads Journals dedicated to promoting pseudo-science and marginal or fringe theories are generally not covered by Criterion 8. This does not seem to me to be the case for this journal. So I think we can accept this journal. Two articles seem to me preferable even if they are related as I think it is desirable to keep our encyclopedic structure. It also seem inappropriate and unfortunate to have redirects from people's names to problematic embarrassing things even if they are a major contributing reason for notability. It would also seem to me as a result of the controversy he meets our general requirements for notability (Msrasnw (talk) 12:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
  • Except that (i) the Sternberg peer review controversy has had no substantial or lasting impact outside academia, (ii) there is no evidence that the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington is a "major" journal, as required by criterion 8 & (iii) it does not matter whether we have one article or two, when most of the bio article is about the controversy anyway. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Osimo

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

Non-notable writer. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. ttonyb (talk) 04:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ukexpat (talk) 16:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and develop :Mr Bruno Osimo, academic expert in the field of translation Studies, author of various books quoted by Umberto Eco, and developer of a web-based translation course published in 9 languages has a sufficient notoriety and creativity to be mentioned by a wikipedia article. --Adumoul (talk) 03:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The purpose of an AfD is to provide justification for keeping the article using Wikipedia criteria. Please advise how the cited accomplishments support Wikipedia criteria. ttonyb (talk) 03:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If I take the criteria from WP Notability and WP Creative guidelines, I find this:
  1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
  2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
  3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

Mr Osimo meets all these criteria: He is widely cited by professionals in the field of Translation studies, he is known for originating the concept of online translation course, his articles and translation have led to the re-discovery of creative author in the field of semiology, such as Aleksandr Ludskanov, and a finally a search through google "translation articles" will show a long list of translation studies articles where the works of Mr. Osimo are mentioned and commented, specially by the Translation Journal. --Adumoul (talk) 02:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – You have submitted the individual meets the criteria for notability; however, there is no support that he meets this criteria. Just saying sometime is true does not make it so. Lets tackle each item you presented. #1 (Widely cited) - Where in the article does it indicate he is widely cited. You have given 5 instances, but a number of those are single page entries. This is not "widely cited". #2 (New Technique) - No mention of an earth shaking "concept, theory or technique". #3 (Significant body of work) What work? A few translation courses? Hardly a major body of work. ttonyb (talk) 19:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and develop: @ttonyb, what do you exactly mean by 'earth shaking' in the specific ___domain of translation? Can you list a number of earth shaking concepts in translation? Well, through his work on A. Ludskanov, A. Popovic and P. Torop, Bruno Osimo has brought to the fore the need, in Western Europe (where the debate over translation has always been confined to literary texts, while the processes involved in translating other types of texts have largely been looked upon as 'non creative'), for a common scientifically-based framework of reference by which the quality of a translation - irrespectìve of its subject matter or language combination can be assessed. In his book "Traduzione e qualità" Osimo looks into ways of bridging the gap between the theory and practice of translation. It is not so trivial a concept, after all, especially at a time when quality issues clearly exist, partly, also, because of internet technologies, thanks to which virtually anybody can access foreign language content and embark on translation> --Margitte (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC) — Margitte (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment – Exactly my point, I cannot not list any earth shaking concepts in translation and the article does not make mention (and support through reliable sources) the earth shaking nature of any of his work. Once more, the article has had almost a week to be developed and nothing has been done to expand or make sure the article meets Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. ttonyb (talk) 23:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "I cannot not list any earth shaking concepts in translation" do you mean that you do not know enough about translation or that the whole field of translation has no "earth-shaking" concepts? Goochelaar (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree wholeheartedly. You were the one bringing up one's own ability to comment on translation. And, by the way, I cannot find WP guidelines mentioning "earth shaking" as a necessary requisite for something or someone to deserve an article. At most, I can find "significant". Goochelaar (talk) 18:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Did you really watch the books and pages mentioned? Why should you determine that the english article has to be developed in one week? Wikipedia has plenty of stub articles which create no controversy. I would like to quote a sentence from Kudpung: "Why does every sports person who has played one professional game, every street musician, every bit part actor, every kid who went on X Factor and Got Talent, and every small town hack and painter, (not to mention more than 800 porn actresses and actors), merit an article on the flimsiest of sources, while life-long academics have to jump through a whole page of hoops? " --Adumoul (talk) 02:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I would think if this individual is as important as you suggest, providing support would be easy. I do not determine if the article has to meet certain criteria. It was determined by consensus. The existence of other articles has no bearing on this one. Each article must stand on its own merits. It could well be that the others all need to be reviewed and deleted. Please see WP:WAX for more information. ttonyb (talk) 03:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Not having a strong view for or against this article or the notability of its subject, who seems to be at least partially entitled to it, I'd give it the benefit of the doubt. Goochelaar (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. snow closure, all consensus is towards keeping the article. (non-admin closure) Dusti*poke* 23:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Staal

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

Minor league hockey player who has not yet established himself to meet notability requirements per WP:NHOCKEY. Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball. His brothers play in the NHL, bur notability is not inherited. Dolovis (talk) 03:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —DJSasso (talk) 14:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Going keep for a couple of reasons. 1. I realize that notability isn't inherited, but Jared does have significant coverage of his career and life above and beyond mere comparisons to his brothers. 2. He definitely fails WP:NHOCKEY, but he passes WP:GNG which means he is still notable and worthy of his own article. 3. He has had continuing in depth coverage for a significant period of time (and not just solely when he was draft eligible). Here are some sources I found in a quick search that all have Jared as the main subject and are fairly in depth, and from a variety of sources: nhl.com (2008), nhl.com 2(2010), Arizona Republic, canada.com, CBC, tbnewswatch, OSC. Ravendrop (talk) 04:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepCome on, what are we doing here? Deleting everything in sight? Why not keep the article it is in the standards of Wikipedia. --Nhlrules 22:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhlrules (talk • contribs)
  • Keep WP:NOTINHERITED is an essay, not a policy. Staal easily passes WP:GNG even though he does not pass NHOCKEY (it is possible). Grsz 11 05:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep extensive media coverage focused on him individually, especially in Canada. Passes WP:GNG blindfolded. -DJSasso (talk) 14:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Honestly Dolovis, try exercising some common sense. Staal easily has sufficient, non-trivial coverage in reliable sources to pass notability. Easily. Resolute 15:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply to Resolute: Past discussions have set clear precedents that, barring a successful Goaltender Exception or WP:GNG argument (complete with links to reliable independent sources), a hockey player will not be considered notable enough for a Wikipedia article unless that player explicitly passes one or more of the criteria set out at WP:NHOCKEY. If you can support your GNG argument with significant, reliable, and independent sources that are not primarily about how he has two brothers in the NHL, then show us. Dolovis (talk) 15:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Have you read the article? There was an independant link on it already that supported notability. More have been added and a number are listed in this discussion already. Do you even try to do good faith searches? Please read the entire page that nhockey appears on because you will see this very important line "Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted". To think that a Staal brother has not had enough individual coverage is extremely laughable. -DJSasso (talk) 15:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nom's comments on the sources found by Ravendrop: The sources found show only his relationship with his NHL brothers, and do not establish individual notability for little brother Jared.
1. NHL Press Release titled Bloodlines help, hinder Jared Staal's draft evaluation (about his relation to NHL brothers)
2. NHL Press Release titled Jared Staal takes brothers' advice seriously (about his relation to NHL brothers)
3. Local Arizona newspaper article titled Jared just the latest in the Staal lineage (about his relation to NHL brothers)
4. Newspaper article titled Family trees are fine and scouts look at lineage as much as height and weight (about his relation to NHL brothers)
5. Article based on Press Release titled Coyotes release Jared Staal (content is about his relation to NHL brothers)
6. Blog (not reliable) titled Staals ready to join forces in Carolina (about his relation to NHL brothers) –
7. AHL press release titled Rampage Sign Staal To ATO, Reassign Weston To Las Vegas (not independent or significant)

Dolovis (talk) 15:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to take a moment to learn what a press release is if you think the first two links are such. I see significant coverage from a major hockey league and from major Canadian and American newspapers. Sorry, but that passes WP:N easily. Resolute 15:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize mentioning his brothers doesn't mean the article isn't about him. Inheiriting notability is saying someone is notable without any sources at all, for example saying the daughter of an NHLer is notable solely for the fact they are his daughter...in this case he has sources that just happen to mention his brothers. Not to mention there are a number of independant sources on the article now from papers that do not mention his brothers except in passing or not at all. The CBC, Fox News, The Canadian Press and on and on... -DJSasso (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond that, perhaps you ought to consider the meaning of WP:NOTINHERITED. It doesn't mean that someone who wouldn't be well known without more famous kinfolk is disbarred from an article. It means that there is no presumptive notability for that person. Would the likes of Billy Carter or Jenna Bush have become famous on their own? Of course not. Do they pass the GNG? Without the shadow of a doubt. How many of those newspaper articles refer to their more famous kinfolk? Just about all of them, I expect. Does the GNG have an exception for those cases? No, it does not.  Ravenswing  16:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: WP:SNOW and per Ravendrop. Let's be honest, the Staal family and its individual members have probably established more notability in recent years than any other family in this country, including the Harpers or any other recent PM. Seriously, their parents could pass WP:GNG based on the coverage they have received. So to say that one of their sons doesn't is ludicrous. Step 9 in WP:BEFORE mentions that "before nominating due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist". I'm not sure these attempts were made for this article. If they were, this article would not be at AfD. At any rate, this article is an easy pass at GNG. – Nurmsook! talk... 17:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did follow WP:BEFORE, and I seriously am of the opinion that the newspaper articles would not have been written if Jared did not have three NHL brothers. The sources are about the Staal brothers more than they are about Jared. As a hockey player Jared is not yet notable. Your argument is that as the younger brother in a hockey family he is notable under GNG. But that is precisely the meaning of inherited notability, if you are notable for nothing more than kinship, then you are not notable by Wikipedia standards. If not for his famous brothers he would be just another minor league who has not yet made the grade. This article would be better served (and in keeping with policy) if it were redirected to Staal brothers. As a stand-alone member of the family he is not yet notable. Given time, he may someday play in the NHL or in 100 minor pro games- and at that time this article may be restored, but as of now that is just Crystal Ball gazing. Dolovis (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter why the newspapers are written. That is the point. Once the articles are written it doesn't matter who he is, he had articles written about him. WP:INHEIRETED is about people who are siblings who do not have sources at all. For example say Sidney Crosby had a baby tomorrow. His baby would not be notable just for being the kid of Crosby. However, once articles were written about the kid talking about him and/or things he did, then he would have met notability on his own. This is what has happened for Jared, maybe people started writing about him because he is a Staal a few years ago, but once they started talking about him specifically then he became notable. All that matters is are there articles talking about them significantly or not. In his case there is. -DJSasso (talk) 20:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To illustrate the difference about an article about the brothers and one about him that mentions the brothers is this one Staal brothers hockey's Second Family and Staal brothers aiming for an Olympic hat trick, which are about the family and not one specific member. These two would not qualify as providing notability on Jared. Whereas the sources on Jared's article and the ones above are clearly aimed at being about Jared. -DJSasso (talk) 20:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have a right to your opinion, and I have a right to mine (even if it is in the minority). The articles are not significantly about Jared. They are about his kinship. The other sources are routine sports coverage that mentions signings and trades, and are not considered significant coverage. Dolovis (talk) 20:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You certainly can, haven't remotely said you couldn't. What I have said is that you are incorrect. Large sections of these articles talk specifically about Jared. As you yourself have pointed out a number of times, the entire article doesn't have to be about the subject. Also a full article talking about a trade and talking about the players involved is different than a one line sentence mentioning a trade which would be routine coverage. There are degrees with everything in otherwords non-notable players would likely have their trade mentioned in a one line trade tracker, whereas a notable player will have an entire article talking about it. Perhaps you just aren't good at noticing the nuances of these things, I am not sure. -DJSasso (talk) 23:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My argument is not remotely anything of the sort. It is exactly as I stated it, without third-party revisionism. The text of the GNG is very clear: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." There's no qualifier there.  Ravenswing  21:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The articles are not significantly about Jared." They most certainly are. The two NHL articles are significantly about him. Grsz 11 22:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The two NHL articles do not qualify as "independent". Dolovis (talk) 23:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now you're just making things up. Amuse me, how aren't they "independent"? In 2008, he wasn't even drafted, and in 2010 still isn't an NHL player. But please elaborate. Grsz 11 00:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's time that you read Wikipedia:Independent sources: "An independent source is a source that has no significant connection to the subject and therefore describes it from a disinterested perspective. Independent sources have editorial independence (advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflicts of interest (no potential for personal, financial, or political gain from the publication)". The NHL has a clear conflict of interest in promoting the game of hockey. This includes the promotion of current players and prospects. The NHL source may be used as a reference, but not to establish notability. Dolovis (talk) 00:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, by your logic that would make any organization that makes money off hockey to not be independent, such as TSN or CBC. There is a difference between an article by a staff writer about a player who is not yet even an NHL player and an NHL press release. The first would be independent and the second would not be. -DJSasso (talk) 00:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, ha. I love your sarcastic humour. But seriously, any article by a staff NHL writer about an NHL player or prospect cannot be considered independent. A TSN or CBC news article would be considered independent. Dolovis (talk) 03:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If that's your opinion, most of your articles would be toast. Grsz 11 03:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dolovis, if "independent" according to the policy means "no conflicts of interest (no potential for personal, financial, or political gain from the publication)", how exactly do you justify that the NHL is a different circumstance than CBC Sports or TSN? These two companies make a ton of money off of the publication of off the NHL and its prospects. You do know how much money the World Juniors brings into TSN, right? That's basically a tournament of NHL prospects. Your reasonings are becoming extremely murky and you are stepping into the realm of WP:POINT, although I'm not quite sure what your point is in consistently picking fights here. Show some WP:GOODFAITH and understand that we are not out to get anyone, we all follow policy, and have been for the years and years that we have been editing. – Nurmsook! talk... 04:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What amuses me is that just the other day he made an arguement that if the NHL considers something notable then we should when it came to award winners. Now he is making the opposite arguement. -DJSasso (talk) 13:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are no articles that are "my" articles. All Wikipedia content is open to being edited collaboratively. No one, no matter how skilled, has the right to act as if they are the owner of a particular article. Dolovis (talk) 03:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am interested to see the discussion for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Toews which carries the same reasons for deletion as this one. Dolovis (talk) 04:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now you are intentionally being obtuse, you know darn well he meant ones you created. At this point you have clearly gone into WP:POINT territory. You know it is ok to say you were wrong. -DJSasso (talk) 12:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This Afd about the notability of Jared Staal was made in good faith. It isn't about me, and this isn't about other discussions on other issues. Please keep your points of discussion to the issue of notability. Dolovis (talk) 14:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We have been, and its looking more like it wasn't made on good faith, that is what we are trying to say in a gentle way. People have gently been trying to warn you that such pointy type arguments generally get people into trouble. -DJSasso (talk) 14:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We are all trying to improve the Wikipedia project. In this case you disagree with me, and that is fine. There is no POINT argument being made here. If the consensus disagrees with this nomination then the article will be kept, and I will take no further issue with that. I have said all that is needed to be said on this issue and I will not be responding to further personal remarks or to questions for further clarifications of my arguments. Dolovis (talk) 14:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You say that "if the consensus disagrees with this nomination then the article will be kept, and I will take no further issue with that." However, you have specifically said that you are "interested to see the discussion for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Toews which carries the same reasons for deletion as this one". You created that AfD after a consensus here had already been built to keep. This is one of the main reasons why so many users are warning you of WP:POINT and WP:FAITH. You say that you won't take further issue, but the fact is pretty obvious that you have by creating a self-admitted identical AfD. No one here is out to get you, it's just extremely frustrating to see the relentless action. We all want to improve Wikipedia, but by consistently forcing our attention on these ridiculous AfDs, it takes a lot of our time away from improving the Wiki. – Nurmsook! talk... 15:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Too right. Dolovis, sooner or later you're going to understand something important, which is that consensus on some of these issues is - and will remain, at least in the short term - against you. It's like the diacritical issue for me. Truth be told, I consider the current consensus bullshit: this is the English Wikipedia, and we ought to follow proven English-language usages for names and leave the foreign Wikis to tend to their own knitting. Why don't I keep hammering on it? Because I'm outvoted. I don't feel the need to attempt to overturn the Project's consensus on each and every article because it's a losing fight that will waste my time and everyone else's time when it comes to improving articles. Just like, as Nurmsook accurately says, this is a flaming waste of all our time.  Ravenswing  17:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Milwaukee Brewers minor league players. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 02:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jesús Sánchez (pitcher, born 1987)

edit
Jesús Sánchez (pitcher, born 1987) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Minor league baseball pitcher who has never played at the big league level. Since he is still active, perhaps a merge would be best. Alex (talk) 03:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IBK salvation

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

Fancruft - Unsourced article with what I assume is a detailed explanation of a fictional computer game or book - no assertion of notability Travelbird (talk) 03:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Tatsuno

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

Not a particularly notable minor league baseball player. He does have some college feats, but I'm not sure those merit an article. As a minor league, he was 20-16 with a 4.59 ERA, numbers not stellar enough for an article. Alex (talk) 03:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 06:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nic Ungs

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

Not a particularly notable minor league baseball pitcher. He's 31 and has never played at the big league level. He did play in the CPBL, but does that make him notable enough for an article? If not, he might also merit a merge. Alex (talk) 03:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. Deleted as a G5 for being created by a blocked user in violation of a previous block Bsadowski1 04:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Synthkid

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

This page is about Sarey Savy, an artist whose article has been created and deleted more than 20 times under various titles, which has led to page-protection and the prevention of the creation of any articles with his name in it, which is why this article is titled Synthkid.

Sarey Savy is much closer to notability than he was in 2008. However, I still don't believe he's quite there, as the article as it stands today does not show him meeting any of the 12 criteria laid out at WP:MUSICBIO. If I'm wrong, and Savy does meet the criteria, then we can remove all of the page protection mechanisms and rename the article to Sarey Savy. —Soap— 03:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination and lack of notability per WP:GNG. My76Strat 03:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are sources are stated on the third rule of WP:GNG. There are sources that show notability for info on the article. (The Ultimate Fohawk! (talk) 02:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Keep i agree with —Soap— but, according to WP:MUSICBIO he meets criteria number 9 "Has won or placed in a major music competition" which is America's Got Talent. I think that we should have faith and believe that this article will be notable soon. (Highlyintense2546shineon (talk) 06:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)) User is a confirmed sockpuppet.--KorruskiTalk 15:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep this article has basically only one reference but, he may be notable under Criteria 9 of WP:MUSICBIO i think this kid is gonna make it but, i think the author should find more reliable references. (Dramaroxsmysoxs (talk) 06:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)) User is a confirmed sockpuppet.--KorruskiTalk 15:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets at least one of the criteria of WP:MUSICBIO. (The BeautifulDream (talk) 06:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)) User is a confirmed sockpuppet.--KorruskiTalk 15:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets at least one of WP:MUSICBIO. (Forget the past (talk) 00:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

New user account with no other edits, another sockpuppet? Mattg82 (talk) 00:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No sorry, i am a real user sorry i just started a few minutes ago but, did go through a few pages to find references and edit. (Forget the past (talk) 00:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

OK sorry my bad. Mattg82 (talk) 01:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok i get it and i see as the 3 accounts above but, what do you think on the article? I think it's notable because, it meets at least one of the criteria on WP:MUSICBIO he has placed in a major music competition. (Forget the past (talk) 01:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

"Weak Keep" there is bare significant coverage but, as far as hearing his song "Murderer" on the radio goes, he seems notable as far as WP:MUSICBIO goes. (Goalswork (talk) 02:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

"Keep" per goalswork the article follows one notability on WP:MUSICBIO yet weak on WP:BIO. (The Ultimate Fohawk! (talk) 02:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Delete No reliable sources or significant coverage from mainstream media to indicate notability as defined by WP:GNG. Article deleted before see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarey Savy. Mattg82 (talk) 03:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Subject, in fact, does not meet Criteria #9 of WP:MUSICBIO. The requirement does not say "appeared in a major music competition," but, in fact, says "placed" in one. According to this article itself, he was the third of 40 people to be eliminated from a single, special episode of AGT. Am I incorrect in reading that as "placed 37th in a single episode of a television competition"? That, by itself, is not enough to overcome the more general failure to meet the criteria of WP:GNG. The "references" appear to either not meet WP:RS or to be mentions in passing (like the listings on the radio stations). Qwyrxian (talk) 04:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Somebody needs to prune down the album references in the article, but it is otherwise a notable song. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 01:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

D.S. (song)

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

Multiple reasons. First, fails WP:NSONGS: it never charted, never won an award, and has not been covered by multiple notable artists. In an effort to compensate for this, the article has been written to appear as if it has sources. Unfortunately, it does not. It is kind of a strange WP:COATRACK for covering the molestation charges against Jackson. As the article itself states, "The vast majority of mainstream music reviewers did not provide a critical analysis of "D.S." in their reviews of HIStory and any analysis only covered the connection to Tom Sneddon and the song's genre." The "Background" section of this article serves as a recap of the molestation trial. When it comes to "Themes and Genre", the opening sentence is WP:OR: the cited source for ""D.S." has very similar themes to the rest of HIStory, creating an atmosphere of paranoia." is http://www.allmusic.com/album/r216079, which doesn't mention the song except in a tracklisting. The rest of the section is devoted to the album, not the song. Most of "Other works and aftermath" section doesn't use sources that refers to this song, merely pointing out that Jackson made other works that referred to the case. One source does mention the song being sung by protesters (http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2005/jun/13/michaeljackson.michaeljacksontrial5) but it's hard to consider that particularly reliable since it can't even get the lyrics to the song right. There are sources that cover the apparent reference to Thomas W. Sneddon, Jr., but none of those sources contain confirmation from Jackson, which raises BLP issues (in fairness, I'm not certain what level of sourcing we actually need to avoid BLP problems). —Kww(talk) 03:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Expanding my deletion argument, as it is apparent that some didn't follow the one I presented:
  • The material in "Background" is basically a summary of 1993 child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson. Sourced? Yes. About this song? No. Completely redundant to existing articles? Yes.
  • The material in "Themes and genre" is WP:OR. http://www.allmusic.com/album/r216079 only mentions this song in a tracklist. I can't evaluate http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/michaeljackson/albums/album/312830/review/5943497/history_past_present_and_future_book_1 , but the sourced statement is about three other songs on the album, not this one. These two sources are again used to describe "Stranger in Moscow", another song in the album. Remaining material is about the lyrics of the song, with only one external source used (which doesn't get the lyrics right).
  • "Critical reaction" starts with the list of awards the album won, not the song. It continues:"The vast majority of mainstream music reviewers did not provide a critical analysis of "D.S." in their reviews of HIStory and any analysis only covered the connection to Tom Sneddon and the song's genre." We do get one one-line review of the song, but it is from a dead link: http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=doc&p_docid=0F51AE3C3455B8D7&p_docnum=1 so we cannot evaluate how thoroughly it discussed the topic.
  • "Other works and aftermath" is primarily devoted to "other works", but continues to describe the trial again. It then proceeds to make extremely POV claims about Sneddon, triggering BLP concerns. The reference to the song is that protesters sung it.
  • In short, the unique information in this article is "D.S. is a song that is usually interpreted as a reference to Thomas W. Sneddon, and was sung by protestors at the conclusion of People v. Jackson." The rest is either redundant information about the album, redundant information about the trial, or BLP-worrisome information about Tom Sneddon.—Kww(talk) 17:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedily or strong keep. Pass WP:GNG, as simple as it is a good article. NSONGS is a subrule of the WP:N, so how can pass N if it cannot pass NSONGS? Just because it didn't chart nor have a cover, does not mean it is not a good article. This article is being considerate for deletion because I commented him about this article, if not, it wouldn't be at AFD again. I intended to comment Speechless failed NSONGS and it managed to be a Featured article, now pass it because it has a cover, but the point is that NSONGS is one of the rules which can be ignored. TbhotchTalk and C. 03:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - On the basis of WP:NSONGS stating "Unreleased material are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Candyo32 - Happy New Year :) 03:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree that this article strays a little too far from the subject of the song, particularly in the "Background" section, but that does not negate the fact that this song, despite not charting or even being released as a single, has received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. For starters, references 4, 17, and 18 are independent of both the subject and each other, and have significant content about the song, not the album as a whole. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those three sources source one fact: the song makes reference to Tom Sneddon, which could be neatly fit into the parent album article (where this belongs, per WP:NSONGS). Note that the three sources can't even agree what the lyrics to the song are at the point it is supposed to make reference to Mr. Sneddon.—Kww(talk) 15:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you didn't look at the background, the Themes, critical reception, and the first paragraph of the other works section are very heavy and could not be presented just in the album's page. Songs like this and Freakum Dress that get overwhelming coverage meet notability although they didn't chart. Candyo32 - Happy New Year :) 16:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note User no notified by nominator I recently did it TbhotchTalk and C. 23:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There probably is too much material about the album in the article, but also plenty of reliably sourced material about the song itself. For example, in the "Themes and genre" section, except for the next to last sentence, the 2nd paragraph is entirely about the song, not the album, and the beginning and end of the 1st paragraph are about the song as well. And reliably sourced material about the Sneddon connection counts too. Rlendog (talk) 14:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Transbian

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

Neologism. Tried to prod this, but it was declined due to being previously created--and prodded--back in 2007. Blueboy96 02:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Many sources have been provided. A lot of them do not constitute significant coverage, but the few that do are sufficient. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OPEN (Indian magazine)

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

No significant coverage in multiple reliable source to prove this magazine deserves a separate article. The article was previously PRODed, but that was contested with this rationale. Responding to that, bestmediainfo is not a good source, even so, it does not have significant coverage on the OPEN magazine, it is an interview of Manu Joseph with focus on his book Serious Men. The same for the sify interview, it does not have any significant coverage on OPEN magazine. The article fails WP:PRODUCT. Neptune 123 (talk) 02:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am not sure how WP:product relates to this article as I think that guideline is used when discussing a merge into another article, and I know of no article into which this could reasonably be merged.
The article does meet WP:GNG. The easiest way to prove this is to search Google for the article name and the Radia tapes controversy; this magazine was the first major media outlet to publish what is being purported as the largest commercial scam in monetary value to be committed against any entity. In this case, the scam was about some people receiving government goods and a questionable wiretapping which discovered it. Both of these are huge issues in India and the world economy right now, and their Wikipedia articles are at 2G spectrum scam and Radia tapes controversy. Since OPEN is a player in these issues, OPEN is notable for that reason. Here is a Wall Street Journal interview about the issue; there are dozens of other sources saying that OPEN is the source of the leak and this is not being questioned.
I have not been able to find a reliable source critiquing OPEN as a journalistic source. OPEN is distributed widely in most major Indian cities (so they say on their own website) and they do produce original news content. This is not a reliable source but a magazine blog reviewed them and a software company critiqued their website, and subsequently this critique developed a community around it as a common case study for people to use as a standard design. I think that somewhere someone must have written a scholarly review of the magazine but I have not found one.
Still, I say keep the article for the sake of the magazine being an entity of political interest. In addition to those two Wikipedia articles, it is participating in a related court case against the Tatas concerning free speech in India. Blue Rasberry 05:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Blue Rasberry

  • "I am not sure how WP:product relates to this article as I think that guideline is used when discussing a merge into another article, and I know of no article into which this could reasonably be merged." yes, it can merged into RPG Enterprises if it survives AfD.
  • "The article does meet WP:GNG. The easiest way to prove this is to search Google for the article name and the Radia tapes controversy" - NO, the article does not meet WP:GNG because WP:GOOGLEHITS is not a valid argument. Read WP:GNG carefully.
  • "the scam was about some people receiving government goods and a questionable wiretapping which discovered it. Both of these are huge issues in India and the world economy right now, and their Wikipedia articles are at 2G spectrum scam and Radia tapes controversy. Since OPEN is a player in these issues, OPEN is notable for that reason." - That does not answer my rationale for deletion - the magazine does not have significant coverage in multiple third party reliable sources.
  • "OPEN is distributed widely in most major Indian cities (so they say on their own website) and they do produce original news content." Again, this is not a criteria under WP:GNG.
  • "Still, I say keep the article for the sake of the magazine being an entity of political interest." - WP:INTERESTING is not a valid argument. --Neptune 123 (talk) 09:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This magazine and its editor have been the subject of substantial media coverage due to their publication of the radia tapes. --Sodabottle (talk) 05:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply The rationale for this AfD is "No significant coverage in multiple reliable source." You said, "This magazine and its editor have been the subject of substantial media coverage". But according to WP:GNG, "significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention. The article does not meet this criteria. --Neptune 123 (talk) 09:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Evidence cited above shows this is a notable publication in India. Also because it is cited in many other reliable sources[50] (see WP:NMEDIA, Newspapers, magazines and journals #4). Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of Indian media is better with this article than without it.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its notable in my opinion, replying to every editor who disagrees with you is not necessary.--Milowent • talkblp-r 05:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Its notable in my opinion" - you have to explain why you belive it is notable when you are voting at AfD. Per Wikipedia:AfD#How_to_discuss_an_AfD, When making your case or responding to others, explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy. --Neptune 123 (talk) 05:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You just joined wikipedia 11 days ago, please don't preach, I am aware of the "rules" as they are. Bludgeon me if you must but I see sourcing out there for this subject beyond what your nominating statement recites.--Milowent • talkblp-r 05:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not preaching, I'm just showing the fault in your argumentation. And when I joined is irrevalent, there is no need to use ad hominem to win an argument. You said, "I see sourcing out there for this subject beyond what your nominating statement recites" you are just repeating your argument. Where are the sources? --Neptune 123 (talk) 05:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. No doubt every source I find you'll say 'not significant enough'. If 2 minutes finds this many [51][52][53][54], we can continue forever like this.--Milowent • talkblp-r 06:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Sigh. Your behavior shows you still have a lack of understanding of WP:RS and WP:N. This article is about R Rajmohan, who is about to join a magazine called Open, NOT about the magazine itself. It also does not provide any coverage of the magazine, except for a quote from the person mentioned. The only source that addresses the topic in detail is probably this article. But the reliability of afaqs is questionable. They do not have any editorial borad [55] and I don't see any fact-checking policy. dancewithshadows.com is a blog and fails WP:RS. The last source is Media Newsline, which is operated by a digital marketing company [56] to advertise the products of its clients. Media Newsline is a business-to-business publication [57] and falls under WP:NOTRS. --Neptune 123 (talk) 06:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The amazing Milo-Kreskin is right again.--Milowent • talkblp-r 06:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, i meant to add these to the last comment.[58][59][60][61].--Milowent • talkblp-r 06:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1. This reference is from Courrier International. Courrier International does not report recent events, it republishes articles published in other sources. This reference is aimed to make the reader familiar with the source from which Courrier International is republishing content, it is not a report or article about OPEN. 2. As I said above, afaqs does not look like a RS. 3. exchange4media looks to be a RS, but I still have doubt whether those two articles in exchange4media provides significant coverage to warrant an article on this magazine. This is an article prior to the launch of the magazine. This reports a news about a magazine going to launched, not a report about a magazine. Hence the information given in this article about OPEN is speculation, not fact. And this article does not meet the criteria of significant coverage. --Neptune 123 (talk) 07:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Added note: Another point, most of the sources (though most don't qualify as RS) above do not describe the magazine in detail, rather the name OPEN is mentioned while quoting a person. --Neptune 123 (talk) 07:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Among other absurdities: "This reports a news about a magazine going to launched, not a report about a magazine." Really? A news report about the launch of OPEN magazine is not a report about OPEN magazine? Please stop such trolling; am I on Candid Camera now?--Milowent • talkblp-r 12:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin:

The editors who voted keep are showing WP:ILIKEIT attitude. All of them failed to address two points 1. The article does not have significant coverage in multiple reliable source and 2. significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention.

In my reply to Blue Rasberry, I have shown his arguments are bordering WP:GOOGLEHITS and WP:INTERESTING. Milowent (talk · contribs), having failed to refute the rationale behind the nomination, resorted to ad hominem as a last resort to win the argument [62]. I hope the closing admin knows what he/she is doing. --Neptune 123 (talk) 05:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're being a weenie now, you know.--Milowent • talkblp-r 06:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The Radia tapes controversy clearly have gained them some current notice. However, to see if this is just a blip notice due to this one incident, we should look for coverage about the magazine aside from the tapes. As it turns out, the magazine is was of sufficient note, that articles were written about its launch. [63] and [64] are articles where OPEN is the primary subject of the article. As such, this meets the criteria for significant coverage in multiple sources. When comlbined with the tapes controversy, it surely meets notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Home and Away children

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

The same reasons as for AFD of fellow list. Plus, it's not sourced, badly written, orphan page and the characters are already covered elsewhere. RAIN..the..ONE HOTLINE 00:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Plus the non notable childen are mentioned in articles already that have sources anyway. =)RAIN..the..ONE HOTLINE 15:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 01:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WorkKeys

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

Article about a product is written entirely by the vendor. No sources cited that would establish notability - in fact, no sources cited at all. Text is plagiarized from that vendor's materials, e.g., from http://www.act.org/news/releases/2006/09-27-06.html. I don't believe that the WorkKeys assessment is notable; even if sources can be provided demonstrating its notability, the article would need to be re-written from the ground up to make it neutral. Greenth (talk) 01:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, but with significant cleanup. I noticed this AfD because I was aware of WorkKeys (although I knew nothing about it) before seeing the article -- up until a year or two ago, the state of Tennessee (where I live) required many high school students to take this test. It's still required by several states for various uses -- that's a strong basis for notability. The article (which has been in Wikipedia for a couple of years) was derived largely from vendor promotional materials, but that's a problem that can be resolved by rewriting. I've spent some time rewriting parts of the article -- and I've added some reference citations to third-party sources. I think that this can become an acceptable article with additional cleanup. --Orlady (talk) 04:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to House (season 5). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Social Contract (House)

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

The only source for this article is a link to a forum discussion on the medical aspects of it. Apparently it stars (female) porn actress Devon Michaels as Timothy Moore. O RLY?.

The only substantive content is a plot summary, which appears to be drawn entirely form someone's own observations of the show. This is WP:OR.

This article either needs to be properly sourced, or removed. Notability is not inherited, after all. An article already exists at House Wiki, though to be honest it doesn't look any better than this one. Guy (Help!) 10:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No evidence of independent notability of this episode, and no evidence that House is of such cultural impact as to warrant a sub-article for every episode. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • House is one of those series where it is likely that you will get a commentator or three for each and every episode. Not certainly, but there is definitely a high chance of it. Would anyone happen to know who those weekly commentators would be? NW (Talk) 04:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect Nothing but a plot summary in violation of WP:NOT#PLOT. Pure plot summaries have a proper place in the episode list. One review itself (especially when every episode is reviewed) doesn't indicate notability of this episode; it's nothing special. As there don't seem to be efforts to bring the House episodes up to WP guidelines and policies through expansion, the best cleanup measure is to delete/redirect/merge. – sgeureka t•c 09:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Instant Virus Killer

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

Notability issues: not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia per (WP:N) BurhanAhmed (talk • contribs) 15:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AdvisorOne

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

I can't find significant coverage of this website in reliable, third-party sources. The three references are to press releases, and I can't find anything on the web other than passing mentions. ThemFromSpace 16:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Since the nominator does not object I'm going to close this discussion and move the article per Simon Burchell,s suggestion. No prejudice against a speedy renomination if someone still believes the band isn't notable. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Morales Pino Trío

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

A search for references found 2 minor mentions in published WPRS, fails WP:N. See User_talk:Simon_Burchell#Morales_Pino_Tr.C3.ADo for a discusion on searching for different word order in quotes. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 17:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify your comment on that user talk page could you please explain why you think that "Trío Morales Pino" is a different subject from "Morales Pino Trío"? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because the article says the name of the band is "Morales Pino Trío" not "Trío Morales Pino", the same as the name of the band Three Dog Night is not Dog Night Three. If you believe the article is miss named, then by all means suggest what you think is best. 11:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would say that they are about the same subject, with the word order being changed from Spanish to English. The article should be moved to Trío Morales Pino, but the subject appears notable. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I looked at a few of the websites returned from a search on "Trío Morales Pino" (with quotes) and the band members are identical. Santomasdemente just changed the word order for the English article. It's a Colombian band, named in Spanish: a band name of "Morales Pino Trío" would sound strange in Spanish.Simon Burchell (talk) 13:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No objections to move and rename. Simon as you did the research if you want to make the move and add a supporting reference as part of article improvement durring AfD I think that would be fine. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've dropped in a couple of decent refs but won't move it until this AfD is closed. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 01:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Third World Media

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

Online promotion for a low-budget porn producer company. Damiens.rf 17:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those are not "real" recognized prestigious awards. They are small pseudo-recognitions used as a promotion exchange tool. --Damiens.rf 01:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to disgreee, but AVN and XBIZ awards are recognized as prestigious and notable for and by their genre. And as already stated, article tone is emminently adressable through regular editing. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The "keep" !votes are quite weak here (WP:WAX). But Qwfp's refs, gone uncontested for 5 days, appear to cut it. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stack Exchange

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

Non-notable group of websites; most sources are primary or self-published, including blog posts and press releases. Orange Mike | Talk 17:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. 21:58, 16 January 2011 Malik Shabazz (talk | contribs | block) deleted "The Imp (television series)" ‎ (G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Imp (television series)

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

Fails Wikipedia:Verifiability, I can't find anything that shows that so-called “series of one minute long shorts” is notable. Xajaso (talk) 20:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lakers–Pistons rivalry

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

Meeting several times in the NBA finals doesn't indicate a rivalry, no sources to identify that this is a notable rivalry Delete Secret account 21:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Borderline WP:SNOW. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Angry Video Game Nerd episodes

edit
List of The Angry Video Game Nerd episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete --- Fails Notabilty, WP:Notlist, Features Youtube as the main source. KoshVorlon Naluboutes Aeria Gloris 20:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But, for what it's worth, it is the AVGN's official YouTube channel, even though he uploads his videos primarily on GameTrailers. –MuZemike 04:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
James Rolfe is under contract to screwattack, who in turn are under contract to gametrailers. Part of the terms of one or both of these contracts is that James cannot upload a video to his youtube account until it is old (around a year and a half, forgive me for not knowing the specifics). There are some of his newer videos that are available on youtube, and again I do not know specifically why this is so, but you will notice that the majority of the episodes from the past year and a half are not available on youtube, and can only be watched through screwattack. Again, my point is only that youtube is NOT the "main source" of the videos, though they do eventually become available there. Shakzor (talk) 12:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think you're right. If I recall, he re-posts his videos that are originally uploaded onto Screwattack.com to his YouTube channel about 6 months to a year after they're originally released. Though I would also think referencing directly from his Cinemassacre channel would also work as that would be the best way to verify, as you're closest to the source. Anyways, I think I'm veering off topic from this deletion discussion, so I'll leave it at that. –MuZemike 21:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2011_January_11&oldid=1142638439"