Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 June 10

< 9 June	11 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Springdale Little League

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

I have brought this article up for AfD because I simply cannot find any notability. It hasn't won any particular awards or the Little League World Series, it doesn't have any particular media coverage that I could find. Markvs88 (talk) 20:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG. No independent sources have been provided, and the only source that has been provided at all is a broken link. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A local little league with local coverage in local papers. That's insufficient to meet notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Many communities have Little League; that doesn't make them all notable. With nothing to justify its inclusion on Wikipedia, I agree with the nominator. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 00:41, 16 June 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Primetime Propaganda: The True Hollywood Story of How the Left Took Over Your TV

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

Unremarkable book that came out last month; I think it does not meet standards for notable books. No indication that it has received particular critical or popular attention, is a best-seller, has been influential, etc. Prod declined by article creator. Neutrality^talk 20:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--I've rewritten the article to include a couple of references from credible outside sources. The book did receive some outside attention. It's still pretty stubby, and could use a good neutral summary, but there probably deserves to be an article on this. Meelar (talk) 22:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meelar's rewrite has made it worth keeping, It seems to have received significant coverage per WP:GNG. Quasi human | Talk 22:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable per google news search. [1]. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article in its current state lists sufficient independent RS coverage to merit inclusion. Jclemens (talk) 04:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Is this a best seller? No. Is this a scholarly piece of work that has influenced a field of study or a learned profession? No. Is this a piece of ephemeral ultra-politicized polemical bilge, recently released and on the radar for the next three months until it is remaindered? Hmmmm, now we're getting close to the mark. Wikipedia is not Conservapedia. Carrite (talk) 04:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added some more response to the book to the article (hope I haven't managed to unbalance it). For all the sound and fury around this, has anyone seen a review for this book in a reliable source? Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 10:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - while there are three reviews from reliable sources (such as Variety), there is likewise no evidence it's actually notable from major book reviwers, such as the LA Times, New York Times, etc. Bearian (talk) 18:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom: no notability. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C22:20, 16 June 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.

Withdrawn. I'm prepared to accept at face value that there is precedent without waiting for links to such to be produced. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Emergency Workers (Obstruction) Act 2006

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

Articles for every minor piece of legislation in every country would be an absurdly unwieldly proposition. This is really a directory entry. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm personally not in favour of creating articles on every piece of minor amending legislation, etc, if they can be covered satisfactorily under the principal act or whatever. But this isn't one, and was actually considered quite an important provision by those working in these fields and was not controversial. It is established practice in Wikipedia to have articles on individual pieces of legislation, including much secondary legislation, and I see no reason to make an exception here. --AJHingston (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd keep on this one. It is not the world's most significant piece of legislation, but it was enacted. Only about 30-35 acts of Parliament come through every year, so it's generally notable. Neutrality^talk 21:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are directories of case law, but I can't imagine how Acts of Parliament could possibly constitute a "directory". The nomination doesn't even make sense to me. In any case, as far as I'm aware, it's custom and practice that major Acts of Parliament receive their own individual articles and I see no basis for changing this.—S Marshall T/C 21:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I found nothing by way of guideline or policy in the Wikipedia: namespace. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:46, 10 June 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) 19:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Portobello Panthers

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

An article about a unremarkable football team that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. Fallschirmjäger ✉ 19:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hasn't played at a high enough level to be considered notable, per WP:FOOTYN. Giant Snowman 17:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable social/kickabout team. Google search (ignoring a similarly named speedway team) turns up literally nothing apart from two forum postings -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable team. Argyle 4 Life^talk 16:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a very notable team, no significant coverage cited, or found after a google search. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 12:05, 14 June 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) 19:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lancashire One

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

No proof of notability - an Internet "TV station" with no viewing figures just a woolly statement saying "with increasing content and audience figures". Given the clear COI that exists with the article's now-blocked creator this is nothing more than an advert / puff-piece and should be deleted. Given that the creator has been blocked, perhaps this should be a speedy delete? Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 19:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article will be edited and improved to fit with the criteria. As for notability, it is notable within Lancashire and as for viewing figures that will be addressed when the the firm figures come out at a rate that Wikipedia users will be able to keep it up to date with. Extra references will also be added to add extra credence to the article. However myself as a user will concentrate on contributing to articles different to anything Lancahsire One related. Adam lancashireone <- This account is also being changed. 21:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam lancashireone (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I’m not sure if the article is saveable, however browsing a few of the articles in Category:Internet television channels I’ve not been able to find another station that specifies the viewer numbers. I disagree with the speedy delete suggestion, I feel that warning the contributor about their edits and then blocking them 4 minutes later would seem a little overzealous. --Trappedinburnley (talk) 13:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I cannot understand why this page should be subject to deletion at all. Encountering Lancashire One in my work in the North West, I have only ever been given the impression that they are a reputable business with some fantastic material, offering legitimate and useful coverage to events and businesses across the region. I can vouch that the reputation of Lancashire One has grown within local government and broadcast circles over the last 12 months and considering the variety of businesses, people and corporations already represented on Wikipedia, I do not understand why they should not be allocated the same platform or representation.

It's common place that Category:Internet television channels do not have overall viewing figures, but merely figures for each video uploaded, much like other popular VOD services (many of which have their own Wikipedia pages). Unlike major broadcasters such as the BBC and ITV, the broad nature of the way their media is consumed makes it far more difficult to nail down hard figures at any one time. Wikipedia surely prides itself on providing information on just about everything in the interest of the general public and I can only see this page as a welcome addition, for those seeking to find more information about Lancashire One. Preston Lad (talk) 11:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Does not meet the notability requirements of WP:ORG, which states that an organisation is notable if "it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources". There are very few, if any such sources to support this organisation's notability. At best, this is a case of "not yet". Neither the fact that this is an internet TV channel, or even its viewing numbers is, of itself, relevant in deciding whether the subject meets the notability standard. Notability is not inherent, so a given number of viewers doesn't create notability. WP:NMEDIA provides non-binding guidelines on the notability of media, but reading that essay doesn't change my opinion about this one. Wikipeterproject (talk) 08:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:25, 14 June 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) 19:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Terroa

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

Non-notable topic with no independent sourcing. JHunterJ (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. Only sources I could find were interviews with the author. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Life as We Do Not Know It and then delete without prejudice or incubate Life as We Do Not Know It for having zero references. Also, noting that WP:BEFORE states, "5. If the topic is not important enough to merit an article on its own, consider turning the page into a useful redirect to an existing article – something you can do yourself without opening an AfD case – or proposing it be merged (see {{merge to}} and {{merge from}}). Uncontested mergers do not require an AfD.....It is recommended that you describe the steps you have taken to check that your nomination is appropriate. This may prevent duplication of effort and inoculate your nomination from being labelled as spurious or thoughtless." Unscintillating (talk) 04:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and delete Life as We Do Not Know It as well as per above reasoning N^oformation ^Talk 05:06, 13 June 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) 19:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Seay Harshaw

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

I have tried and tried, using her professional and given names and her music titles, to find secondary WP:RS that would satisfy WP:MUSIC or WP:CREATIVE, and I can't find anything convincing. Everything out there on other websites appears to be strictly promotional. The article has been edited almost exclusively by the subject herself and a lot of socky-looking IPs. It was tagged as an unsourced BLP over a year ago and nothing's been done to address the problem. Qworty (talk) 18:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable third party sources are added to the article by the end of this process. bd2412 T 22:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Digimon Xros Wars characters. redirect all and then full protect indefinitely. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taiki Kudou

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

Attempts to merge/redirect these articles to the character list have repeatedly been undone by Argentine IPs and editors The New Angel (talk · contribs) and Fractyl (talk · contribs) who refuse to accept that the characters are not notable. These same editors have also been removing content from the main list to the sub articles.

The prefered outcome is a merge of all of these articles the the character list, however since these editors have refused all attempts, The New Angel even undoing the merge outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death Generals multiple times, it is best to just wipe out everything except for the character list. —Farix (t | c) 18:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also in this nomination are:

It may also be necessary to block The New Angel (talk · contribs) and Fractyl (talk · contribs) for disruptive editing and semi-protect the character list. —Farix (t | c) 18:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update. Bagramon's AfD was closed as redirect to List of Digimon Xros Wars characters - frankie (talk) 19:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Have you tried reporting the users involved as disrupting wikipedia? If there was a consensus to merge and the same editors keep undoing things then I can see it as a possible reportable offense. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect ALL and Protect to List of Digimon Xros Wars characters, I merged the referenced info that was in Cutemon and Greymon (Xros Wars) to the character list. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit update, Protection is needed given recent edits - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Comment: First off, Taiki is a main character so he's long overdue for his page. Second, I've been setting up the pages to reflect those of existing Digimon pages(Agumon, ETC.)Fractyl (talk) 22:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Added Comment: But I think the only ones that need pages are Kiriha & Nene, being main characters, and Beelzemon & Greymon as they are reversions much like Agumon (Savers). As for Bagramon, I must comply with judgement as his appearances have been limited and more data by the series finale would fix that. Both Shoutmon and DarkKnightmon are allowed to keep their respective pages so shortening on the character page was neccasary The rest listed, Death Generals included, need no new pages as far as I'm concerned.Fractyl (talk) 02:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Being a main or even significant character does not allow a character to assert notability and therefore have a stand-alone article. Notability of a character can only be established by coverage by reliable, third-party sources. Third-party meaning that the source must be independent of the subject. So far, none of the characters have received such coverage. —Farix (t | c) 11:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, both DarkKnightmon and Greymon received it in the form of Amazon and Toysnjoys.Fractyl (talk) 17:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and protect all as per nom. No out-of-universe context or notability. --Crusio (talk) 15:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all - per nominator. There's no independent notability. --Anthem 09:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Anthem of joy has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Claritas. —Farix (t | c) 18:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all per above. Neutrality^talk 18:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment: If redirect is being reverted improperly, page protection is in order. Neutrality^talk 18:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and protect. The default way of dealing with this. DGG ( talk ) 07:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Greymon (Xros Wars), redirect the rest of the articles to List of Digimon Xros Wars characters and protect all articles: None of the fictional characters and armies meets general notability guideline and all are plot-only descriptions of a fictional work. Due to the disambiguation in the article title of Greymon (Xros Wars), it is not a plausible search term, so a redirect is not necessary for that article. The rest of the articles are plausible search terms and a redirect is enough. Given the recreation history of the articles, all need to be protected. Jfgslo (talk) 15:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redirect, or, if anyone cares enough to do it, merge after a very heavy trimming. Leaving the articles languishing indefinitely because no one can be bothered to merge would be almost as poor a result as keeping. These articles contain no evidence of real-world notability and are very poorly referenced. J Milburn (talk) 10:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 18:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

St. Buryan Gala Week

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

WP:NOTABILITY. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 18:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced and promotional. A small village event does not establish notability and seems to be WP:original research. noq (talk) 18:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is Original Research. The creator said it in his de-proding summary. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 19:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article appears to be a working draft for a press release or a leaflet to promote a non-notable local event. I was unable to find any reliable sources that discuss this event in depth. Cullen328 (talk) 00:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a "What's On" directory. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mostly seems like an advertisement for some kind of event, doesn't belong to Wikipedia I say. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 12:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. -- Whpq (talk) 16:30, 14 June 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. The "delete" argument is that, while sources can be found, they are insufficient. The "keep" argument agrees that the sources are few in number and low in reliability, but would have it that they are nevertheless sufficient. This is simply a matter of one opinion against another. The article is a BLP, but I see no unsourced negative information about a living person that would need to be considered.

This has been a poorly-attended debate, but it has been relisted twice and is overdue for closure on the third listing, so it ought to be closed on the basis of the arguments presented; I can find no consensus herein. Please note that in the circumstances, it will be in order to list this at AfD again in early course.—S Marshall T/C 13:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nikos Tatasopoulos

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

I cannot find sufficient RS coverage or other indicia of notability of this singer. Tagged for notability since 2010. Epeefleche (talk) 02:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Quite suspicious that, since he's alleged to have performed at the Athens Olympics, there is no news coverage of him, not even under the spelling "Νικος Τατασοπουλος." -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --Epeefleche (talk) 05:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Have confirmed notability by going through Greek Google and I cannot say that it was easy because there is very little useful and linkable reference material about him. I have confirmed his musical participation at the Olympic Games (he is mentioned in a documentary about Athens 2004) but need to find a linkable reference. He is a famous/notable bouzouki player in Greece (and so was his father, it runs in the family). Will keep looking for references. There are numerous videos of him on various utube-like websites around the world. He clearly is popular. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 10:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work. Please note that per wp's criteria, wp's notability standards must be met. Having youtube videos and the like will not suffice; nor will the fact that a family member may be notable, as notability is not inherited on wp. What would really help would be reliable source references, reflecting his notability per wp standards. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's requirements are met with this reference. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 16:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per this, the reliability of this source according to our guidelines is questionable. Is there editorial oversight, or does the site accept user content as is? -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 20:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google's translation isn't brilliant. The website is a portal dedicated to cultural events such as Cinema, Theatre, and Music. Much of the content of the article is unique. It has not been cut and paste. It is not "as is" submitted content. This has been written specifically for this website. Have also found quite a chunky bio on his father at another website which could easily support a separate article on his father whose nickname was "Dillinger". Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 20:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if his father were notable, that would not impact the decision here, as on wp notability is not inherited. As to this website, please explain why it is in your view it is an RS, per our guidelines. The facts that you mentioned -- that it is dedicated to cultural events, is not a cut-and-paste, and that much of its content is unique -- do not make it an RS. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It reports an event that has been reported on other websites. Where other websites have just cut and paste press release type content. This particular cultural portal appears to be quite large and a lot of effort has been put in to it. The article has some unique content that I have not seen on other websites. Obviously, I have not read all the content there is. But I just get the impression that they have at least spoken to the musician. The notability of the musician is not in question. I have already checked that his name is listed on CDs and DVDs with a number of Greek stars. It is possible to cross-reference all the stars that he has collaborated with (but a lot of effort is involved). Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 21:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I agree with Blanchardb that the reliability of this source according to our guidelines is questionable.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ok. Here is another source, see page 17. The author of the article is Voice of America's, Greek language service journalist, Athina Krikeli. She is a top flight journalist who also writes for Greek television channel EPT3. This should meet all the requirements of a Reliable Source. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 01:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice research to find that. Question -- assuming this is an RS (I'm not sure either way at the moment), am I correct that what it says about the subject is limited to the fact that he curated and participated in a program dedicated in part to his famous father, and is a bouzouki soloist? Your Greek is no doubt better than mine, and I want to make sure I am not missing anything as to the level of discussion of him in the source. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:54, 2 June 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) 00:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article (see page 17) is about Nikos Tasopoulos. In the first paragraph it says that Nikos has the same eyes as his father and rather obviously that he is his natural successor. That Nikos was "built up"/educated by his father to be amongst the best. That he was born and brought up in Maryland (USA). And that his father is watching him proudly (from up above) and (from second para) is his guardian angel. It mentions Nikos' ongoing education and that Nikos' talent comes from hard work. It also compares Nikos' gestures with his father's and that the comparison is mentioned to Nikos (during interview). It describes how Nikos mood and appearance changes when he starts to play. On the last page it says that the previous winter a venue (called Hamam) dedicated their program (for the whole season) to the lyricist Christos Kolokotronis and Giannis Tatasopoulos and that Nikos Tatasopoulos was the bouzouki soloist. The article is dedicated and titled with the name "Nikos Tasopoulos" and just underneath it has his nickname "The Six Shooter" (in the small introductory paragraph it compares the six strings on Nikos' bouzouki with the fire that comes from a six shooter pistol). His father's nickname is not mentioned. I did a quick search on Greek Google for his nickname and this is the only article that mentions his nickname. 70 years ago, nicknames were an essential part of life in Greece, to the point that sometimes, when a huge reputation was involved, they became new surnames. The same nickname could be handed down from father to son (but not in this case, Nikos has his own nickname). Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 11:39, 2 June 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, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 18:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List_of_Jeopardy!_tournaments_and_events. and merge in any content that is not already there. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeopardy! international tournaments

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

Non-notable game show tournament. Game shows have special tournaments, and nothing about this sets it apart from others. Article fails WP:GNG since there is no significant coverage, the only source points to a Jeopardy! fansite, and Google search returns only links to videos or fan pages, no links that would meet inclusion criteria or meet criteria proving notability. Ѕōŧŧōľäċqǔä (talk) 23:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 23:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Ѕōŧŧōľäċqǔä (talk) 01:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This article lacks sourced content that could be added in a possible merger with List of Jeopardy! tournaments and events. RJaguar3 | u | t 15:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC) Change to merge to allow the references to be merged into List of Jeopardy! tournaments and events. RJaguar3 | u | t 19:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sottolacqua's reasoning. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage in multiple independent reliable sources that are independent of the subject. (I just added refs to two books.) Robert K S (talk) 16:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The "independent sources" were written by former contestants and are therefore not independent. There isn't enough standalone content here to warrant a separate article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong and wrong--the independent sources I added were neither added by by former contestants (Richmond was never on Jeopardy!, and Harris was never in an International Tournment), nor even would they be non-independent if they were contestants. The "independent sources" rule is intended to prevent persons from cheating their way into notability by writing about themselves, and this is not what is going on here. Robert K S (talk) 20:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid the poster of this response must have a serious misconception of what constitutes an independent source. As I understand, both Richmond's and Harris's books were published by third-party publishing houses, which are indeed independent, as opposed to personal websites, blogs, or vanity presses. To assume the previous poster's logic were true would imply that independence means that no expertise is allowed, which is clearly not intended by the policies. RJaguar3 | u | t 23:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - These sources are independent, but they aren't sources that provide criteria that meets WP:GNG. This is Jeopardy!: Celebrating America's Favorite Quiz Show simply states that a tournament took place in Sweden and the tournament winner's name. The other source, Prisoner of Trebekistan: A Decade in Jeopardy!, mentions international versions airing in specific countries and that two international tournaments were held, the winners of those two tournaments and descriptions of their appearance/personality. These sources are not providing significant coverage of the topic; these mentions are trivial at best. Sottolacqua (talk) 18:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 03:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Jeopardy! tournaments and events. As noted above, sources seem independent and reliable but only moderately past "in passing". Hobit (talk) 20:07, 4 June 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, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 18:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. It's well-referenced and it would fit good in the tournaments and events page. SwisterTwister (talk) 06:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—This article is not well-referenced. The two sources mention trivial facts that barely pertain to the "meat" of the article, and neither offer significant coverage of the article topic. Sottolacqua (talk) 11:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment—If the issue is really sourcing (and what is the "meat" of the article that does not find verification in at least one external source?) that can be fixed with a little legwork... the tournaments discussed would have been reported on in newspapers and trades at the time of the airing. Someone would just need to go through some archives to find the refs. If that's the only argument for deletion, it's remediable, if not readily. In any case the argument doesn't work to oppose a merge, only to promote a deletion of this particular article. Robert K S (talk) 14:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment—the issue is not sourcing. The issue is that this article lacks criteria that meets WP:GNG, as stated in the deletion nomination above. My comment to SwisterTwister's vote clarifies that user's comment regarding the level and quality of sources for this article. It does not negate that the original nomination for deletion was based upon the lack of notability and lack of coverage in significant reliable sources. Sottolacqua (talk) 15:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - But your comment was not in response to a keep vote, it was in response to a merge vote. Your reasoning doesn't apply to a merge vote. Robert K S (talk) 22:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of Jeopardy! tournaments and events, the content fits the List well (and in fact it's already part-way merged), and it doesn't meet WP:GNG well enough to warrant a standalone article. PK T(alk) 21:28, 19 June 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. Where a list already exists and outright deletion is not a real option, please try to deal with these kinds of articles first through normal editing and discussion. postdlf (talk) 17:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Brutananadilewski

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

Only six sources. This article has no third party or real world coverage to establish the notability. JJ98 (Talk) 18:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep these issues just need to addressed, the entire page doesn't need to be deleted. take this off AFD and add this tag and this tag to the page.Grapesoda22 (talk) 07:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why keep? AFDs usually takes 7 days. There a bunch of non-notable characters from the television series, for example, I've nominated Brock Samson, Doctor Thaddeus Venture and rest of The Venture Bros. characters for deletion due lack of sources and notability. See WP:GNG and WP:WAF for more information. JJ98 (Talk) 07:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff exists and Notability is not inherited. JJ98 (Talk) 07:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect to List of Aqua Teen Hunger Force characters. Previous consensus has been to consolidate these characters onto a "List of...." page. I see quite a few marginal sources for this character by searching for "Carl" + "Aqua Team Hunger Force", but unfortunately nothing in the way of the substantive coverage required. Speciate (talk) 22:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to List of Aqua Teen Hunger Force characters: The article does not provide evidence that the individual fictional character meets the general notability guideline since it only provides primary sources or trivial mentions not related to the fictional character, no secondary sources that could provide analytic or evaluative claims to presume notability for the fictional character. A search engine test only shows unreliable sources, zero evidence that reliable third-party sources address the fictional character in detail to deserve a stand-alone article. As the character is already covered in List of Aqua Teen Hunger Force characters and there is no disambiguation in the article title, it might be a plausible search term, so a redirect might be acceptable. Jfgslo (talk) 00:26, 16 June 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. Withdrawing nomination. Consensus is that the article meets WP:PROF, a notability guideline I did not know existed. If I had, I would not have made this nomination. (non-admin closure) Alpha Quadrant ^talk 16:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Bernstein

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

Subject appears to be a non-notable person. The subject appears to lack significant coverage in reliable third party sources. He appears to have won the SIGMOD Edgar F. Codd Innovations Award and mentioned on the award's website. Also, he has been quoted by several reliable sources (example), but they only briefly mention him. I believe he may fail to meet the notability guidelines for biographies. However, he is a major Microsoft employee, and there may be offline coverage. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 18:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. "Appears to have won"? Anyway, passes WP:PROF on several counts. Elected member of the National Academy of Engineering - that alone is sufficient to satisfy WP:PROF#C3, elected fellow of ACM, won a prestigious award, Editor-in-Chief of a major journal, etc. Nsk92 (talk) 02:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Incidentally, I looked up the Journal Citation Reports, and the VLDB journal, where Bernstein is a co-Editor-in-Chief, is listed there as ranked no. 1, by the impact factor, in two categories, COMPUTER SCIENCE, HARDWARE & ARCHITECTURE, and COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS. That makes him also pass WP:PROF#C8. Nsk92 (talk) 13:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C1 on GS cites and WP:Prof#C3. Did the nominator read WP:Prof before making this nomination? Xxanthippe (talk) 03:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Has won significant award. Passes professor test. Lord Vetinari 07:08, 11 June 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) 00:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't even think about it!

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

This phrase from an advertisement does not seem to meet the general notability guideline, and the issue is complicated by the fact that the phrase was used before the advertisement. The article provides little evidence that other uses of "Don't even think about it!" relates to the advertising slogan, and is thus original synthesis. Anthem 17:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC) Revert AfD nomination of sockpuppet, see WP:Banning policy. Unscintillating (talk) 07:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a notable turn of phrase and not one that is unique to the Pepsi commercial. Harley Hudson (talk) 18:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination seems to be a misunderstanding as the topic here is the phrase not the advertisement which popularised it. The phrase is quite notable, being discussed in numerous sources such as Slam dunks and no-brainers: language in your life, the media, business, politics, and, like, whatever. Warden (talk) 07:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~These snippets - [2], cannot be used to verify notability, as it's not obvious that they provide significant coverage. --Anthem 09:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep - nominator was a sockpuppet.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Article is questionable, but any action by a ban-evading sock must be reversed. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note Anthem of joy has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Claritas [3]. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 18:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tribal Fusion (ad network)

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

2005 AfD resulted in "No Consensus", with keep votes all pushing for cleanup and expansion. 6 years later, article is still a stub reading as an advertisement, with 0 legitimate references. Their website also appears to have gone under, and I'm unable to establish any notability via searching outside of their own outdated page. — Jess· Δ ♥ 17:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. — Jess· Δ ♥ 17:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unable to locate reliable sources. As per nom, article was never expanded, and appears to fail notability concerns. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 01:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I haven't done enough searching to comment on notability, but for the record, the company's website does work. (For me, anyway.) In addition, this press release shows that the company is still active. Zagalejo^^^ 07:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You're correct about the marketwire article. However, that appears to be the only thing available documenting anything about the company, and as such, I'm not sure it warrants an article. If we had even a couple sources, I'd change my mind, but I've been unable to track down even low quality ones. The article started as an unsourced advertisement 6+ years ago, and I'm not sure it can ever get farther than that. — Jess· Δ ♥ 21:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Well, there is some information out there. Nothing great - a short summary in a For Dummies book, a brief mention in a New York Times article, and stuff like this Zagalejo^^^ 22:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 18:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Polisseni

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:CREATIVE, and WP:GNG. Small time producer. I couldnt find reliable sources for the subject. Two IMDb sources which are generally not considered reliable sources. Other source is a link to the website of one of the movies he was a producer for. v/r - T P 15:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Tparis - no independent - reliable sources found for this person.--Mark^Dask 18:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:CREATIVE, and WP:GNG. I agree, IMDB is not reliable as a source. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 01:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.rochestercitynewspaper.com/entertainment/movies/The-Alphabet-Killer/ http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117939227?refcatid=31 http://www.life.com/image/84005019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ak11002 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm sorry, but those are all trivial mentions. I would have been impressed if the life one panned out.--v/r - T P 18:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Trivial mentions, but there really aint much to say about Greg Polisseni - you just about summed it up TP. Mark^Dask 21:15, 13 June 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. Interested users would be welcome to work on the page in a proposed subpage of an editor's userspace without objection, if requested such a copy would be readily provided. -- Cirt (talk) 19:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Géa

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

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

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

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

Related to the AfD for the author Cláudio César Dias Baptista. This book does not appear to meet WP:N. While the Portuguese language sources are a little hard to sort out, none appear to be significant coverage. Daniel 15:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Géa and the page Cláudio César Dias Baptista which En Wiki members considered at first good to be published here are suffering a political attack from the En Wiki member named Antiuser.Cláudio César Dias Baptista (talk) 16:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: All I did was remove a piece of original research from the article. The matter is being discussed at WP:AN/I#WikiHounding / Article ownership issues / Possible IP socks. XXX antiuser ^eh? 16:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete It's very long, but that doesn't convey notability and not much else is seeming to. Besides, any book with a technicolour fractal on the cover and that isn't by Mandelbrot or similar should be burned. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Anyone who says that any book should be burned should be burned him/herself.187.14.113.31 (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please cool down, Andy was making a joke. I'm sure he didn't mean that the book should actually be burned, just that the cover was not to his taste. --Daniel 16:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I've read the whole article now. BURN! Andy Dingley (talk) 17:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you see, dear Daniel, Andy is insisting in his childishness. You have a clearer mind, please read again the article and consider the sources mentioned there as the importance they really have in Brazil and Portuguese language countries. The book is great, I've read it! You can read it too, in www.ccdb.gea.nom.br, as I see by your phrase 'Portuguese language sources are a little hard to sort out'; so, you can read Portuguese to judge the quality of these sources and, so, you can also read the book! If you like Portuguese language, you will love to read the book as I did and, perhaps, as myself, learn a lot of that great language - there is no better source today, and the book Géa includes a thousand page dictionary also delightful to people who love Portuguese language. If not by the language, the lexicon twice William Shakespeare, you may be perhaps enchanted with the histories inside the twelve volumes of the book. Regards187.14.112.27 (talk) 17:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - On the Portuguese Wikipedia, there is an article for the author, but even there, not for the book. The sources are just not robust enough to support a separate article for the book. Also, the article text is really fails to establish why the book is notable, other than opinion and plot summary. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 01:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Do not delete - Let's be rational and cool, analyzing the page. Here are the positive points: The author invested more than ten years of his life in writting a book, moreover, a twelve 250 pages volume book. The author composed a 1,000 pages dictionary to complement the book. The author utilized a lexicon twice the William Shakespeare lexicon in his whole opera and six times the lexicon of Camões in "Os Lusíadas". The author created a new language with extra words, doesn't matter if it's named an 'extraterrestrial language' or not. The author illustrated himself the twelve volumes with more than 700 3D pictures, so, he had to learn 3D Computer Graphics to do these illustrations and also the thirteen covers for Géa. The author studied programming languages for computer to create himself the active pages in a site also created by himself to publish himself the book. The author applied his audio experience to perfection the sound of the reading. The author wrote also metrified poems inside the book. The author of Géa composed music for the book. The author proposed complete inventions in the books which could work if tested in laboratory. The author abandoned his profitable carreer in audio to write the book. The author created more than one thousand characters for the book. The description of these characters is interesting in the page Géa. The author presented a Theory, the 'biorrelatividade' in the book. The stories presented in the page are captivating for people who has the habit of reading books - at least they captivate myself. The quantity of references is more than enough and the quality of some of these references is unquestionable, as it's the case of the reporting in Jornal da Tarde, in the Revista Trip (very important in Brazil). And here are the negative points: The book is written in Portuguese, not yet translated to English; Brazil is not England nor USA; people who see the page Géa here in En Wiki can't easily judge the merit of the book because they can't read it. Now I ask myself: Are those negative poits really negative? Is not perhaps an injustice being done against a perhaps great work as it was done also against Don Quixote of Miguel de Cervantes and so many great books which were recognized long time after their writting? Or as the pictures of Vincent van Gogh, who sold only one of them during his life and which were recognized so late? If you search En Wiki for pages about other books, you will see that very few, if any, has the merits I mentioned above for the book Géa. So, I am forced to conclude that the cause of the deletion proposal is not the lack of importance of the opus, but another unknown cause, external to the page itself. And I don't want to be one of the persons who will be remembered as the ones who deleted the page of a book that shows everything to be perhaps recognized as a great work. I vote for the permanence of the page in En Géa in En Wiki.William T. Johannes (talk) 02:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

' The author invested more than ten years of his life in writting a book '

That's his problem. Did anyone pay heed to the end result? That's ours. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have blocked user:William T. Johannes as a checkuser-confirmed sockpuppet of user:Cláudio César Dias Baptista. JohnCD (talk) 19:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let the page complete during its judgement! I noted that this Antiuser is removing important information from the page Géa during its period of judgement for deletion. That's not a good policy. I would kindly suggest that the page is semi-protected in its complete form during that period. How can people judge the merit of a page which content is being reduced? That procedure is not what I understand as Justice nor what I understand as En Wiki policy.187.13.17.74 (talk) 03:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete, please - I would ask them not delete nothing in the text. If it is a text that talks about a book or author is a way to have thorough research on it.I read the book Géa and I found everything the article written here on En Wiki informs thus removing some of the text as it would erase part of the book and the story of the author. Any of you ever read a book and thought the best part of the book, the pages are blank? That's what I imagine to deleting some of the text that refers to something, like we're erasing part of it. I ask you to please leave the full text of Géa, otherwise they will be erasing part of the book, not just the description, for future readers may not know what the book actually contains. 201.75.82.71 (talk) 13:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N. The attempts to establish notability demonstrate the lack of it. NebY (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Do not delete. The attempts to estabilish notability demonstrate that it is real.187.13.68.58 (talk) 17:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC) — 187.13.68.58 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

WP:ITEXISTS is a very poor argument for keeping, and one that makes no demonstration of notability whatsoever. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Do not delete!. Well, that is a big disrespect to Brazilian literature. You guys are not talking about a mere book of 10 pages written "yesterday", but an entire collection, which took 10 years to writes it. It is a richly detailed stories, never told by no one else! GEA is a series of books with differentiated and intelligent language, which is not found in any other book in Brazil. I believe GEA is part of the highest Brazilian literature, it is very important to all Brazilians. Likalileal (talk) 14:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC) — Likalileal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete: no indication that this topic meets WP:NBOOK. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - Do not delete Aren't 'third party sources' the persons who support here the page Géa? Aren't these third party sources (those persons) presenting other third party sources, as is the case of Professor Júlio Martins Jcms1506br, with his brilliant and rich comments and references in the page Cláudio César Dias Baptista also proposed for deletion, where he present the origin of book Géa and the third party references about the quality of that book? The fact is that there is a cruzade against a notable Brazilian, moved by another Brazilian, Mr. Antiuser. The page Géa present much more than the minimum references required by En Wiki, and the majority of these references are strong and notable. There are pages in En Wiki about persons who did nothing for the world, as for example some that you may find via Baronetage of the United Kingdom page. And there are pages about musicians, for example Túlio Mourão who were not more than hired persons in the Os Mutantes group and with only one (!) reference, only one external link (!) who nobody proposed for deletion. Cláudio César Dias Baptista was the founder of Os Mutantes group, was the person because of whom that group reached international renown, the page of his name is extremelly complete in references... but is being proposed for deletion, not only the page of his name but also the page of his main work, Géa. Why? Without him, there would never exist Os Mutantes and much less Túlio Mourão would have a page here in En Wiki. I can see only one reason: Cyberbulling, envy, people trying to make name at the expense of his illustrious name. So, although this page is not a place for voting but for consensus, I 'vote' for do not delete. 187.13.81.213 (talk) 11:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not make pointless irrelevant rants: I did not mention "third party sources" and you made no response to my point that THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT THE TOPIC MEETS WP:NBOOKS. So your comment is a complete non sequitor (as well as raising no issue relevant to this AfD). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned, yes, "third party sources" in the discussion for deleting page Cláudio César Dias Baptista. Here is the copy of what you printed there: '(bombastic advocacy from the topic's supporters notwithstanding) little evidence of depth of coverage in reliable third-party sources. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)'. The IP above was wisely answering all your 'contributions' for the deletion of great En Wiki pages! 187.13.122.59 (talk) 17:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For your meditation, Administrators of English Wikipedia. I know the En Wiki has rules. These rules are valuable and the fruit of long-term work of its members, without forgetting its founders, Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger. Herself Wikipedia and every page that it contains have behind its creation and its existence the human impulse to friendship, excitement, enthusiasm. Who would create a page to present something that is not emotional, not something to which this value (and value is the result of emotion, not only reason)? Who would create a virtual encyclopedia without this magnificent engine that is the emotion? So if there is a page Cláudio César Dias Baptista and a page Géa on En Wiki, that's because there is enough emotion in people who created those pages; It's because that emotion and reason and objectivity emerged and turned the pages into reality. For the same reason, emotion, friendship, people find themselves inducted as members of the En Wiki devoted admiration and respect for Cláudio César Dias Baptista and his work, both as a specialist in audio and as a writer of Géa and several other books. These people, in launching these pages and their reasons for their entries here to ask for not deletion are not a 'party' politics, have no commercial interest or personal, but have that emotion and friendship and the respect and admiration for the writer and the work. For all that I ask the respected members of the Administration of English Wikipedia, the ones who will reach the consensus on whether or not erase the pages Cláudio César Dias Baptista and Géa, that meditate upon this modest paragraph, also the result of emotion, to consult their souls and their reasons for everything they do - and if they feel and conclude the same that I, do not delete these pages, which only bring the Good and the Information, besides being a milestone in the En Wiki, with this discussion in favor of Emotion and Friendship, and this does not violate the En Wiki Rules and the Reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.13.81.213 (talk) 11:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC) — 187.13.81.213 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

- - This article shows the proof that the name Géa exists in printed books and also shows one of the starting points of the book Géa. The article also shows the dedicated work of the author Cláudio César Dias Baptista, his attention for the persons who payed nothing more than the cost of the artisanal printing of the technical book and his dedication for his friends. The article was posted by Professor Júlio Martins and the following link I extracted from his defense of page Cláudio César Dias Baptista against deletion in En Wiki: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B4Imqu0xjVLqMDYzM2I1NjctMDEzNC00ZGY0LThmNjgtMTYyNWFiZGU2YmQy&hl=pt_BR

Please see also this articles from tradicional and well known audio magazines in Brazil. The articles are one of the proofs of the notability of Cláudio César Dias Baptista, author of Géa, here proposed for deletion.

From Backstage magazine, Nº8 (1995) - The hidden face of Mutantes (original title in portuguese: A Face oculta dos Mutantes)

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B4Imqu0xjVLqZTQyMTdkZGYtOWYxMy00ZjQ2LWI5MzUtMGRiZjdiMGQwMjRm&hl=pt_BR

From Backstage magazine, Nº 27 (1997) - An audio Luthier ( Orig. title in portuguese: Um luthier de áudio)

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B4Imqu0xjVLqNGZiYTkwYWMtNTQxYi00MGI5LTg5MDQtZmZlNzUxMGE4YmU4&hl=pt_BR

Música & tecnologia - ed. 28 [1991] - Cover history (Mr. Baptista appears with innovative 12 channel mixer with a size of a4 paper format totally conceived and designed in CADD).

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B4Imqu0xjVLqNjM0YWEyMDQtNTVhOS00ODNhLWJkYzQtNjdiNDU1YzU2MzZj&hl=pt_BR -- 187.13.81.133 (talk) 12:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* These articles might work as references for the article Cláudio César Dias Baptista, as they pertain to his work as an engineer and technician. They have no place in this discussion, which is about his book. Just because a person is notable in one field, it doesn't make their activities in another notable. XXX antiuser ^eh? 16:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How to improve an article which is semi-protected?. There is a new tag in the page Géa proposing its rescue. That tag suggests to improve the article. When I was trying to include the new strong refferences I just find in the above entering from another IP, I discovered that the page cannot be edit; so, cannot be improved, at least by me, who am not member of En Wiki. What can I do to improve the page, which I think is very good, or what can En Wiki members with access to the page do to improve it with the above references? Thank you in advance for what you may do! 187.13.107.90 (talk) 12:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~

- - Ne pas effacer*** Je viens manifester mon soutien à ces pages de Mr CCDB, je comprends bien le portugais, et je ne vois pas ce qui dérange les Anti, si ce n´est cette pose Anti, Anti-quoi? Mr CCDB est un écrivain doublé d´un inventeur, facultés propres à qui sait explorer les au-delà du quotidien, du connu, grâce à son imagination et ses profondes et sérieuses connaissances, indubitables au Brésil, où son nom participe de l´histoire de l´audiophilie et de la musique contemporaine, un esprit en avance sur son temps... 187.67.96.132 (talk) 15:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)Philippe Ingrand187.67.96.132 (talk) 15:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Posting in French is a neat touch, but you're still using a Brazilian ISP with the same IP range as several already-identified sockpuppets. This is hardly a convincing advocacy for your cause. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr. Andy Dingley: Mr. Philippe Ingrand's IP and the place he is now in the little planet Earth has nothing to do with the fact that he is French, what is easy to know by the reading of his magnificent paragraph in defense of what is precious to all the countries of that small planet. 187.13.66.178 (talk) 17:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To Whom It May Concern:

I am Sergio Dias Baptista, founder and leader of the musical group Os Mutantes. My career with the band and as a solo artist has been a extremely happy one, for I only found great achievement on its history. I am co-founder of the Tropicalist (Tropicalismo) movement in Brazil in the sixties. We as a band printed an unforgettable mark on the Brazilian musical and social history, along with our brothers in the movement, such as Caetano Veloso and Gilberto Gil (former Brazilian President Lula's Art Minister).

I was graciously awarded, along with my band, the highest title of the city of São Paulo, one of the largest in the world because of our contribution to the history and the weight of our work in regard to the quality and longevity of our musical and social work. (Medal Padre Anchieta). We as a band have countless awards on my country, we were twice Latin Grammy nominee in USA in 2007 and our work has been praised worldwide by the formers of opinions and great minds of the musical scene such as Beck, David Byrne, Sean Lennon, Flaming Lips, Devendra Banhardt and countless others besides an immense press recognition from USA Today, to the cover of The New York Times, to the best world art magazines, journals and web, such as Mojo (magazine) (UK), Time out, and countless others.

I am here not to present myself, but to recommend an extremely valuable person who influenced our history in Brazil.

I find an absurd to even “question the Fact that Cláudio César Dias Baptista is or isn't a fundamental piece in the History of the Brazilian and entire world's musical universe. Without he's known contribution to my band and all of the other members of the worldly acclaimed Tropicália movement (acclaimed by the most prominent formers of opinion of the world universal musical movement) such as Beck, David Byrnes, Sean Lennon, The White Stripes, Belle & Sebastian, Devendra Banhardt, and several others, is at minimum a ridiculous waste of time of the precious members of this community.

The fact that the name CCDB and Cláudio César Dias Baptista is of notorious value for Brazilian’s historical reality, is of complete and solid Fact, fact this already acknowledged in the highest fonts of the world's musical and technical media.

Besides this the fact that he's a brilliant writer and poet is beyond reproach and he's work is recognized and already published in several medias such as Nova Eletrônica Magazine - EDITELE, and the uncountable sources of articles written about him and he's work.

So I wonder what is the purpose of this obvious deliberate attack of a single individual which we the “public” have no knowledge of he's real motives.

I can't believe that for an instant anyone who knows about the Brazilian cultural, social and musical history, would ever even consider a barbaric act of destruction and again cultural repression dictatorship and censure, Isn’t it enough what we Brazilians already suffered under the military government and they're censors, are we all turning back into the disgusting tortures of this awful and disgraceful period of our History?

Who's to say that someone, anyone, who did contributed to our proud rebellion against this bloody destructive political regime, would turn into the same spite and anger and lack of respect for a human being who really made its historical life by he's own means and self-construction?

I can only feel nauseated by this …

Please do not Delete Cláudio César Dias Baptista, without deleting also all about Tropicalismo, about my band Os Mutantes which he was part of, and the names of Caetano Veloso, Gilberto Gil and countless others...

Please let's be fair to who deserves its own accomplishments, please if you all, are going to delete him or he's work, please also delete all of us! For We are The Tropicalismo, We are the ones who did it all, and Claudio IS the fundamental corner stone of our history. – 189.46.183.107 (talk) 17:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)Sérgio Dias Baptista. Os Mutantes[reply]

To Cláudio César Dias Baptista's new-to-EN-Wikipedia and very-longwinded supporters: have you read WP:Notability, WP:Notability (people), WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions ... or even WP:Articles for deletion? If not then PLEASE READ THEM BEFORE COMMENTING FURTHER! Very little (nothing?) of what you have had to say has been relevant to EN-Wikipedia's actual deletion decision-making process. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - When Notable Persons as Sérgio Dias and Professor Júlio Martins (see enterings above) support anybody or anything, their voices sound louder than any En Wiki rule. Rules are products of the evolution of facts. If there are rules which are limiting the facts, those rules should be perfectioned - or En Wiki will not last. I see brilliant defenses, not of 'supporters' but of Notable persons, who present valuable arguments which should be considered with or without rules. If Elvis Presley or Einstein or any Notable whose time is not for learning En Wiki rules presented defenses here, their voices would be heard and no rule would be mentioned. I consider Sérgio Dias a so great musician as (if not greater than) Elvis Presley and no Einstein could do a best deffense than Professor Júlio Martins did above. 187.14.105.99 (talk) 18:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article reads like an advertisement and overestimates the book's importance. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 17:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - Do not delete! My reading of the page Géa sees nothing of advertisement. If the article reads (or you read...) as an advertisement, why don't you improve it? Why to be destructive and not constructive? And how can you say that the page overestimates the book importance if you never read it ? I am one of the readers of Géa and for me the page is so smaller than the book that I have to smile when read arguments as yours, based (if sincere) in mere assumptions. 187.13.98.88 (talk) 18:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please, do not delete. A great mistake is about to happen..

I'm not anonymous. You can verify who I am. Verifiable is one of the principles of wikipedia. Mr. Baptista is an author and Géa is a notable opus.

I've create a document with photos of the first book published by Mr. Baptista. This document contains photos of some pages and fit itself perfectly to proof that Géa is an Opus which was born several years ago.

Please check this document out: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B4Imqu0xjVLqNzUwZDhlYjQtZWEzZC00NDRjLTk3MTUtOTA4ZDJkNmUzOWE3&hl=pt_BR

This book was properly registered at Biblioteca Nacional (National Libray at the city of Rio de Janeiro). It is an undoubtable proof that Mr. CCDB had been an author and Writer for a long time and lots of his articles was published in a brazilian magazine called Nova Eletrônica (New Electronics). The characters of Géa were born at this time. I am trying to retrieve some of them, or most of all, to post a new proof.

Mr. Baptista has been victim of moral harassment for a long time in his life. Now I think this is happening again in a electronic and cyberway.

I've known several people (brazilian) who hate him and who loves his invents, his articles and his books. He has a strong pernonality. He use to tell us things about his invents, his articles, his first book that anyone can doubt in a superficial analysis. Several people doesn't like him since that time, simply because doesn't like, and used to talk bad about him, of course in his back.

I'm not an specialist in literacture but I've been studied language (science of all languages: Semiotics) for a long time. This a really opus.

Géa has all components that great opus Have. There's no doubt. And there's no Doubt that Mr. Baptista is an author and writer. He was indeed, for a long period of time electronic technician, but writer too. Now he only lives from and for Géa, Geínha and, who knows, other book in future.

I don't Know if it's the most important, or one of 100 most important opus, or one of 1000 most important (an so on...)

Doesn't Matter. It's an important opus. I've examinated all books. I've received the PDF files on 2006, 2nd semester. I've red several parts. But the curiosity make us to walk throughout the books and I didn't read all books (each one from the scratch to end page) unafortunatelly by lack of time. It's a charmed text, we start and we cannot stop (how many writers can do that?). And if you consider that the characters are inspired on a real past life of a people and a band which still are conquering fans auntil today around the world, all the history gains up a kind of own bright. Mr. Baptista certainly will not conffirm that information because is equal to tell someone the end of a film.

Géa meets itself with all principles of Wikipedia. Perhaps a more acute examination can reveal the needs to rewrite someparts. I cannot judge that, because everything I can see in that page it's true.

The reference about the Géa's lexicon that is twice than Shakespeare is a kind of affirmation that Mr. Baptista does I've told you before. I can Imagine how many people had thought He is a crazy Person. But he is not, it's true. Raw true. I am not saying (nor him) that he is better or greater than shakespeare. And He doesn't binned words to make a quantity. He created original words which makes sense in Géa Opus. His peculiar way to tell certain things, sometimes creates this kind of aversion.Jcms1506br (talk) 17:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To Hrafn

Be polite. Follow the rules. I've red every line, page and link about wiki rules. We used to do this everyday to our academic papers.

There are person (a lot, but not all, of course) who reads manuals, instructions, rules... And Follow.

I think you didn't understand something, or simply you don't want to understand for unknown reason.Jcms1506br (talk) 18:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To Jcms1506br: (i) Stop shouting and excessively indenting your comments -- it's not polite. (ii) Nothing either you or your fellow-travellers have had to say bears any resemblance or relevance to any Wikipedia policy or guideline -- so either you have not read them, or you have failed to understand them. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weight - Seeing the weight of the defensors arguments and the lenght of this page I think that this very fact already shows the importance of the book Géa! Why so many persons would discuss an unimportant matter? Please, do not delete Géa! 187.13.111.97 (talk) 18:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WHY THIS ARTICLE SHOULD NOT BE DELETED

I am Jeff McCarty, a filmmaker who has devoted his life to celebrating the work of great artists, including Os Mutantes, the most important and influential of all Brazilian rock bands which Claudio Cesar Dias Baptista was an essential and integral part. Please see my IMDB page here for verification: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1037484/.

I strongly disagree with the entire motive behind the sudden campaign to remove "Gea" from Wikipedia. Who cares if the book is self-published or not? It is an enormous achievement by a person of immeasurable significance in the history of Brazilian culture. As evidence, please consult Carlos Calado's published book on Os Mutantes http://www.amazon.com/Os-Mutantes-Psychedelic-Adventures-Brazil/dp/0967056683, where there are entire chapters devoted to the life and work of Claudio.

To remove "Gea" from Wikipedia would be as criminal as removing the entry concerning The Beatles "Carnival of Light". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnival_of_Light "Carnival of Light" is a track that's barely rumored to exist at all, has never been officially released, and has been heard by virtually no one. Just because The Beatles are more famous than Os Mutantes doesn't diminish the importance of Claudio's work. If Paul McCartney or JD Salinger or almost anyone else had written a twelve part epic piece of prose even rumored to exist, there wouldn't even be the faintest call for a deletion. Let the life and work of Claudio Cesar Dias Baptista stand as testament enough to the inclusion of "Gea". To do otherwise is a great insult to world culture and Claudio Baptista's proud place in it.Jcmccarty (talk) 18:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)— Jcmccarty (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The difference between this article and Carnival of Light is, all promotional talk and hyperbole aside, that Carnival of Light provides references from reliable sources such as the BBC, CNN and The Independent, that speak to its notability. Nobody here is trying to diminish Mr. Baptista's achievements as an author, but Wikipedia relies on verifiability, not truth when it comes to the inclusion or deletion of articles. Mr Baptista's work as an inventor and engineer might as well be notable, but there don't seem to be many sources that meet the same standard as far as his literary work goes. Nobody here is "out to get" anyone else - this all boils down to Wikipedia policy. Please take a look at WP:N, WP:NOR and WP:NOT. XXX antiuser ^eh? 18:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr. Antiuser, I understand the arguments you present here. They are valid. But I read the page Géa and saw that there are sources enough to sustain the page in En Wiki. When somebody starts to create his/her first page in En Wiki he or she learns the minimum number of sources and quality that must have to create on the page is accepted. The Géa page far outstrips that number and the quality of its sources is good, some sources are indeed of excellent quality. Added to the sources that Professor Júlio Martins presented above in this discussion and in the discussion for deletion of the page Cláudio César Dias Baptista, the number of sources far exceeds the minimum allowable and the quality of the sources is exemplary. If you have not entered the links provided by Professor Júlio Martins and has not researched the sources that are in the links and the references without links (also valid) of the page Géa, I kindly suggest you do it and reconsider your position. --187.13.68.239 (talk) 20:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - DO NOT DELETE*** You don't have any real reason for that. Let the information live and free!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.5.247.206 (talk) 12:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff: if you read WP guidelines, you'll find an article about 'because this is on here, this should be too'. Hold on while I find it. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 13:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the article you're looking for is the aptly named WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. XXX antiuser ^eh? 17:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- IN REPLY TO MR. ANTIUSER

As a Brazilian, you must be familiar with the legacy of Os Mutantes, and Claudio Baptista's critical role in it. I fight it ridiculous that anyone would even dare question the "notability" of Mr. Baptista's work. By the virtue of his name alone, there is an audience for "Gea", always has been, and always will be. "Gea" has been written about in a number of legitimate forums, and if the references are not numerous enough for your tastes, or if you find a few of the phrases in the article objectionable and in violation of wiki rules, then at least allow the article to be revised, not rewritten. I am the director of a film about Os Mutantes, as written up in "Rolling Stone" magazine, and believe me....when the film premieres, there will be even a larger audience for "Gea", and people will find it strangely absurd that LONG AGO somebody even dared waste the time, as well as my time and everybody else's, in trying to delete this article.

I have a question for you, Mr. Antiuser: are you an employee of Wikipedia? If so, then maybe you think you are doing your job, and if that's the case, then allow the writer of the wikipedia article on "Gea" to make the proper changes, to make it as "legitimate" as you earlier classified the article on "Carnival of Light". If not, then what exactly is your motive in all of this? To me, it sounds like nothing more than harassment. The epic prose completed over 10 years by Claudio Baptista is of sufficient interest to anybody who knows anything about Brazilian culture. Allow the words of one of its great luminaries, Sergio Dias, as written above, serve as a proof enough that the deletion of this article is a crime, and nothing more than an unwarranted attack against world culture. 99.68.213.111 (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not have "employees". Everyone here does what they do voluntarily. Please explain how I'm not allowing "the writer of the wikipedia article on 'Gea' to make the proper changes"? If someone wants to edit the article, they're free to do so, I'm not an administrator, I can't keep anyone from doing anything. In fact, I wasn't even the one who nominated this article for deletion. I haven't even !voted on this AfD, but somehow my name keeps getting dragged in here as if there was some hidden agenda against Mr. Baptista. XXX antiuser ^eh? 19:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then my apologies....if someone can point out exactly what's so objectionable, then I'll be happy to edit the article. I just strongly object to its deletion. 99.68.213.111 (talk) 19:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies accepted. A good place to start would be Wikipedia's guidelines for notability and reliable sources. XXX antiuser ^eh? 19:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the nomination it says "This book does not appear to meet WP:N. While the Portuguese language sources are a little hard to sort out, none appear to be significant coverage."

You need to read WP:N and find significant coverage in reliable third party references that are NOT blogs, forums or Facebook.Teapotgeorge^Talk 19:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jornal da Tarde is a reliable source, and some of the others that have articles about this probably are as well. Can someone with access to that article or others, who reads Portuguese, please quote what exactly is said about the book? Dream Focus 01:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is more about Mr. Baptista himself than about the book, but there's enough in it about the book to make it usable as a reference. The only place I found it though was on Mr. Baptista's website. I don't know if it's an issue to cite it, probably not since it's a scan of the newspaper. It still doesn't change the fact that the article has to be rewritten though, as it stands it seems overly hyperbolic and promotional and isn't encyclopaedic at all. XXX antiuser ^eh? 04:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"He may be known for his electronic inventions, especially those related to the production of sounds, such as the famous Golden Guitar... However, at 62, Cláudio César Dias Baptista does not want to be remembered for those innovative creations but for his new work, Géa - learn more at www.ccdb.gea.nom.br." It's an interview with Mr Baptista, but what it says abut the book is only what he says. I don't see a problem with citing it, but it is not an independent comment about the book. JohnCD (talk) 09:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If they are repeating what it says about the book, it still counts as coverage. A reliable source thought the book notable enough to fill an article with information about it. Dream Focus 12:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. WP:BK: "Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. This excludes... publications where the author... advertise or speak about the book."" If it is just an interviewer regurgitating what the author tells him about the book, that is not the interviewer writing about the book: we are not getting anyone's opinion of the book except the author's. JohnCD (talk) 13:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are quoting it out of context. It says "This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book". This is an interview, not just them copying something from a press release or quoting what is written on the flap section of a book. Dream Focus 15:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't intending to be deceptive about the context: my reading (though I suspect we aren't going to agree about it) is that while press releases etc are given as examples, the sort of interview given by an author with a book to plug, which just consists of him telling the interviewer about the book, is also covered by that clause, which is looking for evidence that someone other than the author has read the book and formed opinions about it. Where is the "sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary"? JohnCD (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage in reliable sources has been verified. Dream Focus 12:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only question here is whether the book meets Wikipedia's notability guideline for inclusion. Many of the arguments made at great length above are quite irrelevant to that question, including:

The book is very long, and has a larger vocabulary than Shakespeare,
It has 700 3-D illustrations
It took ten years to write
The author previously had an important role in a notable band
To delete the article would be censorship/an insult to Brazilian culture/a barbaric act of destruction, cultural repression, dictatorship etc
"When Notable Persons as X and Y... support anybody or anything, their voices sound louder than any En Wiki rule"

The relevant considerations, Wikipedia's criteria for books, are set out at WP:Notability (books).

Criteria: it is clear that #1 is the only one that might be attained. That would require showing that "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself... Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. This excludes... publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book."
Threshold standards: "Books should have at a minimum an ISBN (for books published after 1975), be available at a dozen or more libraries and be catalogued by its country of origin's official or de facto national library."
Self-publication: "In this regard, it should be especially noted that self-publication... indicates, but does not establish non-notability."
Wikipedia articles must not be vehicles for advertisement. A complicated series of statements on Talk:Cláudio César Dias Baptista makes clear that if Mr. Baptista did not actually post these articles he is at least in close touch with the person who did. Moreover, he has been trying to post articles in Citizendium about himself and his book, his website prominently displays links to the Wikipedia articles, and his reaction to a deletion discussion on Portuguese Wikipedia suggest that, despite his disclaimers, he is, in fact, anxious to get publicity and legitimacy from having articles here. The flood of single-purpose accounts overwhelming these AfDs with irrelevant harangues is also strongly suggestive of an off-wiki campaign.

Conflict of interest and promotional intent are not absolute bars to acceptance of an article, but they mean that the evidence for notability must be looked at particularly hard. We therefore come back to the fundamental question: is there evidence that "the book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself?" The guideline here is note 4 to WP:Notability (books):

Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the book... The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its author, publisher, vendor or agent) have actually considered the book notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.

The sources presented, including Jornal da Tarde, are interviews with the author, which repeat what he has to say about the book. What is needed, and what I do not see, is comment about the book by people (like reviewers) independent of its author, who have read it.

I conclude that while, on the basis of his earlier career, Mr Baptista is probably notable enough to have an article, his book is not. If it is more widely published, if people actually read it and publish significant comment about it, then one day it might deserve a stand-alone article; but it is not Wikipedia's role to help it become well-known, and for now a (short) reference in Mr Baptista's article is the most it should have. JohnCD (talk) 10:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete! Let Mr. Antiuser show us an universal law or rule where we can read what people need to do for to be recognized as writer. Wikipedia's rules aren't enough because it´s not a scientific page. Megatron Turbo BR (talk) 14:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The usual way to be recognised as a writer is to have your works published, and read by many people, and become the subject of independent reviews and discussion; but there is no "universal law" about it. Wikipedia's rules are how we decide what goes into Wikipedia. JohnCD (talk) 14:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Mr. Baptista is read and is recognized as a writer: In the page http://www.ccdb.gea.nom.br/opinioes_sobre_gea.html, which is in the author's site (as it should be) you will see the opinions of large number of Mr. Baptista readers. Several opinions are written in English, although the author's published books are in Portuguese. You may count the number of readers who invested their time in writting for Mr. Baptista and authorizing him to publish their opinions. Of course, there are much more readers, who didn't write nor authorized. In the 'CCDB Livros' section of the author's site you will find beside the thumbnails of the books covers links "Saiba mais" (Know more). These links open pages with sumarize the books and present some opinions of readers. There are several other pages with opinions of readers in the same site, which you may open if you enter this page: http://www.ccdb.gea.nom.br/links_para_as_paginas_mais_visitadas.html ans search the word "Opiniões" (opinions). Self-published books are as published as the books published by large companies. Reading books on-line is as reading books as reading them in printed paper. Please, do not erase page Géa. 187.13.46.232 (talk) 15:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N and WP:NBOOK with no independent reliable sourcesTeapotgeorge^Talk 16:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-published work which doesn't meet WP:NBOOK. Sean (talk) 16:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - Dear sirs: here is the complete list of links present today in the "Géa" page.

From these links, although all above can be verified and exist, the following are absolutely independent, reliable sources and mention the work of Mr. Baptista as an author of books.

Please do not erase page Géa. 187.13.46.232 (talk) 16:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BUT they are blogs and forums which are NOT reliable third party references.Teapotgeorge^Talk 17:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - - This article shows the proof that the name Géa exists in printed books and also shows one of the starting points of the book Géa. The article also shows the dedicated work of the author Cláudio César Dias Baptista, his attention for the persons who payed nothing more than the cost of the artisanal printing of the technical book and his dedication for his friends. The article was posted by Professor Júlio Martins and the following link I extracted from his defense of page Cláudio César Dias Baptista against deletion in En Wiki: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B4Imqu0xjVLqMDYzM2I1NjctMDEzNC00ZGY0LThmNjgtMTYyNWFiZGU2YmQy&hl=pt_BR

Please see also this articles from tradicional and well known audio magazines in Brazil. The articles are one of the proofs of the notability of Cláudio César Dias Baptista, author of Géa, here proposed for deletion.

From Backstage magazine, Nº8 (1995) - The hidden face of Mutantes (original title in portuguese: A Face oculta dos Mutantes)

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B4Imqu0xjVLqZTQyMTdkZGYtOWYxMy00ZjQ2LWI5MzUtMGRiZjdiMGQwMjRm&hl=pt_BR

From Backstage magazine, Nº 27 (1997) - An audio Luthier ( Orig. title in portuguese: Um luthier de áudio)

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B4Imqu0xjVLqNGZiYTkwYWMtNTQxYi00MGI5LTg5MDQtZmZlNzUxMGE4YmU4&hl=pt_BR

Música & tecnologia - ed. 28 [1991] - Cover history (Mr. Baptista appears with innovative 12 channel mixer with a size of a4 paper format totally conceived and designed in CADD).

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B4Imqu0xjVLqNjM0YWEyMDQtNTVhOS00ODNhLWJkYzQtNjdiNDU1YzU2MzZj&hl=pt_BR -- 187.13.81.133 (talk) 12:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.13.46.232 (talk) [reply]

Delete - I appreciate that a lot of work went into this article and that the book may well be a fine one. However, the unsourced essay-like nature of the piece, combined with the fact that this is a self-published work, combined with the fact that the article was apparently produced by the author, makes this a pretty clear call for deletion on several different grounds. Ultimately, we are dealing with self-promotion here, in my opinion. I will add my further opinion that I don't think it's a good policy for Wikipedia to have articles for every book that comes down the pike. Those that are written up should be influential in terms of generating discussion and debate in broader society, in my estimation — in other words, a high bar for inclusion-worthiness. I wish the author the best, but this page doesn't seem to get over the notability bar, in addition to the other concerns expressed above. Carrite (talk) 17:28, 17 June 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 established editors agree that the subject does not meet our inclusion requirements. I have only summarily read the inordinately lengthy opinions of the various and presumably related IPs and new (and/or sock) accounts, but their arguments generally do not address the relevant policies and guidelines and are therefore not persuasive.

Notice: Because I have no desire to read a similar volume of blather on my talk page, all who disagree with this closure are expressly requested to appeal to WP:DRV directly without contacting me first. Sandstein 19:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cláudio César Dias Baptista

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

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

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

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

A little hard to sort out, but this individual does not appear to pass WP:N. He was involved with a notable musical group at one time, but I can see no substantial references beyond his own webpage and Portuguese Wikipedia. Article was created by someone claiming to be his pupil writing from the subjects computer. I am also nominating his book Géa separately. Daniel 15:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Géa and the page Cláudio César Dias Baptista which En Wiki members considered at first good to be published here are suffering a political attack from the En Wiki member named Antiuser.Cláudio César Dias Baptista (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: All I did was remove a piece of original research from the article. The matter is being discussed at WP:AN/I#WikiHounding / Article ownership issues / Possible IP socks.. XXX antiuser ^eh? 16:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is not 'all you did'. You are a Brazilian, and it's extremelly significant that a Brazilian is attacking the page with the work of another Brazilian, a page that was until that moment considered good by all the people from other countries who contributed to its making.187.14.112.27 (talk) 17:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC) — 187.14.112.27 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I agree with the IP. Reading the discussion in WP:AN/I#WikiHounding / Article ownership issues / Possible IP socks. I make the (yes) great question which is proposed there: 'Why just a Brazilian is deconstructing the page about another Brazilian which was accepted by non-Brazilian En Wiki members'???187.13.5.1 (talk) 17:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC) — 187.13.5.1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Daniel (in the first entering above) is ill-informed: the 'someone' has a name: Rafael Konzen. Rafael didn't create the page Cláudio César Dias Baptista utilizing the subjects computer, but with his own computer. Rafael is a reader of Cláudio's books, is also his pupil in audio and electronics, visited Cláudio (the subject) and in Cláudio's computer Rafael wrote an answer in the Discussion page of Cláudio César Dias Baptista page, which answer was signed by the own Cláudio, who was logged in, to show the clear truth to everybody, and Cláudio signed it up with him. Cláudio did that to preserve the e-mail adress of his pupil, which he offered in that answer, if via message to his e-mail, which he presented there, even with the risk of suffering spam. That's a very different thing than writting the page in the subject's computer!187.13.1.78 (talk) 18:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC) — 187.13.1.78 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

They didn't create the page with the subject's computer, but still created the page with an IP from Rio de Janeiro state while living in Manaus? XXX antiuser ^eh? 18:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Had you ever heard about laptops, 3G modem and Air Travel, Mr. Antiuser???William T. Johannes (talk) 03:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have searched available English and Portuguese sources. At most, the references are from non-notable "review" websites and social media. The most reliable sources mention him only as the brother of the notable Arnaldo Baptista. Of note, the pt.wiki is also tagged for COI and POV concerns. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 02:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Mr. JSFouche: When you write 'I have searched available English and Portuguese sources' you should have mentioned which are these sources. The entry you have done here shows only your opinion, which is one or both: polarized or ill-informed. Cláudio César Dias Baptista is mentioned in several books about the group Os Mutantes which he created with his coleague Raphael Vilardi when Arnaldo was learning to play bass guitar... with Cláudio, in the instrument Cláudio manufactured for him, an instrument which is still in good conditions, although his owner Arnaldo is not more, because he attempted suicide. When you affirm that Cláudio César Dias Baptista is 'only the brother of the notable Arnaldo Baptista', you show that you are not well informed about Arnaldo and his ex-wife Rita Lee's life. As you can read Portuguese (or how could you search the sources you mentioned?), please study more the history of Os Mutantes and you will, perhaps, be surprised! I read English and Portuguese, and I found this paragraph in the page "Nem Plágio Nem Coincidência", inside Cláudio's site http://www.ccdb.gea.nom.br - there are words from him and also from Rita, please read: 'Afinal, se Rita Lee me escreve hoje (mais exatamente, escreveu-mo em 17-04-2006) o que se segue aspeado e em cor castanha, posso, sem dúvida, considerar-me um dos Mutantes e usar a palavra nos ao referir-me ao grupo: "aliás, indiscutivelmente para mim você sempre foi o cabeça daquele nosso filme dos anos 60, sem a sua presença Los Mutas jamais sairiam do quintal da rua Venâncio Ayres para o mundo - Rita Lee". ' If you can't read Portuguese, Mr. JSFouche, (and because this entry is for everybody in En Wiki), here is the translation: 'After all, if Rita Lee writes me today (more accurately, wrote to me on 04/17/2006) what follows in quotes and brown, I certainly consider myself one of Mutantes and use the word we when referring to the group, "moreover, undoubtedly for me was always you the head of our film of the 1960 years, without your presence Los Mutas would never let the backyard on street Venancio Ayres to the world - Rita Lee. " '. Knowing well the history of Cláudio César Dias Baptista and Os Mutantes, I can affirm this: "Without Cláudio César Dias Baptista there wouldn't exist Os Mutantes, without Os Mutantes there wouldn't be Rita Lee nor Arnaldo Baptista. So, and based in what Rita said herself (reproduced above), it's easy to conclude: Without Cláudio there wouldn't exist Rita Lee nor Arnaldo Baptista - as great artists. That's because Cláudio, with Raphael Vilardi, created the musical group which became Os Mutantes. More about Cláudio? Here it is: in the book 'A Divina Comédia dos Mutantes' (http://www.livrariacultura.com.br/scripts/cultura/resenha/resenha.asp?sid=8713322091361139913270881&nitem=65984) by the Brazilian Journalist Carlos Calado, Cláudio César Dias Baptista is mentioned almost one hundred times, more than any other Os Mutantes members, including Arnaldo Baptista, Sérgio Dias and Rita Lee. The book is in several bookstores to be read by anyone. Please read it and I am certain that you will change your opinion. Yet more about Cláudio? Here it is: he is called by all audio experts in Brazil as 'The Pope of Audio', not only because of his work as a member of the group Os Mutantes but by his work as the founder and the general director of EDITELE - Nova Eletrônica magazine, published during ten years (1977 - 1987) in all Portuguese reading countries, 65,000 copies/month, distributed by Editora Abril, where you may find seven hundred pages of his technical articles. In his site, http://www.ccdb.gea.nom.br, you can see many movies via this page (http://www.ccdb.gea.nom.br/videos_produtos_ccdb.html) and this page (http://www.ccdb.gea.nom.br/video_ccdb_44.html) with Cláudio lecturing about audio and presenting some of his great products, as the 'CCDB 44' audio console. Of course, you will find that material and much more about the importance and notability of Cláudio César Dias Baptista if you are sincere and wish to do Justice in the discussion which is running here.187.13.32.209 (talk) 04:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC) — 187.13.32.209 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

- - - Let the page complete during its judgement! I noted that this Antiuser is removing important information from the page Cláudio César Dias Baptista during its period of judgement for deletion. That's not a good policy. I would kindly suggest that the page is restored to its complete form during that period. How can people judge the merit of a page which content is being reduced? That procedure is not what I understand as Justice nor what I understand as En Wiki policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.13.17.74 (talk) 03:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC) — 187.13.17.74 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

- Do not delete - Let's be rational and cool, analyzing the page Cláudio César Dias Baptista in the light of what we can read about his opus in page Géa, significantly proposed also for deletion in the same day (...). Here are the positive points: The author invested more than ten years of his life in writting a book, moreover, a twelve 250 pages volume book. The author composed a 1,000 pages dictionary to complement the book. The author utilized a lexicon twice the William Shakespeare lexicon in his whole opera and six times the lexicon of Camões in "Os Lusíadas". The author created a new language with extra words, doesn't matter if it's named an 'extraterrestrial language' or not. The author illustrated himself the twelve volumes with more than 700 3D pictures, so, he had to learn 3D Computer Graphics to do these illustrations and also the thirteen covers for Géa. The author studied programming languages for computer to create himself the active pages in a site also created by himself to publish himself the book. The author applied his audio experience to perfection the sound of the reading. The author wrote also metrified poems inside the book. The author of Géa composed music for the book. The author proposed complete inventions in the books which could work if tested in laboratory. The author abandoned his profitable carreer in audio to write the book. The author created more than one thousand characters for the book. The description of these characters is interesting in the page Géa. The author presented a Theory, the 'biorrelatividade' in the book. The stories presented in the page are captivating for people who has the habit of reading books - at least they captivate myself. The quantity of references is more than enough and the quality of some of these references is unquestionable, as it's the case of the reporting in Jornal da Tarde, in the Revista Trip (very important in Brazil). And here are the negative points: The book is written in Portuguese, not yet translated to English; Brazil is not England nor USA; people who see the page Géa here in En Wiki can't easily judge the merit of the book because they can't read it. Now I ask myself: Are those negative poits really negative? Is not perhaps an injustice being done against a perhaps great work as it was done also against Don Quixote of Miguel de Cervantes and so many great books which were recognized long time after their writting? Or as the pictures of Vincent van Gogh, who sold only one of them during his life and which were recognized so late? If you search En Wiki for pages about other books, you will see that very few, if any, has the merits I mentioned above for the book Géa. So, I am forced to conclude that the cause of the deletion proposal for both pages Cláudio César Dias Baptista and Géa is not the lack of importance of the opus, but another unknown cause, external to the page itself. And I don't want to be one of the persons who will be remembered as the ones who deleted the page of a book that shows everything to be perhaps recognized as a great work or the page of its author. I vote for the permanence of the pages Cláudio César Dias Baptista and Géa in En Wiki.William T. Johannes (talk) 03:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to disappoint you, but supporting posts by sockpuppets don't really count. XXX antiuser ^eh? 11:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have blocked user:William T. Johannes as a checkuser-confirmed sockpuppet of user:Cláudio César Dias Baptista. JohnCD (talk) 16:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'You' who? Are you attacking personally Mr. Cláudio César Dias Baptista? Are you answering to Mr. William T. Johannes (in this case you consider him a real person)? I am not one nor another, but can see by your tremendous effort in erasing the information about the lexicon of Mr. Baptista against William Shakespeare's lexicon and even to erase two of the best En Wiki pages (Cláudio César Dias Baptista and Géa, that there is much more than 'En Wiki policy' behind that effort, which is also at least strange when coming from a Brazilian, that you also are - is that effort due to political convictions?187.13.77.232 (talk) 11:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC) — 187.13.77.232 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Why Delete? - Why delete part of text about Cláudio César Dias Baptista? Mr. Cláudio have a lot of experience with audio and I heard about him from friends of specific forums to discuss about audio equipments. So, I decided to find him and I found his website where I met him and his books. I read his books in your website. I'm Brazilian and I read his books in Portuguese, not only literature but technical book of professional recording of audio. He is a guru of audio here in Brazil, all people wich work in professional sound systems know his name, or his initials: CCDB. He created with his friend, a band called Os Mutantes, and developed a lot of incredible equipments to modify sounds and create a special sound, unique in Brazil. I can't accept that the text about him could being deleted. I ask you to let full the text about Mr. Cláudio César Dias Baptista. 201.75.82.71 (talk) 13:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)— 187.13.77.232 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Gentlemen, Claudio César dias Baptista is a very relevant electronic engineer and technician who supported the "Os Mutantes" band fros the 1960's to the 1970's. He invented, created or improved several electronic devices for use in music, including P.A. systems, soundboards, guitar effect pedals and other creations. Also he was publisher and writer for "Nova Eletronica" magazine and other publications for more than 20 years. Other than that he is a published fiction writer and plastic artist. As a journalist I can assure that he is worthy of an article and delet the current article would be an mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabiopa (talk • contribs) 16:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC) — Fabiopa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

- Do not delete

Gentlemen, I cannot accept so tremendous disrespect with someone who gave enormous contribution to audio development in Brazil.

I can see clearly something like a personal cruzade against Cláudio Cesar on comments from antiuser. Why this?

I am a professor at Universidade Federal do Espírito Santo - UFES (since 1987), Brazil, on subjects Graphic production and Audio production (mainly)inside the graduation course of Journalism, Advertising and Audiovisual (prior known as Cinema graduation course).

I am a researcher on sound, acoustics, perception and semiotics. Sorry but this is not my intention to present my curriculum, but to contextualize. I've started a video docummentary about Claudio Cesar Dias Baptista in 1993 financed by UFES, but I coudn't finalize by lack of financial resources. Recently I've digitalized all this matrices (Hi-8 tapes) and remembering that, I can prove that almost all photos used on Calado's quoted book (above) about Mutantes were extracted from Mr. Baptista's particular album. Lots of them only can be possessed by a Mutantes member. The Calado's Book was released on 1995.

Mr. Baptista is a unique person which stong personality, I know him personally, professionaly, and as his ex-pupil (yes! antiuser, pupil).The same way I was pupil of Mr. Mario Carramilo Neto; Ms. Santaella, PhD (take a look in her curriculum); Mr. Jorge Vieira Albuquerque, PhD and others. In the academic metièr (Post Graduate Programs, at least) be a pupil of some professor and/or researcher is reason to be proud of.

Because his strong personality, Mr. Baptista had conquered several unfriendly opinions about himself. But he takes seriously every task in which he involves himself. So, when anyone (which doesn't know him) reads (or listen) something about his work, which sounds exagerated, uses to doubt or untrust. The reason is because here in Brazil we have lots of artists, writers, journalists, politicians (specially) which tells much more than they do.

Mutantes is a band which is known (now!) around the world. but at this time (60's) it was proihibited to import audio equipment (among others things) here in Brazil. So he had projected an built amplifiers, mixing consoles, and instruments. Everybody knows Mutantes, specially his brothers Arnaldo Baptista and Sergio Dias, but not everybody knows Mr. Claudio Cesar.

Please see this articles from tradicional and well known audio magazines in Brazil

From Backstage magazine, Nº8 (1995) - The hidden face of Mutantes (original title in portuguese: A Face oculta dos Mutantes)

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B4Imqu0xjVLqZTQyMTdkZGYtOWYxMy00ZjQ2LWI5MzUtMGRiZjdiMGQwMjRm&hl=pt_BR

From Backstage magazine, Nº 27 (1997) - An audio Luthier ( Orig. title in portuguese: Um luthier de áudio)

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B4Imqu0xjVLqNGZiYTkwYWMtNTQxYi00MGI5LTg5MDQtZmZlNzUxMGE4YmU4&hl=pt_BR

Música & tecnologia - ed. 28 [1991] - Cover history (Mr. Baptista appears with innovative 12 channel mixer with a size of a4 paper format totally conceived and designed in CADD).

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B4Imqu0xjVLqNjM0YWEyMDQtNTVhOS00ODNhLWJkYzQtNjdiNDU1YzU2MzZj&hl=pt_BR

Greg Mackie made the same efforts to audio development, in the United States, and then have founded Mackie Company. The difference between both is particular character of Brazilian People which pleases himsef in depreciate, the history, the persons, the institutions. An interesting Brazilian film (Macunaima: the hero without any character) based on Mário de Andrade's book (released in 1928) aproaches part of this brazilian behavior.

This situation, as others in culture (as language) replicates itself and uses to last for years. In audio area, recording studios, professional sound systems, still happens a lot. In Addiction it's common to depreciate works, persons, to enlight his own work. Strange but it's true. Politicians do this a lot.

Mr. Baptista is not the only one which is not recognized by this work. In 2002 I've presented and published a work called É possível existir alta fidelidade em áudio? uma análise dos sistemas de captação, gravação e reprodução sonoras à luz da teoria peirceana da Percepção (ISBN: 85-89029-01-8) [Is it possible to exists high fidelity on audio? An analysis of capturing, recording and reproduction of sound under enlight of Peircean theory of perception]. I've needed to quote Mr Baptista's work and from others and I've found myself in front of a kind of situation that I coudn't to prove if they really exists, due to lack of information (we didn't have Internet fast connections, nor Google neither Wikipedia).

That's the point where I can reach! This work contains quotations about three important person which have made efforts to audio development (there are others, not only these people...): Mr. Paulo Fernando Cunha Albuquerque, Mr. Homero Sette Silva and Mr. Claudio Cesar Dias Daptista. To do that quotation, I've needed to create a section in that document called Appendix, in which I've wrote text containing tecnhical explanation and biographical information (evem summed). In this link you can find this work and to check:

http://www.cpdee.ufmg.br/~semea/anais/artigos/JulioMartins1.pdf (see page 30).

So I hope I had had contributed with consistent information. This work are available on line since 2002 on Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, or UFMG.

But there is a detail I would like to talk about yet: Mr baptista is not an Electronic Engineer, at least with graduation course. He didn't presented himself (in his published brochures about his equipment) as Engineer. He used to present himself as electronic technician.

But this is not reason to reduce his role on audio development in Brazil. That's the opposite. He studied a lot and in good and trusted sources. Every matter I've learned from him (while his pupil 23 years ago!), or reading his instructions manuals, have revealed itsef integrally correct along the path I've took throughout audio, acoustics, recording, reproduction...

We cannot say the same about lots of articles which we can find every day.

His work was recognized by Audio Engineering Society (USA) which gave him the title of member, which is gave only to Engineers. Probably he was the first brazilian audio professional to obtain this title from AES. The CREA (an agency which is encharged of inspect professionals of Engineering and Architecture) gave to Mr. baptista the title of Eletronic Technician.

This is a kind of thing that I've mentioned above. A lot of brazilian audio technicians like to entitles himselves as Recording engineer, Audio Engineer, Sound engineer, because it's cool... Sounds like an important professional or person... The same way they pleases themselves in to depreciate the work of serious people.

So finnally it will be a terrible mistake to delete this page. I vote Against. Do not Delete.

Reading my published paper (quoted above) you wil find my name and workplace. I exist. I'm not anonymous.

Probably I am one of three or four persons in Brazil which have hours of technical explanations about audio taped in video (recently digitalized to upload to video stream portals). These video shootings (never edited until now) prove undoubtly who is Claudio Cesar Dias Baptista and his previous work as an Artisan.Jcms1506br (talk) 20:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC) — Jcms1506br (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

- Do not delete!. Mr.Baptista is a Known and briliant personality and we (brazilians) don't want your history be erased from En Wiki pages. So here I am and earnestly beg you to DON'T delete the Cláudio César Dias Baptista's page. Mr. Claudio is a creative writer, in that involved us with his stories and by far one of the personalities who contributed most in growth of Brazilian music, as well as Brazilian literature and audio! My vote is DO NOT DELETE, because he is one of the most important person for cultural development in my country. Likalileal (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC) — Likalileal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Weak keep: Mr. Baptista might meet WP:N for his work as an electronic and sound engineer, but probably not as an author. The article would require a substantial rewrite for that, though. XXX antiuser ^eh? 05:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - That's Cyberbullying, Mr. Antiuser!' I can see the flag you put ever with your comments, but you are a Brazilian as can be seen in your member's page here in En Wiki and you also 'works' in Pt Wiki. It's very easy to track your comments in all pages of En Wiki and of Pt Wiki, where you are moving a cruzade against the notable Cláudio César Dias Baptista. Fortunately for Brazil, there are people distinguished as Mr. Baptista and Mr. Júlio Martins, whose comment above you can not call it weak. Poor's who want to excel at the expense of another person's name. You finally agree that Mr. Baptista is an important person in the audio field; so, you show the merit that (even with severe difficulty) you can 'learn'. But when you say that 'probably' in your comment immediately above, when you say that 'probably not as an author', you show how your mind 'works': 'probably' based in what? Did you read his magnificent book Géa? I did! It's the best book I read ever, and I've read many of the Classics. You accuse Mr. Baptista had written the page Cláudio César Dias Baptista and the page Géa, hunting IPs meticulously, but it also sees the cyberbullying that you have been practicing. I am a student of Mr. Baptista, like many others I live in the vicinity of his home, several come from other Brazilian states and some other countries to know him in person and not just via the Internet. For this reason my IP is from the same region of my master's IP, as well as all the others that you pointed in the hunt for IPs that resulted in the blocking of pages here on En Wiki. This is all a shame for Brazil and extends to the country whose flag you display here in all your comments.187.14.119.154 (talk) 09:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC) — 187.14.119.154 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Why 'not as an author Antiuser? People are discussing the book Géa here on En Wiki because of your cyberbullying, but Mr. Baptista did not only write this book. He wrote others which modestly appear in the list of page Cláudio César Dias Baptista, and he has written hundreds of pages of technical articles, which were read in all Portuguese speaking countries, 65,000 publications/month from Revista Nova Eletrônica. His book 'CCDB - Gravação Profissional' is called 'The Bible of Audio' in Brazil! The book 'Geínha' is a so vast and beautiful work as Géa. And he wrote it for Children and Youth - that simple fact, that attention to young people shows his character! Shows also that he merits the title of author, and he is a great one - not all great writers are members of Academia Brasileira de Letras and one of them, the magnificent Monteiro Lobato, in whose same level I see Cláudio César Dias Baptista, refused to become a member! The books he wrote are found in section 'CCDB Livros' of his website, http://www.ccdb.gea.nom.br, for you (and any honorable reader of this paragraph) to evaluate and see whether or not Mr. Baptista is important as an author. Mr. Baptista utilizes his complete name in his personal En Wiki's page, not a codename. That your 'Probably' reveals your character! Also reveals you character the fact that you utilize the 'Antiuser' codename, not your complete name (there are lots of Adrianos in the world, but you tell only that your name is Adriano in your personal En Wiki's page) the presence in all your comments of the noble Italy flag behind which colors you (who says in your personal page here in En Wiki 'I'm a Brazilian-born Italian', so, a Brazilian), hide yourself.187.13.13.14 (talk) 10:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC) — 187.13.13.14 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Weakish Keep I agree with antiuser on saying that he is more notable as an engineer but not as an author. Maybe a section or a mention of him being an author should suffice. Probably notable enough. Doh5678 (talk) 19:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'PLEASE DO NOT DELETE THIS PAGE. IT WILL BE A GREAT MISTAKE!'

User doh5678; I agree integrally with you a proof is necessary. I was workin on and I finished now. Please read.

'WEAK KEEP ?' 'NOT AS AN AUTHOR?' HOW COULD IT BE POSSIBLE ANTIUSER?

How (or why) you think you have the power to decide who is a writer and who isn't?

Ok. Wikipedia is a colaborative work. We need filters to keep the integrity of information. Your intention is Good.

But or you give us some objective information which justificates your judgement or will be clear to us all, that's not a neutral oppinion and you could have other motivations to act and to judge this way.

I am doing this right now. All of you can access this document I've create with photos of the first book published by Mr. Baptista. This document contains photos of some pages and fit itself perfectly to proof another thing: Géa is an Opus which was born several years ago.

Please check this document out: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B4Imqu0xjVLqNzUwZDhlYjQtZWEzZC00NDRjLTk3MTUtOTA4ZDJkNmUzOWE3&hl=pt_BR

This book was properly registered at Biblioteca Nacional (National Libray at the city of Rio de Janeiro). It is an undoubtable proof that Mr. CCDB is an author and Writer.

There are more. Lots or articles he had published in a brazilian magazine called Nova Eletrônica (New Electronics). Scanned copies of this articles are trade a lot through internet exactly because the technical information still perfectly correct until today (except in the cases of the technology has evolved, of course). I'll post some of them as soon as possible. In the case of the book, he was rewritten and could be read it on mr. Baptista's site.

And in case of you or any other person mention that is propaganda, or something like this I must remember:

We are in new era. Now we don't need to beg to commercial publishers to publish our writings. We can do it by ourselves. There are a lot of printing presses which could help any author to publish your writings without depends on any publisher. The first Book of Isaac Newton was published by himself financed by a friend [NEWTON, Isaac. Optics Translated by André Koch Torres Assis, with notes and introduction. São Paulo : Editora da Universidade de São Paulo, 2002] and equally based on information inside the brilliant docummentary about light, called Light fantastic from BBB, 2004, directed by Paul Sen]

There are more. There is an incredible book of the Mutantes's History (written in english) told by an inside person: Mr. Baptista. But it couldn't be published (Yet) because depends on permission of some important people. I have the PDF file. I've red. But all I can do it's to assure you that this book exists.

Finally there is Géa, and Geínha (something like 'Little Géa' written to kids and teens).

I'm not an specialist in literacture but I've been studied language (science of all languages: Semiotics) for a long time. This a really opus.

Géa has all components that great opus Have. There's no doubt. And there's no Doubt that Mr. Baptista is an author and writer. He was indeed, for a long period of time electronic technician, but writer too. Now he only lives from and for Géa, Geínha and, who knows, other book in future.

I don't Know if it's the most important, or one of 100 most important opus, or one of 1000 most important (an so on...)

Doesn't Matter. It's an important opus. I've examinated all books. I've received the PDF files on 2006, 2nd semester. I've red several parts. But the curiosity make us to walk throughout the books and I didn't read all books (each one from the scratch to end page) unafortunatelly by lack of time. It's a charmed text, we start and we cannot stop (how many writers can do that?). And if you consider that the characters are inspired on a real past life of a people and a band which still are conquering fans auntil today around the world, all the history gains up a kind of own bright. Mr. Baptista certainly will not conffirm that information because is equal to tell someone the end of a film.

What kind of proof do you need now?

ANTIUSER and others: Certainly there are a lot of people who try to use wikipedia to promote yourself, your company, your products... without merits.

Steve Jobs is here at Wikipedia, only to quote an visible case. I don't have anything about him. It's promotion, or not? But we cannot apart the person from his work.

Please let's focus ours best efforts to them, to maintain the wikipedia's a trustful source. [OOOPs! I need to add]: Of course, 'them' not includes Mr. Jobs, nor another famous people, with merits, OK? There are a lot and there are a lot of people who loves to take advantage of wikipedia, But Mr. Baptista certainly isn`t one of them.

Persons, companies, artists are using the most sophisticated strategies, most of all PAID, gentleman... PAID! I Know very well the advertising market in Brasil and generically, abroad the world. It's part of my work as a professor an researcher.. Social Networks, Wiki pages, Blogs, everything is are being studied to be used as mass media (which in fact, they are aready, indeed!) as a commercial way.

So what we have to do is to keep alert and never give up in find out a more efficient way to deal with.

I hope I have helped to undone this mistake.Jcms1506br (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE!

The person called antiuser commits Cyberbullying here.

I'm an audio researcher since the mid of the 90's and i have lots of copies of CCDB's articles published at the brazilian magazine called "Nova Eletronica" and a lot of copies of the original catalogs of the CCDB equipments. I'm a onwner of the briliant amplifier CCDB BI-1000, a powerful machine of 1000 watts rms, built in the 70's, when was forbidden to import electronic equipment from another countries, because Brazil was under the Brazilian Military Regime since 1964, regime that was sponsored by the USA because of the international division of labour.

CCDB (or Mr. Baptista) is a brilliant inventor. He projected and designed his own electronic equipment, that was largely used by Os Mutantes, a great band that was an evolution of another band founded by him and his brothers. A lot of CCDB amplifiers are in use until today, since the 70's, without needing of repairs. I NEVER saw an foreigner amplifier like our brazilian's CCDB equipment. Megatron Turbo BR (talk) 03:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC) — Megatron turbo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete: (bombastic advocacy from the topic's supporters notwithstanding) little evidence of depth of coverage in reliable third-party sources. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT Delete:

about User HRAFN :(bombastic advocacy from the topic's supporters notwithstanding)...

There isn't a bombastic advocacy at all and I'm not a suporter. I'm a professor of a respected university in Brazil which offers more than 90 courses. What I am doing, and not in an anonymous way (see my page), is presenting facts, in defense of a Brazilian person who is notable. Some users have claimed about lack of proof. It's fair. So I Gave. In my Defense, I have to admit, I was sometimes more emotional that the subjects requires. OK. But this does not invalidate the documents I've posted. Aren't they a reliable sources? An article I've published with ISBN?... Interviews published in brazilian magazines? A book published by Mr. baptista, with proper authoral register? Please be objective and neutral.Take a look in these documents.201.79.224.137 (talk) 15:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC) — 201.79.224.137 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

In time... The IP 201.79.224.137 is mine: Jcms1506br I was logged in, but the update failed... So I am finishing now.Jcms1506br (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - Do not delete Aren't 'third party sources' the persons who support here the page Cláudio César Dias Baptista? Aren't these third party sources (those persons) presenting other third party sources, as is the case of Professor Júlio Martins Jcms1506br, with his brilliant and rich comments and references above? The fact is that there is a cruzade against a notable Brazilian, moved by another Brazilian, Mr. Antiuser. The page Cláudio César Dias Baptista present much more than the minimum references required by En Wiki, and the majority of these references are strong and notable. There are pages in En Wiki about persons who did nothing for the world, as for example some that you may find via Baronetage of the United Kingdom page. And there are pages about musicians, for example Túlio Mourão who were not more than hired persons in the Os Mutantes group and with only one (!) reference, only one external link (!) who nobody proposed for deletion. Cláudio César Dias Baptista was the founder of Os Mutantes group, was the person because of whom that group reached international renown, the page of his name is extremelly complete in references... but is being proposed for deletion. Why? Without him, there would never exist Os Mutantes and much less Túlio Mourão would have a page here in En Wiki. I can see only one reason: Cyberbulling, envy, people trying to make name at the expense of his illustrious name. So, although this page is not a place for voting but for consensus, I 'vote' for do not delete. 187.13.41.253 (talk) 11:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC) — 187.13.41.253 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Do not blather:

Are "the persons who support here the page" "reliable third-party sources"? NO. Read WP:Identifying reliable sources.
Are any of your comments even remotely relevant to Wikipedia's notability criteria (as opposed to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and similar arguments)? NO.
Are any of your comments anything other than further "bombastic advocacy"? NO. Not in the slightest.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE

"Do not blather", HRAFN? How ? So when a user try do defend a notable brazilian author, inventor, electronic technician, he is blathering? When you say that, you are judging.

I've read lots of wikipedia rules. Your and others are breaking several of them (ex. Be polite... And you: "Othercrapexists").

You say (wrote) "Are "the persons who support here the page" "reliable third-party sources"? NO.. I am one of them, so I am not a reliable? Are you judging me? An article I've published with ISBN is not too? The Sources I've provided are not too?... O-ou!.. There's something weird in progress. Is it why he is a Brazilian? My defense is not reliable because I am a brazilian too? I cannot believe.201.79.224.137 (talk) 16:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In time... The IP 201.79.224.137 is mine Jcms1506br I was logged in, but the update failed... So I am finishing now.Jcms1506br (talk) 16:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)Jcms1506br (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(i) "How?" By making lengthy, histrionic diatribes that have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with legitimate issues before an AfD (e.g. WP:Notability, WP:NOT, WP:NOR). When you "try do defend a notable brazilian author, inventor, electronic technician" without addressing such issues, you are "blathering". (ii) Have you read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS? It points out that pointing out that "there are pages in En Wiki about persons who did nothing for the world" is IRRELEVANT to whether THIS article should be kept. Kindly read it before criticising me for citing it. (iii) WP:NOR = NO Wikipedia editor is a reliable source (not you, not me, not anybody) for the purposes of citation -- only material published outside Wikipedia can be. So no, nothing written on this AfD can possibly be "reliable third-party sources". (iv) Stop getting your knickers in a twist and reading things into my statement that I did not actually say ("Are you judging me? ..." etc, etc, etc, etc). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For your meditation, Administrators of English Wikipedia. I know the En Wiki has rules. These rules are valuable and the fruit of long-term work of its members, without forgetting its founders, Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger. Herself Wikipedia and every page that it contains have behind its creation and its existence the human impulse to friendship, excitement, enthusiasm. Who would create a page to present something that is not emotional, not something to which this value (and value is the result of emotion, not only reason)? Who would create a virtual encyclopedia without this magnificent engine that is the emotion? So if there is a page Cláudio César Dias Baptista and a page Géa on En Wiki, that's because there is enough emotion in people who created those pages; It's because that emotion and reason and objectivity emerged and turned the pages into reality. For the same reason, emotion, friendship, people find themselves inducted as members of the En Wiki devoted admiration and respect for Cláudio César Dias Baptista and his work, both as a specialist in audio and as a writer of Géa and several other books. These people, in launching these pages and their reasons for their entries here to ask for not deletion are not a 'party' politics, have no commercial interest or personal, but have that emotion and friendship and the respect and admiration for the writer and the work. For all that I ask the respected members of the Administration of English Wikipedia, the ones who will reach the consensus on whether or not erase the pages Cláudio César Dias Baptista and Géa, that meditate upon this modest paragraph, also the result of emotion, to consult their souls and their reasons for everything they do - and if they feel and conclude the same that I, do not delete these pages, which only bring the Good and the Information, besides being a milestone in the En Wiki, with this discussion in favor of Emotion and Friendship, and this does not violate the En Wiki Rules and the Reason. 187.13.81.213 (talk) 11:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC) — 187.13.81.213 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

- - How to improve an article which is semi-protected?. There is a tag in the page Cláudio César Dias Baptista proposing the improvement of the article. When I was trying to include the strong refferences I found in the above entering from Professor Júlio Martins Jcms1506br, I discovered that the page cannot be edit; so, cannot be improved, at least by me, who am not member of En Wiki. What can I do to improve the page, which I think is very good, or what can En Wiki members with access to the page do to improve it with the above references? Thank you in advance for what you may do! 187.13.107.90 (talk) 12:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC) — 187.13.107.90 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

- - Ne pas Effacer!!!!

Comment peut on manquer de bon sens à ce point Messieurs Antiusers!! Seulement le nom Anti dit beaucoup sur votre engagement Anti-positif... Non, les écrits de Mr CCDB sont de toute relevance, et bien-fondés sur la liberté de créer et d´imaginer, Imagine all the people building for, astead theese fighting against... Anti, contre, refus, négation... la Science fiction est tournée vers le futur, et Mr CCDB est un inventeur reconnu dans son pays et jusqu´au Japon, allons allons, n´effacez pas ces pages... 15:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)Philippe Ingrand187.67.96.132 (talk) 15:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC) — 187.67.96.132 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

To Whom It May Concern:

I am Sergio Dias Baptista, founder and leader of the musical group Os Mutantes. My career with the band and as a solo artist has been a extremely happy one, for I only found great achievement on its history. I am co-founder of the Tropicalist (Tropicalismo) movement in Brazil in the sixties. We as a band printed an unforgettable mark on the Brazilian musical and social history, along with our brothers in the movement, such as Caetano Veloso and Gilberto Gil (former Brazilian President Lula's Art Minister).

I was graciously awarded, along with my band, the highest title of the city of São Paulo, one of the largest in the world because of our contribution to the history and the weight of our work in regard to the quality and longevity of our musical and social work. (Medal Padre Anchieta). We as a band have countless awards on my country, we were twice Latin Grammy nominee in USA in 2007 and our work has been praised worldwide by the formers of opinions and great minds of the musical scene such as Beck, David Byrne, Sean Lennon, Flaming Lips, Devendra Banhart and countless others besides an immense press recognition from USA Today, to the cover of The New York Times, to the best world art magazines, journals and web, such as Mojo (magazine) (UK), Time out, and countless others.

I am here not to present myself, but to recommend an extremely valuable person who influenced our history in Brazil.

I find an absurd to even “question the Fact that Cláudio César Dias Baptista is or isn't a fundamental piece in the History of the Brazilian and entire world's musical universe. Without he's known contribution to my band and all of the other members of the worldly acclaimed Tropicália movement (acclaimed by the most prominent formers of opinion of the world universal musical movement) such as Beck, David Byrne, Sean Lennon, The White Stripes, Belle & Sebastian, Devendra Banhart, and several others, is at minimum a ridiculous waste of time of the precious members of this community.

The fact that the name CCDB and Cláudio César Dias Baptista is of notorious value for Brazilian’s historical reality, is of complete and solid Fact, fact this already acknowledged in the highest fonts of the world's musical and technical media.

Besides this the fact that he's a brilliant writer and poet is beyond reproach and he's work is recognized and already published in several medias such as Nova Eletrônica Magazine - EDITELE, and the uncountable sources of articles written about him and he's work.

So I wonder what is the purpose of this obvious deliberate attack of a single individual which we the “public” have no knowledge of he's real motives.

I can't believe that for an instant anyone who knows about the Brazilian cultural, social and musical history, would ever even consider a barbaric act of destruction and again cultural repression dictatorship and censure, Isn’t it enough what we Brazilians already suffered under the military government and they're censors, are we all turning back into the disgusting tortures of this awful and disgraceful period of our History?

Who's to say that someone, anyone, who did contributed to our proud rebellion against this bloody destructive political regime, would turn into the same spite and anger and lack of respect for a human being who really made its historical life by he's own means and self-construction?

I can only feel nauseated by this …

Please do not Delete Cláudio César Dias Baptista, without deleting also all about Tropicalismo, about my band Os Mutantes which he was part of, and the names of Caetano Veloso, Gilberto Gil and countless others...

Please let's be fair to who deserves its own accomplishments, please if you all, are going to delete him or he's work, please also delete all of us! For We are The Tropicalismo, We are the ones who did it all, and Claudio IS the fundamental corner stone of our history. – 189.46.183.107 (talk) 17:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)Sérgio Dias Baptista.[reply]

Os Mutantes — 189.46.183.107 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

To Cláudio César Dias Baptista's new-to-EN-Wikipedia and very-longwinded supporters: have you read WP:Notability, WP:Notability (people), WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions ... or even WP:Articles for deletion? If not then PLEASE READ THEM BEFORE COMMENTING FURTHER! Very little (nothing?) of what you have had to say has been relevant to EN-Wikipedia's actual deletion decision-making process. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete It seems reasonable enough to keep it, with a little cleanup. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 17:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete When you delete, we are questioning the value of major literary work produced in Brazil, a big timeless lesson of astral projection, which proposes a reflection on the analogy of opposites that is one of the pillars of the new civilization that you want to colonize space.

Let us leave aside the medieval ages, forget the Victorian pomp and begin to open their eyes to new horizons beyond Tolkien. Much beyond that. (Rodrigo Pontes)

A reasoned relevant argument, rather than simply a bare assertion, is generally required for a vote to be taken seriously. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Sorry. Same reason as Fabiopa. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 17:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - Do not delete! We see here the same biased and weak arguments to delete the page Cláudio César Dias Baptista. His notability is more than proven in the own article page and in this discussion. 187.13.111.97 (talk) 19:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC) — 187.13.111.97 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete This page is about an author who fails general notability. A google search yields his personal home page, our wikipedia articles, refractions of these pages, his facebook page ect. The attempts to establish notability – an expired Audio Engineering Society card, links to other wikipedia pages and his personal homepage on "references", use of ip socks and potential meat puppeting – and the inappropriate aggression towards antiuser reflect this.Sean (talk) 18:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - Do not delete. Mr. Seancasey seems to have read only the negative comments and not the positives. The author is notable, as it is more than proven by the comments of Professor Júlio Martins and several others. The accusations against the author on En Wiki are all false, he is not capable of criminal acts and vandalism. I'ma reader of your books and say that each and every one just made me a great good. I am calm, I read all comments pros and cons and I remain confident in the good sense of Directors, which I hope will never erase the pages Cláudio César Dias Baptista and GEA, which would be a slur to En Wiki and world literature. 187.14.114.249 (talk) 19:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC) — 187.14.114.249 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Can everyone calm down and review the actual article with no POV and Bias. Also stop with the possible Meat/Sockpuppetry, Cláudio César Dias Baptista. Doh5678 (talk) 19:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Baptista is above all suspects. You who accuse him of pupperty and the persons who deleted his personal page insult him. He is renowned person, spotless, has been the example from which came the current great Audio engineers in Brazil and his books are remarkable, worth reading and having each of its En Wiki page. If the pages Cláudio César Dias Baptista and Géa are not yet good for the the exegetes of the En Wiki taste, nothing better than to stop the discussion and improve these pages, not for the sake of the author, but for the good of the En Wiki and who were to read them. 187.13.27.91 (talk) 19:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC) — 187.13.27.91 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Listen, I'm not saying he doesn't meet the WP:N criteria, but parts of the article aren't in the right format, you have 2 dozen external links (many from just 1 website), and the article has content that is considered WP:SPAM. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 07:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can people stop bullying antiuser and other users. They are just making a reasoned point about this article and nothing else. So please stop doing PA's against those users. I'm just trying to resolve this. Doh5678 (talk) 14:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To users ANTIUSER, DOH5678, WEKN REVEN I SUSEJ EHT SEANCASEY00 and HRAFN

Your recent comments are showing some reasonable intention to solve the question. It's a great change since the begining. It's good. Thanks.

The proofs I've posted shows notabitity and are totally verifiable. Reading previous post, we can see that ANTIUSER have recognized, at least the relevance of Mr. Baptista's work for his page (not for Géa Page as he sad).

What I am asking you now is some patience and time, not too much time... I am trying to see the questions from you point of view. I have asked for a little help to colleagues from Library of Ufes, where I work (see my page). I am asking them to read the Mr. Baptista's page and all these comments from as neutral as possible point of view.

I Think that from this analysis we can find what we can do to ajust the page to WIKI. Some of them have already told me, in advance, that some things needs to be cleared indeed, tha some comments are fair, mainly the last ones from you...

According them there are much emotion and agressive attacks and from both sides to be honest. Please: is it possible to do this from a civilized way? I am trying to help. I will present here the result from this analysis and I propose myself to do changes and so you evaluate again.

Is it possible to do this? Please, assume prior that I (and others) have good faith, ok?

"is it possible to do this from a civilized way?" Given that Baptista's followers react with immoderate and irrelevant fury, any time anybody points out that it has not been demonstrated that Baptista "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", I would say most probably not. (Oh, and please do not post on my user talk to tell me that you've posted here -- it is neither necessary nor welcome.) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

" As the user DOH5678 sad, Calm down. Yes it is. But both sides have to act this way. They react (me included, but not with fury) this way because the attacks. Don't do the same saying "(...) [...] you've posted here -- it is neither necessary nor welcome." Don't you think that is another kind of fury (even lighter...). So... Both Parts. No fights more. No beligerancy, ok?Jcms1506br (talk) 20:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jcms1506br: please CEASE AND DESIST referring to comments questioning the notability of Baptista as "attacks". Describing them as such is a violation of WP:CIVIL & WP:AGF and are EXACTLY the sort of "immoderate and irrelevant fury" that I was referring to above. The one of the purposes of an AfD is to discuss (and therefore question) the notability of an article's topic. If you are so thin-skinned on the topic that you cannot bear to see such questions raised, then you should probably avoid this page -- the more so as you appear to have done NOTHING to present such "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" that might make your commentary RELEVANT. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment SEANCASEYOO

Mr Baptista is not working as electronic technician anymore, since the year of 2000 at least.. He is working as writer and author so it's natural the the AES member card has expired. So if the link redirects to its personal page, this an of correction that we can do as I talked above.Jcms1506br (talk) 18:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, you make a good point about his card.

This points to one of the problems here: he doesn’t seem to be notable as an author and this article is presenting him as one. Recent edits like Daniel’s have helped but the lead still reads “his main work is the book Géa” a self-published work which lacks WP:Notability and continues “Cláudio César Dias Baptista is best known as the writer of the opus "Géa" and other books”.

The COI problems at the Portuguese page and this don’t help either.Sean (talk) 20:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Seancasey00

I will wait for the further analysis as I told. Meantime I will take note of every question pointed, OK? So please help Me and others on solving that discussion to put on progress my proposal.Jcms1506br (talk) 21:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Seancasey00 - after visit the link you've added...

I understood the point. I don't have to agree with all of Mr. Baptista do or say. But...It seems to me that you read portuguese. So Check the Wiki-PT, please. Take a look what the user MACHO CARIOCA have posted. On two lines he offends three or four of wikipedia's Principles. Think by a point of view or Mr. Baptista. Think that you are him and are saying it's true. You can feel neutrality on that comment? Don't you think that this comment have same fury as HRAFN sad above? I hope so. MACHO CARIOCA do not know what he talking about. I've posted proofs. Three published articles that proves the opposite.Jcms1506br (talk) 21:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)Jcms1506br (talk) 21:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Portuguese Wikipedia does not have the same rules and policies as English Wikipedia, so comparing policy discussions between projects doesn't really work. XXX antiuser ^eh? 06:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Sean! I used google translate for your link and found this:

" MY OPINION ON THE ATTACK - YES, EVEN CONSIDER THAT AN ATTACK Someone who does not want to see the contents of my books benefit Brazil, the Portuguese-speaking countries and the world resolved to vote on the elimination of the article "Gea" in Wikipedia. Thus, even before the result of the vote from occurring, added to the article title is my name on the work the data "Gea" and also on the "Golden Guitar", another article about my works. Whatever the result will not be Google or Wikipedia to get me shut up and do not make the slightest question that eliminate whatever it is about me - just record the fact here so that people know how to be a writer in Brazil. - CCDB 6/10/2010 "

I highlighted in red the part that stuck out to me. Note: I'm not trying to make a point by quoting this guy; just helping you decide wether the article contains advertising or not. Maybe I'm wrong. I would like to believe the best, but it's difficult after reading that link.Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 12:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My duo quartuncia by citing one of the article deletion guidelines to help cool everything down: 'commenting on people rather than the article is considered disruptive.' There. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 12:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I bet I could edit the article to help move it towards WP standards. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 12:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - DO NOT DELETE*** You don't have any real reason for that. Let the information live and free!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.5.247.206 (talk) 12:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@~~189.5.247.206: Please stop repeating "do not delete" in bold letters.~~ I'm not vouching for its deletion; only wikification. I just edited the links. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 13:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! I mistook your IP adress for someone else's. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 13:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--- I consider the work of the CCDB very important. And all who know his work as a musician, sound engineer and writer, should have more respect for his work. It seems to me that this is a form of persecution for the CCDB work, promoted by the antiuser. I think you, Mr antiuser can better use of your time doing positive things, instead of trying to destroy the work of a person as CCDB. - Gil Evan - 06/16/2011---

~~Wait! Did you just refer to Claudio as her?~~

Now Claudio is a the? Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 14:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Dear Wekn reven: good day! I see that you are sincerely trying to 'wikify' the article Cláudio César Dias Baptista removing from there the links you consider invalid. But you let there only the links which relates that author to his past life as member of Os Mutantes group. I understand that your purpose is good, but the removing of some links to pages where Mr. Baptista is presented as an author will appear also as an attempt to minimize or hide that important part of his work. You removed those links perhaps to separate the pages Cláudio César Dias Baptista and the page Géa. As both are under discussion for deleting, if the article Géa is deleted there will be no external references in the page Cláudio César Dias Baptista to show his work as an author of that and other books. Please study again all the links (I see that you can read Portuguese from your other entries here) and insert again the ones you think valid to show his work as a writer, in the page entitled with his name. To help in that study, I am reproducing here the complete series of the links:

Well, it turns out Claudio's site has enough on the book anyways. The links that have been provided are identical to those from Géa.Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 15:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A note to the guy who claimed antiuser was 'masking' his being from Brazil w/an Italian flag: on his user page, he says "Hi, I'm antiuser, also known in the real world as Adriano. I'm a Brazilian-born Italian who lives in Seattle...". Please be kind to him in the future. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 15:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A note to the guy who claimed antiuser was 'masking' his being from Brazil w/an Italian flag: on his user page, he says "Hi, I'm antiuser, also known in the real world as Adriano. I'm a Brazilian-born Italian who lives in Seattle...". Please be kind to him in the future. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 15:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are in trouble with this Claudio Dias Baptista himself or his supporters in the articles about Os Mutantes members, see Rita Lee discussion and Arnaldo Dias Baptista. The editor wants "a place in the sun" in anyway... His article on Wiki-pt has the same problems and tags.. personal interest conflits, neutrality, controversy et all [4] MachoCarioca (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links

The link for "Revista Trip" opens a great reporting about the author as a writer, not only one of Os Mutantes- please read that reporting! The link to blog "Fudeus" shows the impression the journalist had about Mr. Baptista and is important. The link to "Viceland" shows a complete reporting about the author as a writer, not as one of Os Mutantes. And so on. Please visit al the pages from the links and reconsider. The complete absence of links about the work as a writer sounds strange to all people who saw the article with the links you removed. Thank you for anything you may do to preserve the real facts and the image of the author. 187.13.137.250 (talk) 14:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid some websites already covered everything but his authorship well enough for a person with Claudio's status. You're right, though, I think there should be something on Géa.Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 14:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind answer, Wenk Reven. Please insert in the article Cláudio César Dias Baptista the links which Professor Júlio Martins presented in the discussions of that article and in the page of discussion of Géa. Those links are very relevant, I think, to complete the image of Mr. Baptista and to create an more significant article for En Wiki. 187.13.137.250 (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I find the professor's links? Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 15:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Wekn reven. These are the professor links, which I copied from the code above (in the 'read' tab of this same page you will see the links better):

From Backstage magazine, Nº8 (1995) - The hidden face of Mutantes (original title in portuguese: A Face oculta dos Mutantes)

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B4Imqu0xjVLqZTQyMTdkZGYtOWYxMy00ZjQ2LWI5MzUtMGRiZjdiMGQwMjRm&hl=pt_BR

From Backstage magazine, Nº 27 (1997) - An audio Luthier ( Orig. title in portuguese: Um luthier de áudio)

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B4Imqu0xjVLqNGZiYTkwYWMtNTQxYi00MGI5LTg5MDQtZmZlNzUxMGE4YmU4&hl=pt_BR

Música & tecnologia - ed. 28 [1991] - Cover history (Mr. Baptista appears with innovative 12 channel mixer with a size of a4 paper format totally conceived and designed in CADD).

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B4Imqu0xjVLqNjM0YWEyMDQtNTVhOS00ODNhLWJkYzQtNjdiNDU1YzU2MzZj&hl=pt_BR

http://www.cpdee.ufmg.br/~semea/anais/artigos/JulioMartins1.pdf (see page 30).

and

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B4Imqu0xjVLqNzUwZDhlYjQtZWEzZC00NDRjLTk3MTUtOTA4ZDJkNmUzOWE3&hl=pt_BR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.13.137.250 (talk) 16:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC) 187.13.137.250 (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very few of these links could be considered reliable third party references...links to Facebook, forums and blogs would not be suitable.Teapotgeorge^Talk 18:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment some of this article could be merged into the Os Mutantes article (but not the individual members articles as MachoCarioca points out).Sean (talk) 18:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I used google translate on the article's talkpage. Not too sure if CCDB himself is all that happy w/the article. If the user really is Cláudio. Several users and IP adresses have already made that claim. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 08:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, 187.13.137.250, but Teapot is right. Facebook and other social networking sites aren't considered suitable sources (apart from 1 or 2 very very very rare occasions. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 08:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

187.13.137.250 was another IPsock of Mr. Baptista's and has been blocked as such. XXX antiuser ^eh? 08:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Antiuser! I was wondering about that. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 08:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Dear Wekn, thank you for cleaning-up the article. Please inser the links in the article who present Mr. Baptista not only as a member of Os Mutantes, but also as a writer - the links are above. Please reconsider this deletion '09:11, 17 June 2011 Wekn reven i susej eht (talk | contribs) (7,670 bytes) (Advertisement deletion) (undo) '. The number of month/publications of Revista Nova Eletrônica - EDITELE cannot be an advertisement, because the Revista (Magazine) and the own EDITELE (publishing house) doesn't exist anymore: it existed during the decade 1977 to 1987. So, the mention of the numbers of exemplars has the only purpose to show the importance that magazine had in that time, never to work as an advertisement. You are trying to do justice, it's easy to see from your comments and acts; please honor that position and undo that deletion. Regards - - 187.13.59.122 (talk) 12:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

187.13.59.122: his website already says enough about that. Notice to all 187.13... IP adresses: please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Thank you. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 12:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant, weak keep. Reluctant, because there is a blatant campaign of self-promotion going on here. On the article talk page, it is explained that Mr. Baptista did not himself write this article, but the complex explanation (where the article author edits from Mr Baptista's house, using his account) makes it clear that they are close. Whoever wrote it, the article was posted here by User:Ccdb, a SUL account (i.e., active on more than one Wikipedia) whose Portuguese user page makes clear that it is Mr. Baptista himself. Moreover, his website prominently displays links to the Wikipedia articles, and he has been trying to post articles in Citizendium about himself and his book. The flood of single-purpose accounts and IPs on the two AfDs is also an indication of an off-wiki campaign.

Also reluctant because of the behaviour of Mr Baptista's supporters on these two AfDs, including sockpuppetry, long irrelevant harangues, and personal attacks on those who disagree. User:Antiuser, who has taken part in the debates although he was not the nominator, has on his user page a list of twelve articles he has written: in the last few days every one of those articles was vandalised by Brazilian IPs in the 187.13 and 187.14 ranges. That kind of behaviour should not be tolerated, let alone rewarded.

All that makes me want to find a way to say delete, but I have to conclude that enough references have been produced, mainly those relating to Mr. Baptista's previous career as an inventor and musician, to make an article possible. The present version will need to be heavily edited, it should concentrate on those aspects of his career that are actually notable (inventions, Os Mutantes etc), and it will need to be watched to make sure that our conflict of interest policy is observed, and the page is not used by Mr. Baptista and his fans as a base for promoting himself, his "bio-relativity" theories or his book. JohnCD (talk) 13:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Well put!Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 13:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - Gentlemen: People who know Mr. Baptista know he always avoided publicity, which is why they call him "The Hidden Mutante." The pages posted on his website about the Pt Wiki contains Screenshots of Pt Wiki pages "Cláudio César Dias Baptista" and "Géa" that were created by someone other than himself. Screenshots are irrefutable. These screenshots show that the pages have suffered vandalism, when someone interested in wrest them entered double letters in the names of links that rendered them useless and also demonstrate the process of deconstructing which the pages "Cláudio César Dias Baptista" and "Géa" suffered in the Pt Wiki. These processes culminated with the erasure of the page "Géa" in Wiki Pt and its substitution by the page "Gea" of an italian comic magazine with absolutely no expression (see, please, the visitation of that page). Mr. Baptista does what any self-respecting person would make: He exposes the attacks suffered and shows screenshots of the pages before and after these attacks. Yes, they are attacks and they are not a sincere desire to improve Pt Wiki pages. Who, unsuspecting, just skim over the pages of the site of Mr. Baptista (especially if you do not read well Portuguese) might think, '- What I see here are well-intentioned pages against the En Wiki'. But if you study in depth these pages you will see that it is a simple act of defending his good name and not an attempt at publicity. 187.13.59.122 (talk) 15:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"He exposes the attacks suffered and shows screenshots of the pages" - that right there is the problem. The user has article ownership issues and reacts to any edits as if it was censorship or an attack on his person. That's how this whole debacle got started, anyway. XXX antiuser ^eh? 18:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, even though Mr. Baptista says he's "internationally known as the hidden mutante", all references to that moniker on Google come from Baptista himself. XXX antiuser ^eh? 18:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note 187.13.59.122 was an IP sock of Mr. Baptista's and has been blocked (as was 187.13.119.213 and 187.13.46.232) -Sean (talk) 20:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Out of all the external links posted by Mr. Baptista above, and I've checked all of them, only a few meet WP:RS, and those give overwhelmingly more weight to his career as an inventor and engineer and his connection to Os Mutantes than his literary work. In fact, the majority of the references to his work as an author are taken from Baptista himself (in interviews or from his own website), and one of the links is an interview about his struggle in getting his books published. In my opinion, if the article is kept it needs a serious rewrite so as not to give undue weight to his recent work and focus on what he might be notable for. XXX antiuser ^eh? 20:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So far the real votes have been, 3 keeps and 3 deletes. Any suggestions on what to do to close it? Doh5678 (talk) 21:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs aren't resolved by votes, but consensus. XXX antiuser ^eh? 21:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the comment. Doh5678 (talk) 21:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:N. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Echoing my vote of delete above, this fails WP:MUS, WP:N. The arguments that "enough references have been produced" fail to convince me that this artist "has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself." Sean (talk) 23:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't he be known as the "Hidden Mutante" because all he did was make a guitar (that somehow managed to get an article written on it), do some sound effects, sing a few songs w/the Mutants, and write a long book which comes up only once when I google Géa? Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 10:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The more these IP sock puppets try to convince me of Cláudio's notability, the more I think the article should be shortened to include only the absolute most important information about him if any at all. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 10:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 2 instruments he made probably aren't even notable enough to be on this article. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 10:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With all that's against this article, I'm changing my stance. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 10:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm changing my stance, per Seancasey00's statement that it probably fails WP:MUS and Wekn reven i susej eht. Doh5678 (talk) 11:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've noticed many of these IPs seem single-purpose. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 11:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think most of them are Mr. Baptista himself. WP:DUCK and such. XXX antiuser ^eh? 11:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid so. Another update: his website now has a link to Géa on wikipedia, which doesn't exist anymore. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 15:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, this article's going to be deleted in a few hours. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 17:08, 18 June 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 due to this being a bad faith nom. However, I would advise trying a merge proposal on the article's talk page first. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Human (Star Trek)

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

~~Plot only coverage. I can find little evidence that Star Trek's treatment of the human race is notable. Anthem 15:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)~~ - Please discount any comments by Anthem of Joy, he's a sock puppet. Mathewignash (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It always helps on a second AFD to say what, if anything, has changed since the previous nomination. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In this case I think what has changed is consensus on the notability of fictional-universe information with no sources talking about real-world impact. They used to be routinely kept, now unless there is real-life significance they are typically deleted. HominidMachinae (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Delete as non-notable. No significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 16:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into either or both of United Federation of Planets, where humans in the Trek universe live, or Humans in fiction or some equivalent. Jclemens (talk) 04:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Star Trek races. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 06:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The human race is obviously central to Star Trek - the norm to which all other aliens, robots &c. are compared. The book Star Trek: the human frontier discusses the nature and role of humanity in Star Trek. This is a substantial source and there are lots more critical sources which cover aspects of this topic such as Star trek and history: race-ing toward a white future, Law of the Federation: Images of Law, Lawyers, and the Legal System in Star Trek, the Next Generation, Teaching toward the 24th century: Star Trek as social curriculum, Sexual generations:" Star trek, the next generation" and gender, Popular imagination and identity politics: Reading the future in Star Trek: The Next Generation, &c. Warden (talk) 07:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, most of the characters in fiction are human but we don't have articles like Human (Horace Walpole). The book Star Trek: the human frontier discusses the question "what does it mean to be human" as explored in Star Trek, it does not discuss what human beings in the Star Trek universe are like. The others are about topics like "Law in Star Trek" which might make an interesting article, just not this one. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 08:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No out-of-universe context or notability. --Crusio (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP and SPEEDY CLOSE, a bad faith nomination by a sock puppet. Let a human being reopen it if they want. Mathewignash (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be a perfectly sensible discussion, irrespective of the status of the nominator. I propose continuing per WP:IAR. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

if This is speedy closed I will nominate immediately after. So why not let this continue with all the good-faith editors contributing already? HominidMachinae (talk) 01:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note Anthem of joy has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Claritas [5]. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The concept of human from Star Wars as an individual subject does not meet general notability guideline and it is a plot-only description of a fictional work. The article is a content fork of list of Star Trek races, which already handles all fictional races in the Star Trek universe and human is already listed there. I do not believe that the content merits being merged since it is original research by synthesis and only one sentence is referenced, and given the disambiguation in the article title, it is not a plausible search term, so a redirect is not justified either. Jfgslo (talk) 14:54, 15 June 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. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Elliott

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

Non-notable founder of a redlinked tradeschool/"college" and member of a redlinked organization. Orange Mike | Talk 15:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - per A7, no indication of importance or significance, so tagged. ukexpat (talk) 15:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. — ukexpat (talk) 16:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - I see no claim of notability. A7. OlYeller^Talktome 17:15, 10 June 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. The early "delete" opinions based on the then-inexistent sourcing are no longer current because sources were added to the article on June 11. There is no consensus about whether the article (and similar ones) should be merged or retained seperately, but that discussion can continue on the appropriate talk and project pages. Sandstein 19:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage Guidance Counsellor

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

Unreferenced article about a non-notable sketch which has received absolutely no direct and detailed coverage in third-party reliable sources. PROD-tag removed with no explanation. ╟─Treasury Tag►Regional Counting Officer─╢ 13:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep - decent enough article. This appears to be a petty AFD by a user with nothing more useful to do William M. Connolley (talk) 16:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Eclectic collection of WP:PRETTY and WP:ADHOM. In order for an article to exist, it has to satisfy Wikipedia's notability threshold, which requires significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Can you identify any? ╟─Treasury Tag►draftsman─╢ 16:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Merge+Rename+Redirect no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 16:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing my !vote per discussions below. There is clearly no scope for an article per WP:GNG and WP:EPISODE. What is reliably sourced is a line or two which can and should be merged. The rename should be to something like Marriage Guidance Counsellor sketch to make it clear that this is not about Marriage Guidance. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per William M. Connolley. TreasuryTag, do not respond to this comment, either here or on my talkpage or at any other ___location. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any coverage in reliable sources to substantiate the article's notability? ╟─Treasury Tag►most serene─╢ 16:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd call WP:EPISODE the closest guidline, and it seems to fail that. Is there any reason to go beyond what's already in And Now for Something Completely Different?--Cube lurker (talk) 17:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to And Now for Something Completely Different. I love this sketch – in the same way that I love practically all Python sketches. But that's not a reason for this stubby article. We don't need detailed plot summaries for all Python sketches. Nowadays it's easy enough to simply watch them if you want to know what they are about, and the scripts have also been published. Hans Adler 17:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the unquestioned notability of Monty Python does not and cannot convey notability onto every element of it. For this article to stand there would need to be independent reliable sources that significantly cover the sketch and allow for the writing of an article that is something other than a description of the plot of the sketch, demonstrating out-of-universe perspective. In the absence of such sources then the article should be deleted. Harley Hudson (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NYB. -Atmoz (talk) 20:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm moderately amused that (so far) three supposedly sensible people think it worth carrying out an absurd campaign of what they presumably consider to be civil disobedience, solely in order to keep a flagrantly non-notable article, I'll just stick to repeating my question from above: do you have any coverage in reliable sources to substantiate the article's notability? Yes or no? ╟─Treasury Tag►presiding officer─╢ 20:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced minimal skit that could be merged into the movie with a pointer to the subsection from the Flying Circus. Hasteur (talk) 20:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - saw this listed and assumed it was about Marriage Guidance (ie Relate or similar). I see it is in fact about one of Monty Python's less well-remembered sketches. I can see nothing to assert it is notable in its own right. If anything the link with a lower case "c" should direct to National Marriage Guidance CouncilGraemeLeggett (talk) 21:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've warned TreasuryTag [6] for canvassing this AfD [7] at WP:VPP. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment seems like a rather desperate violation of WP:AGF... Could you suggest a better method of seeking advice to deal with the ongoing disruption at that AfD? I would note that I didn't link to it (yes, it could easily be found in my contributions, but that's kind of unavoidable) and worded my message completely neutrally: if you disagree, perhaps you could suggest alternative phrasing.

Reading WP:CANVASS#Campaigning, I see that campaigning is "an attempt to sway the person reading the message, conveyed through the use of tone, wording, or intent." None of those seems to apply here; in fact, your whole comment above is outrageous and I would ask you to justify it further or apologise. ╟─Treasury Tag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 22:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I find some irony in TreasuryTag posting the above comment in no less than 3 places [8] [9] [10] (including my talk page despite a prominent edit notice) after getting caught with their hand in the cookie jar. I had heard from other editors how TreasuryTag tended to lash out at people, and having now witnessed it for myself, (apparently I'm now a "troll" [11] which per WP:OWB#44 I'll take as a compliment) I now can see some truth to what other editors were saying. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I note the complete absence of explanation/justification of the canvassing allegation in the above (highly unpleasant) 'response'. ╟─Treasury Tag►ballotbox─╢ 23:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect Would be open to reconsidering if someone could give a policy based reason for the keep, but so far it fails the applicable guideline I see.--Cube lurker (talk) 23:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect; no indication of particular significance or notability for this skit that would justify a standalone article. I couldn't find a master list of skits, but this one would be appropriately noted either within the context of the Flying Circus episode that originally featured it, or its remake in And Now For Something Completely Different. postdlf (talk) 23:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A basic Google Books search (adding "python" to the one at the top of the page to cut down on false positives) shows plenty of coverage in various books not published by the pythons themselves. Jclemens (talk) 04:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ... and for good measure Google News archive has a few references as well. Jclemens (talk) 04:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I get four links, 1 passing mention of the sketch, 2 where the words coincide but do not reference the sketch, and 1 spoof headline site. Case not proven. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to And Now for Something Completely Different per Hans, Postdlf et al. Also: I'm seeing seeing some good, long-term, well-respected Wikipedians here, with votes on both sides of this particular discussion, writing some unnecessarily harsh things to each other. Stay cool, everyone - and be kind to one another. Neutrality^talk 04:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are two things that contribute to making this AfD contentious. One is that the sketch has a cultural significance that is not reflected by the lack of sources discussing it in detail. If it was possible to write an article about it that goes well beyond a plot summary while not being full of OR, then I would support such an article per IAR. But apparently it isn't, and what remains is the question whether we should have permanent stubs or whether we should organise the information within longer articles on broader topics. I prefer the latter because it's easier to maintain and does not require IAR. The other thing is the nominator's often abrasive behaviour (example related to this AfD [12]), which tends to cause reactance. Hans Adler 06:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I admit that [13] was disgusting, outrageous, over-the-top and I really let myself and the rest of the community down with it. It was a real moment of weakness.</sarcasm> ╟─Treasury Tag►sundries─╢ 08:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree, particularly on the principle that we should prefer robust, well-organized articles (or lists) focusing on broader topics over dozens and dozens of permastubs. There are many compelling reasons to do so, and two are that (1) content is more likely to be put in proper context, because it relates to others in a series and (2) more editors' eyes can patrol in a more concentrated area -- both of these allow for content to be preserved while also ideally promoting good reliable sources and curbing excessive detail. This is one of the principles of mergism, I suppose. Neutrality^talk 06:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is notable, being covered in detail in reliable sources and I have added a few citations to the article, so making most of the hand-waving discussion above obsolete. For a good example of detailed coverage, please see Nonsense versus Tiefsinn? Ein interkultureller Vergleich des deutschen und englischen Humors am Beispiel der Fernsehsketche von Loriot und Monty Python. The coverage being in German gives it a deliciously Pythonesque flavour rather like the peculiar Fliegender Zirkus spin-off in which the sketch almost appeared (it was cut). The Pythons' material is best covered at sketch level as the sketches are only loosely linked and were recycled in a variety of formats and presentations. Warden (talk) 08:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The interkultureller Vergleich reference is good, but the others are frankly just mentions. Have you anything else? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 08:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I actually saw this, and it's just a master's thesis published in book form by [GRIN] ("With GRIN you can publish your term papers, textbooks, your dissertation or thesis - all kinds of academic works. [...] Upload your papers now!"), so essentially self-published. This does not convey any notability beyond that which comes from every master's thesis – which is very little. I read the section that deals with the two sketches. It gives plot summaries for both, then ends witha perfunctory 2-paragraph comparison. I decided that it was useless for the article, except perhaps to justify with it mentioning the Loriot sketch in relation to the Pythons sketch. Hans Adler 09:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relist this AfD, please, from scratch, with a note that this is an AfD and therefore about content. It is not an RFC on Treasury Tag's conduct, personality, or editing behaviour. Altogether too many users who are senior and experienced enough to know better have decided to treat it as one. I'm particularly unimpressed by the user who thinks it's a good idea to use an AfD to directly and personally insult Treasury Tag and then tell him he's not allowed to reply.—S Marshall T/C 08:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support that with the additional reason that Warden has found a significant reference that renders some of the discussions moot. I for one would like to reset the clock to reconsider. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've no problem with starting again, but (according to google translation) the German reference is a thesis for an MA, guidelines say PhD thesis is the level for RS. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. A self published master's thesis with a plot summary and an uninspired comparison to a similar sketch doesn't establish individual notability and doesn't make it easier to make this a proper article. NYB's comment was because of TT's habit of responding and then pestering people with "talkback" templates on their talk pages until they respond (or TT gets blocked). Hans Adler 09:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If that's true, he could have said "please do not reply on my talkpage". What he said was "Here is a personal, petty criticism of you. Do not reply to it, anywhere, under any circumstances."—S Marshall T/C 11:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It just shows NYB is human, after all. See TT's first four comments ever on NYB's talk page, a year ago. 4 talkback templates in 8 minutes, with three of them after a polite request not to use them. Then another talkback template in November, 6 days after he played the same game on me. Then in April this and this. It doesn't justify, but it explains. Hans Adler 14:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I understand that. Nevertheless, the present discussion seems unsatisfactory to me, focusing as it does on personalities rather than issues and conduct rather than content, and I do think it's irretrievably tainted by that. We should begin afresh.—S Marshall T/C 23:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relist per S Marshall. It's not possible to have a sensible discussion like this. And I'm frankly surprised at some of the behaviour here from editors I genuinely respect. Can we please keep XfD discussions to debating articles, rather than individual users and what they have/haven't done here there and everywhere in the last several years. --Dweller (talk) 07:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Enough references have been shown that the behavior makes no difference at all. MA Theses have frequently been accepted as sources, for example in local history, where they are often the only academic sources available, and the same situation is present here, also--much of the study of contemporary popular culture is done at that level. DGG ( talk ) 21:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...although even if that were so, it's quite hard to have a single MA thesis qualify as "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources" – ╟─Treasury Tag►Regent─╢ 21:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite willing to agree with you that it seems absurd that something like this should be notable. But so it is. I admit that on the precedent of this I am very tempted to write articles about individual scenes or chapters in films or novels or other fictions that have been discussed extensively by 2 or more critics--I can think of about 50 in Jane Austen. (e.g. Darcy's first proposal) I can think of many hundreds in Shakespeare, (e.g. the tavern scene in Henry IV pt 1), or the ghost on the battlements in Hamlet. I can thing of many individual couplets within a poem. Now, I think all of these should be discussed in Wikipedia, with a paragraph or two and the references to the classic interpretations of them-- but not with a separate article. We probably need some sensible discussion of what to merge. This would be greatly helped by the fiction minimalists not trying to keep cutting the content after the merges. DGG ( talk ) 22:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of new references now that take this topic closer to notability, but I still don't see it. The self-published MA thesis has just one (short) page of plot summary plus one (short) page of perfunctory comparison to a Loriot sketch that may or may not have been inspired by this one. We must combine the fact that even the best MA thesis usually provides very little evidence of notability and the very small extent to which it actually says something about the sketch. (Here is what it says about the sketch, only slightly shortened: Two of the protagonists have ruthless fun. There is no mercy on the third, and the cowboy exacerbates the perfidiousness of the plot. The openly cruel story has no moral message whatsoever. Only the absurdity of the constellation – the openness of the adultery, the cowboy, the knight, and the chicken – prevents it from feeling outright cruel. In comparison, the Loriot sketch is less openly aggressive but more shattering due to its greater realism.) The result is that the MA thesis provides no additional notability. And I am not sure that articles in a Monty Python encyclopedia (presumably one exists, although it's not cited explicitly) provide significantly more notability than articles in Pokémon encyclopedias.

This is a relatively significant sketch, and very well known, as the passing mention in the Independent article on Carol Cleveland shows. But it is at most borderline notable, and the article shows very little promise.

One thing that distinguishes Monty Python from Jane Austen is that one thinks of an Austen novel mostly as a single entity, while one thinks of a Monty Python episode either as a part of Monty Python's Flying Circus or as a more or less random collection of individual Python sketches. This is reinforced by the fact that some of them (such as this one) later appeared in a different context in a film or live show. But it's still reasonable to keep the plot summaries in episode or list articles. We shouldn't create a full article just to prevent very minor duplication. (At the moment it's not even prevented, as the plot summary is summarised anyway.)

A better approach might be articles that tie together sketches with similar features, if proper sourcing can be found for that. (E.g. "Monty Python and marriage".) Much as I would enjoy reading a good article about Mr Collins's proposal to Elizabeth, a general article about Austen's proposal scenes would be much better. Hans Adler 07:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

merge I have changed my mind on this as a result of my analysis in the paragraph just above. ; my original instinct was right--this is an absurdly minute and over-divided topic for an article. The references are technically sufficient for GNG, but this is not enough. To justify an articles on such a minute subject there would have to be exceptionally good references indeed--multiple major popular an= or academic discussions. I have often enough said that the technical fulfillment of WP:GNG is not necessarily relevant, and this is in fact supported by notability policy; it currently goes half way, by saying something notable is not necessarily suitable for an article. I go the other half, & say that something not technically notable is not necessarily inappropriate for an article. So if GNG is neither necessary nor sufficient, what good is it? I interpret WP:GNG as a rough guide, a Procrustean measure that ignores reality, in favor of what seems like a convenient trick to make decisions. When I first cam here I thought it was remarkably clever, but I've learned a lot in 4 years. We go by what is notable in the Real World, to be sure, but there are many ways something in the RW can be notable. DGG ( talk ) 07:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per DGG. And strongly protest the petty and unwarranted attacks on the nominator. This was clearly a good faith nomination. Reyk _YO! 09:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - there are reliable sources covering this topic, but not enough to justify an independent article. Anthem 11:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC) I gather this comment is by a sockpuppet of a blocked user. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 20:27, 14 June 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.

Note User:Harley Hudson has been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Otto4711. Jclemens (talk) 06:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 18:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GameSoundCon

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

fails WP:GNG. a mere 8 gnews hits. [14]. 5 of those are from prweb.com which is a site for getting your news release published like in gnews. LibStar (talk) 13:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not seeing any substantial claim of notability. A Google News search produces one source that is seemingly reliable but the coverage is simply a small blurb (not significant coverage in my opinion). A Google News Archive search produces 8 hits and as LibStar mentioned, 5 of them are PR publications (not independent). Of the four references listed on the article, 2 are published my MixOnline which is owned by a PR firm called PentonMedia (not independent). Proof of their connection can be seen here. The ASCAP article is about how ASCAP sponsored the event/organization (not independent). The last and most concerning of the references is from "GamesOpt" which is an obvious play on a reliable and independent source known as GameSpot. The website's owner is hidden behind layers of buffer companies (GamesOpt is owned by one company who's owned by another and so on) and was created on 08-Feb-2010 despite the claims on the website. In short, the website is not only unreliable, it seems very dubious that the author would use such a dubious website as a reference on an article that appeared in a single edit in the author's userspace. Not only should this article be deleted, the page should be carefully monitored, the user should be carefully monitored, and we should be checking WP for any articles that use GamesOpt as a reference. OlYeller^Talktome 17:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per above. Blatant advertising Stevezimmy (talk) 03:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 18:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sangeet Natak Akademi International Music Festival

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

fails WP:GNG. nothing in gnews. and all google reveals is WP mirrors or mere listing as an event. LibStar (talk) 13:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. When I searched, I didn't find anything solid except weak mention in a Gulf News article. This article doesn't have enough notability established to be here. SwisterTwister (talk) 06:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted per G12 by Peridon (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How to wear a saree

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

Wikipedia is not a manual. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 13:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: I have nominated the article for speedy deletion as a blatant copyright violation per Tommyjb's noting that the article is a word-for-word replica of a company's blog. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 13:40, 10 June 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

California Fried Chicken

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

Chronically unsourced article on an Indonesian fast-food chain. No indication of non-trivial coverage discernible from Google News or Google Books. This was a prod disputed on the basis of an (unsourced) claim in the article that it contains 200 stores. However, the requirement for WP:ORG is "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources", and its is easily conceivable (given its geographical moniker) that such an obvious imitator of American fast food might not evoke much in the way of non-trivial secondary source coverage. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of references (or poor article quality in general) is not the criteria for deletion. The criteria is strictly notability. I've since added a source for 183 stores which clearly establishes notability, and now suggest that this afd is now redundant. --Merbabu (talk) 01:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And the notability requirement for organisations is "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" -- which this article currently FAILS ABYSMALLY! Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, 200 stores in Indonesia is not notable, but 300 in Australia is? (and please don't shout). --Merbabu (talk)

As I already told you below, number of stores "is an "arbitrary quantity", not relevant to any notability criteria, and so not relevant to this discussion." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, how would you feel about putting Red Rooster up for AFD? (I've already asked that a few times), and if not, how does that fit into WP:BIAS? cheers. (as for "already told you", you only just "told me", in both cases to much earlier comments. No need to be rude or try to make me incorrectly look foolish ). --Merbabu (talk) 07:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What part of "a company could be notable with only a single store" did you fail to comprehend? I would no more nominate an article for AfD based upon an "arbitrary quantity" than I would advocate 'keep'ing one on such a quantity. This is an issue of the availability of third-party secondary sources, on which a balanced, substantive article can be created (i.e. WP:V, WP:NOR & WP:NPOV -- core policies), NOT "systemic bias". If a sufficiency of such sources exists for Red Rooster, then it should be retained regardless of the number of stores. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it goes your way, then let me suggest it's a great victory for process over outcome. If you are so (demonstratively) adamant that there is no problem with an outcome that removes one but not the other, then I can't say much more. And linking long term editors to the core policies is a little disrespectful. --10:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Weak delete. From the results of the different searches I am convinced that most of the claims are verifiable, and that the subject is an actual competitor to KFC and similar American franchises in Indonesia, but coverage that is both extensive and focused on the subject is minimal. I was only able to find these article [15], which seems to be sourced on this other one [16]. The rest of the hits, which are not scarce at all, focus either on economic or nutritional aspects, and so CFC is usually mentioned in passing together with its competitors. As for those cases, I personally see the casual manner in which the subject is referred to as a indicator of a certain notability, given that the reader is assumed to be familiar with the subject, thus making unnecessary to provide a more verbose coverage (which is what we are looking for) - frankie (talk) 17:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first source appears to be a blog and thus presumed unreliable unless proved otherwise. The second, as far as I can tell from Google Translate, appears to be somewhat of a puff-piece/infomercial in on online directory whose purpose seems more to promote businesses than to report neutrally on them. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my thoughts exactly, specially the second one I think it might have been written by CFC and later reproduced by the website - frankie (talk) 17:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I do not have a source, let alone counted 200, I have seen these stores are indeed all through Indonesia. As a country of 250 million people, it's quite feasible that there are indeed 200 stores. There is likely to be less RS on an indonesian franchise than a western equivalent, but this chain is comparable to Australia's Red Rooster. Deletion of CFC would be a case of systematic bias. --Merbabu (talk) 01:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Facebook like figures CFC Indonesia has 80,000 likes and KFC Indonesia has 60,000 likes. WHile I'm not suggesting we use facebook as a reliable source, it does show that it's not a non-notable puff piece. --Merbabu (talk) 01:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last I checked, WP:BIAS did not over-rule WP:ORG. "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" (i.e. facts actually relevant to the notability criterion)? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, 200 stores is not notable? --Merbabu (talk) 05:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"200 stores" is an "arbitrary quantity", not relevant to any notability criteria, and so not relevant to this discussion. A company could be notable with only a single store or non-notable with hundreds. The criteria is WP:SECONDARY coverage, not store-numbers. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SOrry, I'll use common sense, not deep searches for WP:SOMETHINGTHATMIGHTWORK. --Merbabu (talk) 07:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, what you are using is a special pleading which, as a logical fallacy, is hardly "common sense". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. California Fried Chicken is often included in the discourse of fast food marketing in Indonesia. Multiple entries in Google Books (most in Indonesian) indicate that it is often cited as an example of using Western names as a strategy to draw interest to the home-grown fast food chain and of a successful franchising history. There is also scholarly interest in Indonesia in comparison studies among CFC, KFC, McDonald's, and Pizza Hut when using the Google Scholar search. The parent company seems to be doing well, having doubled its stock value within the past year. While it is unlikely that the article would come out of Stub status without more information about its history (though I did manage to learn that it's owned by a Chinese Indonesian), it's a very visible franchise in a nation of 240 million. (I wouldn't be surprised if the franchise received support from the government during the Suharto period considering it's Indonesian-owned, but that would be OR at this point...) P.S. "Systemic bias" is not the same as "systematic bias", and I could say the former may be a fair assessment of this scenario. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 08:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What you appear to be doing is making an argument that (what might be termed) pervasive trivial coverage (i.e. ubiquitous, but bare, mention) can demonstrate a WP:COMMONSENSE notability. Whilst I would not dismiss such an argument out of hand, I would question how such fragmentary coverage affects one of the explicit reasons for requiring "significant coverage" for WP:Notability -- that "sources address the subject directly in detail" means that "no original research is needed to extract the content". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand your argument, one must understand the context and culture of documentation in Indonesia. The subject is definitely notable in the region, and it's unlikely that it hasn't been nontrivially covered in a local magazine or newspaper. The problem is that Indonesia had very poor accessibility to the Internet and the English language until the mid-2000s. The hundreds of print magazines and newspapers that appeared prior to this are not accessible by conventional means, nor are they indexed for public access. You are judging triviality by comparing it to coverage of subjects accessible to the English speaking population. It is easy to say something is trivial, thus placing a burden of proof on the other side proving otherwise. A brief history from the Indonesian Capital Market Directory: "The company was founded in 1984 as a franchise of U.S. based Pioneer Take Out, with California Pioneer Chicken as its registered trademark. In 1998, the partnership came to an end but this did not halt the... [unreadable because of Snippet view]" —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 11:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The chain has clearly been noticed by numerous sources from The Economist to Rough Guides. The extent and manner of our coverage is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. Warden (talk) 09:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Complete and utter rubbish: "the extent and manner of our coverage", and specifically whether there is "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" is a "matter" squarely before this AfD, NOT merely "a matter of ordinary editing". I would thank Colonel Warden not to misrepresent WP:AFD, which explicitly mentions such "notability concerns" as a legitimate reason for nominating an article for deletion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Jakarta Post conducted research that showed it to be among the most popular quick service restaurants in Jakarta. This article notes that it is a continuation of one of the first quick service restaurants to enter Indonesia. This blurb in Suara Merdeka is about CFC's efforts to expand in Salatiga (in Indonesian, but that's okay). Numerous books use California Fried Chicken as an example of Indonesian companies taking Western sounding names. There is a thesis that analyzes the marketing strategy they use, while this one analyzes consumer preferences. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : I don't see any content worthy of an article in Wikipedia. Both articles (English and Indonesian) are badly written adds for yet another of the million plus fast food chain clones.p (talk) 15:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And the theses? They couldn't have been too "badly-written"; the writers graduated, after all. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudo Daoist appears to be commenting on the 2 wikipedia articles, not the sources. However, notability of the subject, and not article quality is the only factor in an AFD. --Merbabu (talk) 02:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was subtly suggesting that WP:SPAM applies to both articles.p (talk) 05:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would u suggest that Red Rooster is also spam? They are comparbale in size and style. regards --Merbabu (talk) 05:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is always a poor argument for retention -- (i) in an encyclopaedia the size of Wikipedia, non-policy-compliant material will always exist somewhere, (ii) likewise cleanup has to start somewhere. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hrafn, my question was to p. Thank you. But since you bring it up, you can't just provide new reasons to delete (and a change in your position on Red Rooster) now that your original case for deletion (ie, lack of sources) is shown to be incorrect. Smells a bit like WP:IDONTLIKEIT --Merbabu (talk) 08:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Red Rooster isn't the target of this specific AfD. That said, if http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Rooster was in AfD, based only on the content and sources of that specific article, I would suggest deletion. Both http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Rooster and http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Rooster are iffy, since they lack reliable sources. The English version has both sources, and content that can be used to resurrect all four articles from AfD, if Red Rooster were the topic of this AfD. p (talk) 00:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you claim that this chain is significant, rewrite the articles (Indonesian, English) to provide at least as much data about this chain, as is in the Red Rooster, with the appropriate citations. Reliable sources does not mean Internet only. p (talk) 00:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merbabu: (i) AfDs are an open conversation, so I have every right to respond to any comment I choose. (ii) I have not changed my "reason to delete" -- I am simply pointing out that your reason-to-keep is explicitly listed in WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. (iii) My "position on Red Rooster" IS AND ALWAYS HAVE BEEN that, per WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Arbitrary quantity, it is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT whether California Fried Chicken OR Red Rooster have one store or hundreds. WHAT IS RELEVANT is whether "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" exists for the topic of this AfD. (Incidentally, just having had a look at Red Rooster & added a number of tags for it, I would probably support its deletion, in its current state, should it be nominated.) (iv) The issue is therefore NOT WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but your ubiquitous WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT of what I have actually said. (v) Your last sentence STINKS of WP:Assume bad faith. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But sources have been provided above which you've completely ignored. Who's not "hearing"? IDONTLIKEIT is therefore a fair assumption on my behalf when responses to your original argument are ignored (lack of sources) are "not being heard" and you are providing new arguments. I never suggested Red Rooster was "CRAP" - i'd thank you not to put words in my mouth too. But at least if you'd nominated it, you'd show some consistency.

And you really really have to polish up your manners - incivility is not a replacement for a weak argument. Surely you see the irony in your last sentence. --Merbabu (talk) 09:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(i) I haven't commented upon every single source that has been mentioned in this AfD, but as far as I am aware NONE of them are simultaneously reliable, independent, and give the topic more than bare mention. (ii) Given that you repeatedly insisted on adding this citation to the article, AFTER frankie and I had agreed that it was unreliable, it would appear to be YOU WHO IS NOT LISTENING -- yet I have not accused you of WP:ILIKEIT. (iii) WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS links to WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#What about article x? -- which is PRECISELY on-point on your ENDLESS 'what about Red Rooster ... what about Red Rooster ... Red Rooster ... Red Rooster ... Red ... Red ..." commentary. (iv) citing the shortcut to a relevant Wikipedia page is NOT 'putting words in your mouth' -- so kindly cease and desist the bogus accusations. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

don't make arguments that consistently come from WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, don't make those same arguments-to-avoid over and over, and don't make wild and unsubstantiated accusations, and you might receive a more positive reception. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "It is the main brand of PT Pioneerindo Gourmet International Tbk which was listed on the Jakarta Stock Exchange in 1994." And 215 branches across Indonesia, this is no small firm. The very fact is is mentioned along with KFC in a few books would indicate it is not just a local restaurant. That makes it notable in my view. I picked up a few hits in books on Asian marketing too.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: as Merbabu is accusing me of 'ignoring' sources, the following is an attempt to make sure I've commented upon (at least in summary) all of them from this AfD and the article. (Do please let me know if I've missed any of them):
- Unreliable: [17][18][19](unpublished)[20](unpublished)[21](promotional puff-piece)
- Not directly on the subject nor significant coverage:[22](parent company's stock ticker)
- Brief (would appear to be 1/2 to 1 page generic company blurb, not "significant" or in any depth whatsoever) coverage in a business directory listing:[23]
- Bare mentions (not "significant coverage"):[24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36]
- Not independent:[37]

Does this add up to "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources"? I would say not. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once again you are ignoring the fact that these are all web sources, which, as I mentioned above, is not an appropriate survey of coverage of Indonesian topics. Wikipedia's threshold of inclusion is verifiability. All the information we've given you has been mentioned in a secondary source. Brief or not, many of these are reliable sources. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 21:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If other, non-web, reliable sources exist, then cite them (e.g. with {{cite book}} and quote the relevant material. I can hardly be blamed for failing-to-review/'ignoring' sources that nobody has presented. Specificity is required for WP:Verifiability -- so generally AfDs take notice only of specific sources that are demonstrated to exist -- not on the vague possibility of sources that might exist. "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Fairly large chain. If it operated in a Western country nobody would dream of nominating it. Too much reliance on internet sources, which may not be so common outside the developed world, is always a mistake. The fact it exists is clearly verifiable and that is enough for the existence of an article on a chain that size. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:It is a chain and it does exist. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 13:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mere existence of a chain does not make for notability. Six-Twelve is one example of a non-notable chain in the united states. p (talk) 21:06, 17 June 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bang Bang Bang (Selena Gomez & The Scene song)

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

Non-notable song. Fails WP:NSONG. Redirect reverted without comment. SummerPhD (talk) 11:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The song is a promotional single, officialy released on iTunes on June 7, as part of the Countdown to When The Sun Goes Down campaing. It is a prminent song that has charted both in Billboard and iTunes charts. The article should not be removed nor deleted, just as Hair has not been. TheDukeofKB (talk) 08:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - "Hair" has charted. "Bang Bang Bang" has not charted "on Billboard", as far as I can see (iTunes charts are not meaningful). If it has charted, please add it to the article. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. Premature article. Fails WP:NSONGS.—Kww(talk) 14:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)Rendered moot by charting during course of AFD.—Kww(talk) 19:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect – There's a huge chance of the song charting, and thus, becoming notable. ℥^nding·start 17:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Easily passes WP:NOTABILITY and WP:NSONG. Already articles about the song in the New York Post [38], MTV Australia [39] and The Hot Hits Live from LA [40] just to name a few. And just a few days after its release it's already #65 on the iTunes download chart (likely will climb as this AfD progresses). [41] To say this heavily promoted song by a hugely worldwide popular artist won't show up on the Billboard chart soon is willful ignorance. --Oakshade (talk) 00:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Update - Besides this easily passing WP:SONG, it predictably has already charted. I urge the nom to withdraw this nomination and when a major worldwide popular artist releases a single in the future, even if you don't think it passes WP:SONGS, at least wait a couple weeks to see if it charts instead of immediately AfDing it. A ton of time, effort and aggravation would've been avoided had the nom followed that common sense with this song. --Oakshade (talk) 16:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oakshade, the article clearly failed WP:NSONGS when it was created, and SummerPhd's nomination was both in good faith and quite warranted. She has shown a good comprehension of relevant policies and guidelines.You consistently read the notability notwithstanding clause exactly backwards. It means that even if the song can be demonstrated to be notable, no article should be created unless it can be bigger than a stub, not that if an article bigger than a stub can be created, the song doesn't need to pass the other criteria. The coverage of this article at the time it was created was shallow and insufficient to create an article, and it did not meet any of the established criteria. The time-wasting occurred because of the premature creation of the article, people redirecting the article when it clearly did not meet guidelines, and your constant arguing. If you would take the time to actually comprehend policies instead of insulting others comprehension of them, life would go much more smoothly. There's no excuse for creating articles before the song passes WP:NSONGS. I urge you exercising that same common sense that you want others to use to aid in the prevention of such problems in the future by not disputing obviously meritorious deletion nominations.—Kww(talk) 19:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kww, it was quite clear it passed WP:NSONGS after having done a simple g-news search (see WP:BEFORE which clearly was not done here) and the article could easily be "bigger than a stub" based on the significant coverage by reliable sources alone and it quickly became "bigger than a stub" even before it charted so that "bigger than a stub" demand is moot. And my point was, despite this song easily passing WP:NSONGS and more importantly, WP:GNG which trumps WP:NSONGS which this passes, the nom still nominated a highly publicized single by an extremely worldwide popular artist almost immediately after the article was created. The very top of WP:NOTABILITY states "it is best treated with common sense" and it despite the article clearly passing WP:NSONGS, it was common sense that this song had a strong (I believe obvious and I was correct) chance of charting soon and that it's common sense to hold off on an AfD in such a case. Over 27k bytes of editors time and effort and WP space would've been saved. That's an indisputable fact. --Oakshade (talk) 20:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read the words in WP:NSONGS and quit distorting it to mean what you want. A song which has substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources meets the GNG, but does not meet WP:NSONGS. Passing the GNG without meeting the relevant subject notability guideline generally means that we should not have the article. It didn't pass WP:NSONGS until it charted, and it had not done so when the song was nominated. Common sense is to not create the article in the first place, and not edit-war the redirect that SummerPhd had installed. Common sense also means that you should treat her with respect, and not state that her actions wasted your time. You were under no obligation whatsoever to respond, and certainly under no obligation to misrepresent policies and guidelines in an extended argument. Your ability to predict the future is not at issue, as we don't have articles based on our opinion of what will happen in the future ... hopefully you don't disagree with everyone else as to what WP:CRYSTAL means, too.—Kww(talk) 00:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kww, you're under the false impression that WP:NSONGS, which this song passes, trumps WP:GNG. It doesn't. If a song never charted, it can pass WP:NSONGS and more importantly WP:GNG. And you're completely failing to understand the point of using common sense. While you're attempting a straw man argument and claiming I'm "disrespecting her" and editing waring (where?), you're coming a across like a failed knight in shiny armor. If Justin Beiber releases a highly publicized single tomorrow that receives significant coverage from multiple reliable sources as this one has, then it passes WP:GNG. But even if you disagree with that, users should use common sense, as is stipulated at the top of WP:NOTABILITY, and not AfD it immediately to wait to see if it charts as it likely will. Had the nom done that here, this whole mess of an AfD would've totally been avoided. You can't get around that, Kww. If you want to advocate more time wasting, that's your choice but most editors disagree with you.--Oakshade (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't you that edit-warred the redirect, it was an IP editor. Sorry if I didn't make it clear that it wasn't you. Whether an SNG trumps the GNG or vice versa is not universally agreed, so we can disagree in good faith over that. However, I am getting extremely tired of you saying things pass WP:NSONGS when they do not. The first test in passing WP:NSONGS is to pass the GNG: "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", but that is only the first test. It then must have charted, won an award, or been covered by multiple artists. Then, after having done all that to to achieve notability, there has to be enough material from reliable sources so that we can create more than a stub. Don't accuse me of violating WP:POINT or SummerPhd of not having any common sense, address that issue: since the song had not charted, won an award, or been covered, it can't pass the second test. At the time the article was nominated, there was not enough material to create more than a stub. Therefore, at the time of nomination, it didn't pass WP:NSONGS. If you cannot see that, please review boolean algebra. If you still disagree, explain why, don't assert that it passes without explaining how it passed all three tests. Like I said, we can disagree as to whether it had to pass WP:NSONGS or not, but it clearly did not pass it at the moment it was nominated for deletion.

As for the right thing to do with your hypothetical Bieber single, it's to do what SummerPhd did: redirect the article until it passes WP:NSONGS, and nominate it for deletion if someone undoes the redirection.—Kww(talk) 01:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In every example of when WP:NOTABILITY comes into some kind of conflict with one of the sub-guidelines like WP:NSONGS, WP:NOTABILITY trumps the lesser ones. And immediately nominating an article of a highly publicized song by a hugely popular artist which passes WP:N and it's WP:GNG when there is a likely chance of it charting (even the New York Post predicted it would chart!) just isn't using common sense. If you feel it's okay to fly in the face of using common sense and exercising yet another unnecessary 28k bytes of bandwidth, that's your opinion. But most editors use common sense and try to avoid such an act of folly. If the nom had held off for a couple of weeks, and it would've make perfect common sense to do that, this entire AfD would've been avoided. That's a fact, Kww. You can't avoid that. If the same thing happens with Bieber (and it will), if you or another user prefers to act out in another exercise in frivolity, you'll be proven the case again. I'm done here. Enjoy your last rant. --Oakshade (talk) 15:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - With due respect to the "hugely worldwide popular artist", the iTunes chart is moot and the future charting in Billboard is rather tough to verify. The blog posting at the NYPost gives us zero usable content. The usable content from MTV Australia is that she "trash talk(s) an ex-boyfriend". Finally, the blogish post from the radio show "Hot Hits" adds speculation that the song might refer to Nick Jonas and Justin Bieber at various places. While the song clearly fails WP:MUSIC, we can probably sting together speculation from various gossipy sources to dish a bit about what Gomez, Toby Gad, Priscilla Renea and Meleni Meleni) may think of various characters in Gomez's dating story. Wikipedia, however, is not the place for that. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - A New York Post reporter "blog" is not what WP:SPS|blog posting is about. That guideline is about exactly what it states, "self published" material like personal Live Journal-type blogs by non-professionals and not widely circulated reliable sources as the New York Post is. In this case, the "blog" is by New York Post reporter Jarett Wieselman, not some self-published teenager. And your analysis of the MTV Australia and The Hot Hits Live from LA about this topic is actually verifying this passing WP:NOTABILITY and its WP:GNG, which by the way trumps WP:MUSIC (which this easily passes anyway per the coverage it has received), not the other way around.--Oakshade (talk) 02:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - The blog section of NYPost does not have the same fact checking that gets the paper its status as a WP:RS. In any case, taking those three sources, we have the following pseudo-article: "Bang Bang Bang" is a song by Selena Gomez[Hot Hits] or Selena Gomez and the Scene.[NYPost] In the song, Gomez might be singing about her failed relationship with Nick Jonas and happiness with ~~current lover~~ "JB".[MTV Australia] Hot Hits asks, ''"What do you guys think of these vicious lyrics? Is Selena talking about Nick Jonas and Justin Bieber on the track?"''<nowiki>[Hot Hits] The song has not charted." That's "enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article"?!?! - SummerPhD (talk) 03:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Charging that the New York Post and specifically reporter Jarett Wieselman of not fact checking is quite slanderous (I'm considering removing your comment per WP:BLP which applies to talk pages). You need to demonstrate evidence that this part of the New York Post does not fact check. Otherwise the New York Post is a WP:RS whether a section by a reporter is called a "blog" or not. For your other points, even if you don't like the content written by WP:RS sources about this topic, it still is covered by multiple reliable sources and easily passes WP:NOTABILITY and its WP:GNG.--Oakshade (talk) 03:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        SummerPhD's statement doesn't even approach a BLP violation, Oakshade. Statements like that do your cause more harm than good.—Kww(talk) 03:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        The BLP template states very clearly "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous." Charging a reporter of shoddy journalism and not "fact checking" is certainly contentious and there has been zero evidence of that charge. --Oakshade (talk) 04:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        My "charge" is that the blog section of the NYPost's website is not subject to the same fact checking that the paper's regular content gets. If you believe otherwise, feel free to show it. I said NOTHING about the reporter. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        First you claimed that the New York Post "blog" is a "self published source" which of course is nonsense, and now you're claiming some kind of insight that anything written in the "blog" section of the New York Post, which includes reporter Jarett Wieselman, doesn't have "same fact checking that gets the paper its status as a WP:RS." Where is your evidence that this section of the New York Post and reporter Jarett Wieselman has apparently shoddy enough fact checking that it should lose its "status as a WP:RS"? Per WP:BLP, provide evidence of this contentious material or don't claim it.--Oakshade (talk) 04:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        What "facts" are you hoping to cite? It's "100 percent guilt free!" or perhpas that it "has also been on repeat for an hour in the PopWrap HQ"? Where's this "contentious...potentially libellous" material? - SummerPhD (talk) 05:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Now I don't know what your point is. First you claim that a section of the New York Post is "self published" so that it has "zero usable content." When that was quickly discounted, you then brought up some strange original research claim that the "blog" section of the New York Post and its reporters who write for it have some kind of sub-WP:RS fact checking, which is where the contentious charge of the reporter is. In fact the New York Post review of this song is completely relevant and already cited. Your claim here about the New York Post and its reporters is what was contentious, not what the reporter wrote in his article which of course wouldn't be a Wikipedia WP:BLP violation as the reporter didn't write his article in Wikipedia. I thought that was obvious.--Oakshade (talk) 06:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I think I see the problem. To my knowledge, the blog sections of newspaper websites are not subjected to the same scrutiny that their regular columns are. If you are aware of some indication to the contrary in the case of the Post, it might establish that the blog post in question is reliable, though it is clearly not significant coverage. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        SummberPhD, you've provided absolutely zero evidence outside of "to my knowledge" (see WP:No Original Research) that this part of the New York Post outside of the semantics of this reporter's section being called a "blog" is not a reliable source. The New York Post follows every guideline of WP:RS with independence of the topic and has editorial control over its content. If you don't think so, you need to provide actual evidence as such. The burden that any part of the New York Post and content by its reporter Jarett Wieselman is unreliable is on you. Just saying "to my knowledge" doesn't cut it. And an in-depth review of the song is in fact significant coverage. --Oakshade (talk) 18:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        It's a moot point unless you feel it's "100 percent guilt free!" and that it "has also been on repeat for an hour in the PopWrap HQ" is substantial coverage. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        There's in fact far more than those two sentence fragments in the New York Post article, and including all the coverage from the multiple sources, it's very highly covered very easily passing WP:NOTABILITY and WP:SONGS.--Oakshade (talk) 00:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I say keep the article because VEVO has released her full song and she has confirmed it would be released as a single. I don't think it should be deleted even though it is a little premature because there are references. --DisneyFriends (talk) 17:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - There is no question that it has been released. The question is whether it is notable. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am in complete agree with DisneyFriends i say we keep. Elektrik Band 19:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - How it is notable? - SummerPhD (talk) 20:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Selena Gomez & The Scene until the song charts. The sources, IMO, are not reliable enough and furthermore, the song is not significantly covered enough in these sources to meet WP:GNG. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC) Now that it has charted, I change my !vote to Keep. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only two reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. ۞ Tbhotch^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 03:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What? Two reliable sources (actually there's much more than that) is demonstration of passing WP:GNG. --Oakshade (talk) 03:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which, SG&S website? Youtube? iTunes? CDWow? Facebook??? If those are reliable sources keep it, but wait, they are not. ۞ Tbhotch^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 03:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ignoring sources like the New York Post and MTV Australia and claiming the only sources are Facebook or whatever is a classic straw man argument. Even you're admitting it has at least two reliable sources, which in fact indicated passing WP:GNG.--Oakshade (talk) 04:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not. Two sources are not "significant coverage". It fails it. ۞ Tbhotch^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 04:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In fact 2 entire articles (there are more than 2 actually) written about this topic is easily "significant coverage." Topic can pass WP:GNG if there's just one article that gives significant coverage. --Oakshade (talk) 04:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As Oakshade apparently is not understandig what is GNG, and has a COI defending an indefensible article, I'll explain it:

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content -> N "The song was written by Selena Gomez, Toby Gad, Priscilla Renea, Meleni Meleni.", "The song was released exclusively on U.S. iTunes on June 7.", "It is the first song from the iTunes Countdown of the album, and it will be followed by "Dices (Who Says Spanish version)" on June 14 and "Love You Like A Love Song" on June 21.", "It is the second song[2] released from the album." Absoulutely ALL unsourced and probable OR.
"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. -> N Facebook, CDwow, Youtube, probably PopCrush are not reliable sources, the most reliable here is The New York Post with no doubt.
"Sources", for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. -> N First of all, the article does not states why it is notable. Being a song released by Selena Gomez does not help it to pass WP:NSONGS. Second, Selena Gómez website is not a secondary source.
"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. ? The article can easily be merged into When the Sun Goes Down (Selena Gomez & the Scene album).
"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not.[5] -> N Oakshade is commenting that "Bang x3" has charted on iTunes, and therefore it will chart in the near future. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and unless IT CHART the song has not charted giving no reason why the song is notable, nor why the article is vital and important to have it on Wikipedia. I won't reply, I'm not going to waste my time unlike Oakshade is doing it with this AFD. ۞ Tbhotch^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 04:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tbhotch, you are demonstrating your complete lack of understanding of WP:GNG and only making up straw man arguments and arguing against them.

"Significant coverage" - The New York Post, MTV Australia, OK! (magazine), Metro (British newspaper) and The Hot Hits Live from LA have all written articles specifically about this song. Y
"Reliable" -The New York Post, MTV Australia, OK! (magazine), Metro (British newspaper) and The Hot Hits Live from LA are all reliable sources as they all have editorial control over their content.Y
"Sources" - The New York Post, MTV Australia, OK! (magazine), Metro (British newspaper) and The Hot Hits Live from LA are all reliable sources and are all secondary sources.Y
"Independent of the subject" - The New York Post, MTV Australia, OK! (magazine), Metro (British newspaper) and The Hot Hits Live from LA are all reliable sources and are all not Selena Gomez or Hollywood Records.Y (I can't believe I actually had to point that out.) --Oakshade (talk) 04:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail. This has nothing to do with who the sources are. If the gods of every major religion in the world wrote articles in the New York Times, New England Journal of Medicine and Time saying (as these sources do) "it's got a good beat and you can dance to it", that would NOT be significant coverage. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - You seemed to misunderstand the "Significant coverage" point. It's that multiple reliable sources published articles completely dedicated to the subject, not just who the sources are. The coverage was much more than that sentence fragment you supplied.--Oakshade (talk) 04:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - The term "significant coverage" does not have to do with the number of sources, who the sources are or that the articles be "completely dedicated to the subject". As the GNG you keep referring to says, "'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 but it need not be the main topic of the source material." I am saying that the authors' opinions on the quality of the song and bare speculation that the song's four authors might have been writing about this, that or the other boyfriend is not discussing the subject in detail. We do not have detailed coverage. We have "there's a new song, I like it and I guess it might be about her love life". - SummerPhD (talk) 12:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Doesn't have to do with the number of sources? WP:GNG specifically addresses the issue of the number of sources: "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources." And "trivial" is defined by WP:GNG by the example of a "one sentence mention" in a work about a different topic. The multiple reliable sources give far beyond a "one sentence mention" and are in fact articles specifically about this topic. That's significant and not "trivial" ("one sentence mention"). --Oakshade (talk) 15:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        The term "significant coverage" does not have to do with the number of sources. It has to do with addressing "the subject directly in detail", presumably beyond "there's a single, I like it, ~~the other three authors and~~ Gomez might be talking about her love life". GNG further says a "one sentence mention" is plainly trivial while two books totaling over 900 pages are not trivial. The coverage here is in between plainly trivial and plainly non-trivial. I hold that a handful of people saying "I like this song, in might be about her love life" is trivial. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Multiple reviews and analysis of this topic by multiple reliable sources is directly addressing the subject in detail. Look at the article now, it's all in detail and all from the multiple reliable sources that covered the topic directly and in detail. You might not like the detail, but that has nothing to do with WP:GNG. And what part of WP:GNG's "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources" do you not understand? If you'd like WP:GNG to omit the word "number" from it, you need to make your case on the WP:N talk page, not invent your own version of WP:GNG in an AfD. And multiple articles by reliable sources directly about the topic is plainly far beyond a "one sentence mention" in a work about a different topic. As you've gone from attempting to argue that the New York Post is a self published source to painstakingly extracting and cherry-picking sentence fragments from the coverage and WP:GNG and attempting to create new meanings of them (see WP:GAMETYPE), you're fighting a losing argument-shifting battle here --Oakshade (talk) 18:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. A few decent sources, and enough content for an article. J Milburn (talk) 13:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Also, the song debuted at number 94 and number 96 on Billboard Hot 100 and Canadian Hot 100, respectively, this week. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 15:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has charted in the US and Canada now. Pancake (talk) 16:00, 16 June 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 17:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Cherukuri

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

Autobiography of non-notable, self published author. Cites on article consist of listings of self published book. Fails WP:AUTHOR Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This author has written a book which includes information about the Mayans - a topic of interest to the general public due to the impending 2012 and the mayan prophecy. This page should not be deleted due to these reasons. It points to resources that the public can use to understand more about this culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cantm (talk • contribs) 19:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about the author, not the book or the subject of the book. The author does not inherit notability from the subject of his book. As for the 2012 and Mayan culture, Wikipedia has both already covered without this article. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Absolutely no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find reliable source coverage either. Maybe he'll hit it big in a few years, we can always re-create then. Qrsdogg (talk) 23:28, 14 June 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.

Musical Dark Horse

The result was Speedy Delete. Article was blanked by author and deleted per WP:CSD#G7 (non-admin closure). Singularity42 (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Claims to be the "second largest session musician agency in New York". Only sources cited are press releases, facebook pages, and a page that anyone can edit, none of which are reliable sources. A Google search reveals no additional sources. Singularity42 (talk) 10:15, 10 June 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. -- DQ (t) (e) 23:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Urdu words and their origin

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

A list intended to become a list of all Urdu words and their etymologies? In other words, an etymological dictionary of Urdu, all in a single page at Wikipedia? I have a pretty high tolerance for pages that others consider a violation of WP:NAD, but even I have to draw the line at this. The place to list all Urdu words and their etymologies is Wiktionary, giving each word its own page, and of course writing it in Urdu script, not merely romanization. There's already a {{dicdef}} tag, but the page isn't really in a state to be transwikied to Wiktionary anyway. —Angr (talk) 09:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Angr (talk) 09:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article's creator has blanked this article and re-posted it at Origin of Urdu words; I am adding the title to the nomination. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 10:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also to List of Urdu words of Arabic origin (which I have deleted right away). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 10:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I undid the "cut and paste" page move and made it a proper page move. List of Urdu words and their origin is now a redirect to Origin of Urdu words, and the entire history is at the latter title. The change in title does not change anything in my rationale for deleting the article. —Angr (talk) 11:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi the article has now been posted under the appropriate wikipedia article Origin of urdu words which describes the origin of urdu words. The article list of urdu words of arabic origin has now been moved to wikitionary. similarly the article list of urdu words and their origin is no longer required as the list of words has been moved to wikitionary. The complete list of words is added to wikitionary thanks. UrduChat (talk) 11:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)— UrduChat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Move to wiktionary for whatever passes as history attribution on wiktionary (which is very very weak) 65.94.47.63 (talk) 06:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No need to move to wiktionary The article is perfectly fine and he has already moved the required article to wikitionary. Dumpweki (talk) 23:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion tag is for the wrong page

Hi the deletion tag is for the wrong article. I have changed the article to the correct title "origin of urdu words" and I have moved the list of words to wikitionary. The current article contains examples and is not a list of words. I had also left the message that the previous articles "list of urdu words and their origin" and "list of urdu words of arabic origin" can be deleted as they are no longer required. I dont understand why there is a tag on this page as it is different to the previous page and is not a list of words. I am assuming that the tag was transferred from the previous page to this page? UrduChat (talk) 11:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)— UrduChat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

As you can see from my comment above, I have added the latter article to this discussion. (Contrary to your claim, it is all but identical to the original page, as can be seen from the article history.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 13:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- - Yes but I was referring to the title and the change in the nature of the article. The content is similar but now its no longer as a list of words as those have been moved to wikitionary. Its now just a short wikipedia article on origin of urdu words with a few examples. I will be making it more encyclopedic as it progresses. UrduChat (talk) 15:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)— UrduChat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- UrduChat, I would be willing to withdraw the AFD if I see the article becoming something similar to the article Persian vocabulary, i.e. an encyclopedic article about both the native origins and the foreign influences on the Urdu lexicon, in which paragraphs of prose (supported by cited references to reliable sources) predominate, rather than simple lists of words. Ideally, such an article (which could be renamed Urdu vocabulary) would also compare Urdu with Hindi, discussing the ways in which the two languages' vocabularies are similar as well as the ways in which they are different. —Angr (talk) 13:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - In my opinion Persian vocabulary looks like an article that should be in wikitionary, the discussion of the nouns,tense etc. The heading of the article is fine as it has been changed and is not a list. I will be starting with urdu and arabic and then move onto turkish and finally persian. I can put some comparisons with other languages later in the article. The article is going to be short as the words have been moved to wikitionary only a few examples have been used in this article. UrduChat (talk) 15:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)— UrduChat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment. It seems like this is in the process of being sorted out. Has everything that ought to go to Wiktionary been sent there? If so, the pages here would qualify for speedy deletion to close this discussion, but I do want to make sure that any available work has been preserved, somewhere. I agree heartily that an article in prose about the Urdu vocabulary and its history and development would be a welcome addition. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi everything that was needed to be sent to wikitionary has been sent. The article now is only a short article on the origin of urdu words with a few examples and no deletion is necessary as the previous pages have already been deleted. The article will be made more encyclopedic as it progresses. I will be adding more information to the article later. UrduChat (talk) 15:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)— UrduChat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is this a joke? why is there a deletion tag on this page? There is absolutely nothing wrong with the current structure of the article. Username UrduChat has compromised enough, he has already deleted two articles even though he showed you examples of similar articles. He finally moved that to Wiktionary and now this article over here is in really good shape. so why is there still a deletion tag in the article? this constitutes to nothing more than the violation of Wikipedia rules. Having a hindu person discussing a muslim article is like having a nazi discussing a jewish article. Nothing is going to get resolved and he would want to simply cause troubles for the article.

@UrduChat welcome to Wikipedia. you should have begun to realize by now that things in Wikipedia are really difficult. I would like you to be aware of other users as well, there are lots of users on Wikipedia who claim to belong to a particular ethnicity or religion but are completely different. The best way to resolve this issue would be for muslims to form our own wiki, then it would be like YouTube where there is complete Independence. There were a couple of fake muslim wikis that were started by non muslims particularly hindu rss but all of them were debunked as fakes. The article is perfectly fine and there is no issue with it, the deletion tag and dictionary def tag should be removed from the page. Dumpweki (talk) 23:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi thanks for your discussions. i feel that perhaps its best for Muslims to start our own website as i dont feel that issues would get resolved. honestly i started a simple article i did not know that i would be spending so much time just in the discussion page and now spending that same amount of time in the deletion discussion page. i have deleted a lot of articles and i gave in a lot but i feel that maybe its better to go our own way as people would try to crop up issues again and again. UrduChat (talk) 07:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't fight religious battles here. If the article is about language, a Hindu (most of whom speak languages closely related to Urdu) may well make important contributions. If it's about religion, perhaps indeed it belongs on a Muslim site rather than on one that tries to be religiously neutral. —Tamfang (talk) 05:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decide on a name, and move to Wiktionary. The supplied 'source' material is a forum post containing a raw list of words. I do not expect any encyclopedic content to come out of this. If the creator intended to create an encyclopedia article then he should have started this article in userspace or WP:AFC, and added content there until it was ready for prime time. Article title is still problematic, because this is still a list of words, even though the title has now changed. Any serious treatment of Urdu should be working primarily with the Urdu and Arabic scripts, with romanized words as an aid for Anglophones. It is my understanding that Wiktionary can handle this. Elizium23 (talk) 08:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No need to move to Wiktionary The page Persian vocabulary also contains table of list of words as Examples at the end of the article. The article is not a list of words, it only has an example of words after the description. There is nothing problematic with the title of the article and as he mentioned it is going to be a short article. He has compromised a lot, the tags should be removed. see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_French_loanwords_in_Persian Dumpweki (talk) 23:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NOT dictionary. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 15:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. 144.131.190.21 (talk · contribs) has admitted to being the same person as 124.180.201.183 (talk · contribs) and has entered multiple !votes in this discussion. Elizium23 (talk) 21:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I already told you in the beginning that its my ip adress. The ip address must have changed, I did not make a secret about it. I cant control the ip address. I dont understand why you are taking an accusing tone and trying to frame me. Maintain good will in wikipedia. Edit: just great now the ip address changed again. Here you go made a username for sake of discussion, I will add it to my edits to avoid confusion and discuss tomorrow or day after if i get some free time. Dumpweki (talk) 23:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Properly cited information about Urdu etymology is welcome on Wiktionary. Anthem 09:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Anthem of joy has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Claritas [42]. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NAD. Cannot be moved to Wiktionary in this form. Sandstein 19:14, 18 June 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 17:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Heineken Cup Final

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

Page provides no additional detail to that already included at 2007–08 Heineken Cup. Insufficient references to establish notability per WP:GNG are included. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I haven't looked deeply enough for sources, but if the consensus develops that the article doesn't meet GNG, then I would suggest a redirect to 2007–08 Heineken Cup#Final. Jenks24 (talk) 15:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Event had significant coverage in reliable independent sources. It meets WP:GNG as GNG is currently written. --Bob (talk) 15:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment added. Also meets WP:Sports event as it is The final series (or single game when there is not a series) determining the champion of a top league Nominator should look at WP:DEL#CONTENT. Article can easily be improved upon. To quote: If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. --Bob (talk) 20:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment added. The nominating editor has also been blanking and redirecting the preceeding finals articles for this tournament (1996-2006) then removing the links on the navigation template stating that the articles do not exist. --Bob (talk) 18:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh, look at me, I'm a little tell-tale. Those articles were redirected nearly a year ago, and have remained as redirects for that period. Has anyone bothered to add any detail? No. There is no further detail on these articles than already on the main article and thus they are redundant. Yes, the topic is notable, but is an article really necessary if the information already exists elsewhere? Nouse4aname (talk) 18:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now now play nice Gnevin (talk) 20:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm playing perfectly nicely thanks. There is no relevance in "Bobs" comments about edits I made a year ago other than to attempt to make me look like I have been disruptively redirecting loads of articles recently, which is clearly not the case. Nouse4aname (talk) 21:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability aside, what is the point in having an article that provides no further detail to that already contained on the main article? This is unnecessary duplication. See also Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Individual_games_or_series: "Articles about notable games should have well-sourced prose, not merely a list of stats." Nouse4aname (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article should be kept and expanded. Instead of being deletionist and simply redirecting this article title to another page, add the content! It's all out there on the interweb. – Pee Jay 21:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – It seems to me, based on what I read in the Heineken Cup article, that the event is to rugby what the Champions League is to soccer. We have articles on all of the Champions League finals, and I don't see why the Heineken Cup shouldn't receive the same treatment. WP:NSPORTS would seem to be consistent with this. Also, it looks like the article has now been expanded to include a summary of the game. This certainly isn't "merely a list of stats" anymore. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:Sports event, this is a final of a major sporting event. Mo ainm~Talk 21:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it just needs to be expanded, it is the final of a major notable sporting competition. FruitMonkey (talk) 21:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Major sports final. Gnevin (talk) 14:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP - we have articles from 1996-2011 for the Heineken Cup Final, how would deleting one of the year be any helpful..better to expand than delete..?..--Stemoc (talk) 06:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Should not have been nominated on its own as it is part of a series. If the nominator doesn't think such articles should exist he should have nominated all of them. Picking on one, perhaps in the hope of creating a precedent, is not acceptable. Alex Middleton (talk) 23:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as far as "notability" goes, the nominator clearly doesn't know much about rugby.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although I'm not an expert on rugby, it still looks good enough, providing details and a lot of references as well, so keep. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 12:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Major sports final. Other finals can be improved also but need to be kept. This article in its current state is very notable.--Fernandosmission (talk) 12:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a major final, just as everyone above has said. AIRcorn (talk) 01:29, 17 June 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 Alfredo Di Stéfano. -- DQ (t) (e) 23:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alfredo Di Stéfano Trophy (testimonial match)

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

Non-notable, non-competitive football testimonial. Xboxandhalo2 (talk) 08:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Celtic F.C., then move to the as-yet uncreated 1966–67 Celtic F.C. season when that article turns blue. Giant Snowman 12:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Agree with the above. Not notable enough for a stand-alone article. Argyle 4 Life^talk 14:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Wouldn't it make more sense to merge into Alfredo Di Stéfano since the match was for him? Xboxandhalo2 (talk) 03:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Alfredo Di Stéfano, as 1966–67 Celtic F.C. season is currently a redlink and it seem highly unlikely that it will be created before this AfD is closed. Jenks24 (talk) 14:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 18:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MVP Olympics

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

The article would appear to be the sports day for a Philippines company. This is hardly notable. The original author has removed both the notability tag and a PROD with no effort to improve the article. The biography paragraph seems to has no relevance to the rest of the article. Nearly all the links in the table go to redirects or disambig pages. Malcolma (talk) 08:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I had added the "notability" tag, and I agree that this company sports day is simply not a notable event. (Though I'd love to know what the "Shall We Dance" and "Mardi Gras" events consist of; all we have at my company's sports days are footraces, volleyball and limbo.) Dawn Bard (talk) 18:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boogyboy1978: It is a sports day for all the companies of Mr. Manuel V. Pangilinan, the CEO of First Pacific with head quarter in Hong Kong. IT is not a company sports but a group of companies battle for supremacy. It is notable for all the company owned by MVP. "Shall We Dance" is like a sports dance competition patterned from the program of one of MVP's company, TV5 (television company, while "Mardi Gras" is a fun run competition where all competitors required to wear mascot or any fantasy dress...User: Boogyboy1978 (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2011

this article should not be deleted. although not as big as Philippines national sports games such as Palarong Pambansa, many companies still involved here and one of the contested sports gathering in MVP Group of Companies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boogyboy1978 (talk • contribs) 08:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable event, unencyclopedic article. Keb25 (talk) 12:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 18:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BestAddress HTML Editor

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

This doesnt appear to be notable. I can only find one source that looks usable[43] and no book sources. There are a few product reviews online, but they are not in depth and don't have an author. It has been known by this name for over five years, according to the 2005 report by the creator, which is used as a reference on the article. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nominator. Searching for the product's name in Google Web only returns unique 937 results, most of which are shareware sites or are sites involved in software piracy. The remaining are blogs, forums, and sources that fail WP:RS. The article claims the product has to have won 40 awards, the lack of coverage is suspicious and suggests advertising intent. Searching for "BestAddress HTML Editor" AND award -"Creating websites has never been easier with this multi-award-winning HTML editor" (to filter out shareware sites with the standard product description), Google returns 426 results, none of which appear to be RS. Rilak (talk) 09:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. It's easy to win awards; some webs sites give them away like candy. -- Whpq (talk) 14:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Awards are significant notice by third parties and should not be dismissed out-of-hand. This has been seriously reviewed and the review was favorable. I don't like the review criteria. I think it skews the results to those programs that are promoted to reviewers. I would much prefer a software criteria that goes by how big a user and/or developer community downloads and supports the software. Nevertheless, this software meets wikipedia's flawed criteria and should be kept. Dlw20070716 (talk) 01:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Which awards has it won? And how do we verify the size of the user/developer community? We need reliable & independent sources for those facts. If you know of any serious reviews, please indicate where we can locate it. The tucows.com review is not critical and the author is not selective. see http://www.drff.com/ John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The awards are the usual hodgepodge of stuff from unreliable websites. See this. -- Whpq (talk) 10:19, 14 June 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 17:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Numerical Analysis (book)

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

This article began as a list of errata for an undergraduate textbook and other inappropriate information. After four years it has been whittled down to two sentences. Not adequately notable. Dolphin (t) 05:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a common name for such textbooks. [44] 65.94.47.63 (talk) 07:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being a common name for such textbooks is not a reason for deletion but a reason for moving the article to a better title. I am neutral for now as my experience with numerical anaysis was 40 years ago. We need the experts to take a look. A text that has gone through 8 editions may well be notable. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I was only able to dig up one real review (it is also listed in MathSciNet but the description there only copies from the preface rather than being an independent review). The review I found was about a quite old edition that appears to be significantly different from the present one. I added it to the article, but I don't think there's a lot to draw on in the way of third-party reliable sources about the subject that would provide content for our article, and I don't think the existing sources are enough for WP:GNG. On the other hand there are maybe 150 or so papers in Google scholar that cite this book and maybe if someone combs through them carefully it would be possible to find a few of them that say something nontrivial about it rather than merely using it to source some standard algorithm. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete. A common name is no reason for deletion but being a common book might be. Other than being in the 9th edition, I see nothing indicating that this book is particularly notable at the moment. If someone can extend the article and providing convincing sources that the book is standard work in its field as well, it can be kept but in its current shape it sould be deleted.--Kmhkmh (talk) 05:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Probably not notable by the standards described at WP:NBOOK; note that item 4 there specifically excludes textbooks. Looking at Category:Mathematics books, I see that most books there are more notable than the average textbook. Is there any evidence that the same is true of this book? David Eppstein's comment above suggests that it's not impossible, but I'd like to see something more specific. Jowa fan (talk) 05:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NBOOKS seems to be geared toward fiction and a math textbook is a very different animal. For standard subjects publishers churn out new editions for the lucrative college market and they are financially motivated to keep updating to reduce used book sales. These books are reviewed in publications such as the American Mathematical Monthly publish reviews because that's partly why such publications exist, and they are used a references because authors kept their copy when they originally took the course, but in reality such books cover the same material in more or less the same way and are generally interchangeable in terms of content. I happen to own a copy of the third edition by my college years (it has a pretty pastel cover) and have used it as a reference in WP articles, but I wouldn't consider it a subject of encyclopedic value.--RDBury (talk) 09:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? Book reviews are why the Monthly exists? That is extremely remote from the truth, to say the least. Look at a few issues of it. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, you said "partly", but still potentially misleading. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:55, 12 June 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 17:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ballast (band)

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

Contested PROD. Band with no reliable sources failing notability criteria and WP:BAND Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, fails the notability test. I'm not sure the article even actually asserts notability. fr33k man ^-simpleWP- 17:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: With few references, most non-reliable, and with an interesting Controversy section that has: "Peripheral parties have alleged that all but four of the members of Ballast are actually racoons." - Definately deserves to be scrapped, fails WP:OR...unless major re-work is somehow managed. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 09:09, 14 June 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) 19:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Futuristics

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

Non-notable group, fails WP:BAND Only trivial coverage CTJF83 23:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 00:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no significant coverage about the music production duo going by the name of "The Futuristics". Searches for the names of the individual members also drew a blank. -- Whpq (talk) 16:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This page is about a notable production team named "The Futuristics" and should not be deleted. I have posted official ASCAP writing credits, which confirm they have produced for major top 40 artist. I also included many other references, which unmistakably note that they are indeed a production team that has created music that has been listened to by millions of people. -- DerekAC7 —Preceding undated comment added 07:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Your sources are poor 3 & 4 don't mention the Futuristics...in fact, do any of your sources mention the futuristics? The ones I looked up don't...well 17 does, but it looks like a poor source...sorry, doesn't cut it. CTJF83 12:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ctif83 - The Futuristics are mentioned on the official Lonely Island webpage (source 17), citing that they produced "The Golden Rule" featuring Justin Timberlake and Lady Gaga. Please don't make this more difficult than it has to be. They are obviously a notable production team if they have had a placement with these two artist.
  - So...they are on 1 out of 17 sources? Plus, who knows how reliable "the lonely island" website is. If they really produced a Gaga or Timberlake song, it would either be on their website, or one that is clearly reliable. CTJF83 07:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - ASCAP credits are useful for verifying facts, but are not so useful for establishing notability. All that the ASACP credits tell us is that one or both of the production duo wrote the song. Writing a song does not establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 12:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I understand ASCAP credits only verify the writers, however, if you look at the songs they wrote they happen to be for major label artist, which have sold millions of copies. This production team had their track played on Saturday Night Live last week featuring Lady Gaga and Justin Timberlake. This should be a no brainer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.155.161 (talk) 07:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"'Comment"' - "The Futuristics" are a notable group. There are credits to prove it and therefore should be no issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.75.113.225 (talk) 21:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Comment" - Your questioning how reliable The Lonely Island website is seems to not hold much weight. This is a group of writers/comedians on Saturday Night Live, signed to Universal Republic, whose music features huge artists. This is their official website so unless proven otherwise shouldn't we assume all the content is valid?

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - Please see WP:RS to understand what Wikipedia considers to be a reliable source. And in any case, simply being credited with production does not establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 11:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have read the above mentioned link and Wikipedia does consider my sources reliable as they meet all of it's requirements. Also, thank you for acknowledging that they were credited on these productions. Now, please look a step further to understand that the productions they were credited on were with major label artist and have been heard by millions. This draws me to the conclusion that if the songs they have credits on are notable, they indeed should be considered a notable production team. Thank you
  - Reply - I doubt that the The Lonely Island website would pass muster as a reliable source. In any case, none of the sources provide significant coverage about the production group. A bunch of credits doesn't establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply - Let's be clear that this is a production group and not an artist. Production groups, especially new ones, don't have significant media coverage because they are behind the scenes. Nevertheless, they are notable and should be covered by Wikipedia because they have songs that have been heard by millions, which can be inferred by the production credits provided. For example, "Boomerang" - DJ Felli Fel ft. Pitbull, Akon, and Jermaine Dupri is a song that ASCAP lists The Futuristics as official writers. "Boomerang" has been played on Big Boy's Neighborhood (Power 106), a nationally syndicated program (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:rruI94QppvkJ:www.power106.fm/playlist/index.aspx+big+boys+neighborhood+playlist+boomerang&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com). Although you must look at two sources to draw this conclusion, the fact that The Futuristics have had placements on nationally syndicated songs heard by millions can be made nonetheless. Therefor, there should be no argument regarding this productions teams notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.155.161 (talk) 19:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Reply - In order to be perfectly clear, they are in production, and are also songwriters, but are not performing artists. Correct? As producers, they still need to meet inclusion criteria, and production credits don't cut it. They haven't for other producers, and they won't here. If they have won a Grammy, or had an entire article written about them in Billboard, or something like that, then there would be a leg to stand on. I have found no evidence of any of these things. If you are aware of articles written about them, please bring them forward. Being credited for producing songs, no matter how performs them, will not result in the artcile being kept no matter how may times you insist that credits should be enough. -- Whpq (talk) 20:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Reply - If you are insisting that a producer must have an article in Billboard or a Grammy in order to be included in Wikipedia then you should delete many long lasting producer pages on this site. You are attempting to strip this production team of credits that they rightfully deserve by not allowing them to list their notable production credits and biography on Wikipedia. They are credited on Lonely Island's Wikipedia page and haven't had a problem http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:GNtmgXHTM_kJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_in_a_Box+%22lonely+island%22+%22the+futuristics%22&cd=20&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com. If this precedent is set then you shouldn't refute the idea of them having their own page.
        Reply - I am not insisting that they must have won a Grammy or must have coverage on Billboard. Those are examples of the types of awards or coverage that would establish notability. What happens in other articles is not relevant to this discussion. Nobody has a right have their production credits listed on Wikipedia. -- Whpq (talk) 10:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Reply - With all due respect, I feel you are arguing at this point for the sake of arguing. What is the next step? Who inevitably makes a decision? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.155.161 (talk) 19:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Reply - An administrator reviews the discussion and weighs it against Wikipedia policies and guidelines to come to a decision. See WP:AFD#How an AfD discussion is closed. -- Whpq (talk) 20:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Reply - Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.155.161 (talk) 23:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It appears that the subject has produced songs for notable musicians, however I can find no significant coverage for the production team itself in reliable sources. I don't see that they meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC at this time. Gongshow ^Talk 16:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 18:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald J. Meyer

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

Non-notable photographer who wrote a self-published book that won an award nobody's heard of. —Chowbok ☠ 05:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is just vanispamcruft, and I think we should probably delete the Freddy Fox page as well.NZ forever (talk) 05:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article tells us that His work has been hung at exclusive one artist showings. It doesn't say who were excluded. If journalists were excluded, this might explain the paucity of coverage. Emoticon. -- Hoary (talk) 01:57, 11 June 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 WP:SOFTDELETE. postdlf (talk) 17:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arash Howaida

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

None of the conditions in WP:BAND are met. There is no significant coverage, nor charting, certification etc. Muhandes (talk) 11:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 22:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 22:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly very trivial including the fact that the editor put the tracklist on the article. Although Wikipedia sustains many articles, I don't feel this one has the capacity to make it, and it doesn't help it's a lesser known person. SwisterTwister (talk) 07:01, 6 June 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, Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:05, 10 June 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. -- Cirt (talk) 18:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pelican Products

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

While this company may make some of the best products in their field, the article does nothing to establish notability. These products were used in several movies, and are used by government agencies. There was apparently an episode of a Travel Channel show about these products, and a couple of reprinted press releases. Maybe there are better refs out there, but this is little more than a company profile at present. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 14:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's introduction states the subjects notability and the article is sourced. Your reason for deletion almost serves as a reason to keep; it simply needs to be expanded. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 19:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 22:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, weakly. Google Books search reveals that this business has gotten bits of independent coverage in a variety of handbooks for backpackers, scuba divers, and camera enthusiasts. None of this coverage is extensive, but it shows that the brand is well known among people who want waterproof cases for their stuff. Their police contracts get them some Google News coverage as well. The article goes off on the wrong tangent when it lists movies in which police officers, spies, or other adventurers are shown using the stuff they make, but this business seems at least notable enough to support a stub. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:07, 6 June 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, Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Article clearly passes WP:GNG; it has over 200 news mentions, and 100 Non-patent mentions in a Google Scholar search. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regarding the statement, "the article does nothing to establish notability": WP:Speedy delete criteria A7 is "No indication of importance". "This..is a lower standard than notability." WP:NNC states that, "The notability guidelines do not apply to article...content". Unscintillating (talk) 04:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm wondering how a topic can be "apparently an episode of a Travel Channel show about these products" and not notable. Unscintillating (talk) 04:41, 13 June 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Labour 2015

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

This article seemingly falls foul of a few guidelines. Searching through the Net, I find little evidence of commentary from secondary sources on this organisation, so I fear it fails WP:N. Inevitably, some consideration should also be given to the fact the head of Labour 2015 is a man named Liam Young, and the article history shows the creator is a "Liampyoung". Franklinville (talk) 19:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 00:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. - Whpq (talk) 16:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 6 June 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, Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage, not notable. Soupy sautoy (talk) 09:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 18:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Racers (Conspiracy theory)

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

Non-notable political neologism. See WP:NEO. No coverage of the term in reliable sources (all of the cited sources are either don't satisfy WP:RS or don't mention the term at all), which means that the article fails Notability criteria. And, no, Tony Katz's twitter feed doesn't count. Neither does Examiner.com, a user-generated news/blog website. Basically, the entire article is an essay of original research and thought based off something a Tea Partier said on TV. GrapedApe (talk) 04:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that notability has not been established - no substantial coverage in reliable 3rd-party sources. Dawn Bard (talk) 11:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I concur; this is too much of a neologism. Let's see if it takes off - but for now, delete. DS (talk) 14:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. & others. Clearly a non-notable neologism.--JayJasper (talk) 17:29, 14 June 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 Chronic kidney disease. All contributors but one agree that this should not be the subject of a separate article. A redirect allows later editorial consensus to determine what, if anything, needs to be merged from the history (there's no consensus here about this). Sandstein 19:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-dialysis dependent

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

Per WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, this attempt to introduce an obscure term. There is a total of 92 entries in PubMed (compared to 92,611 for chronic kidney disease) and, frequently describes those on dialysis being excluded from a study. There is a well established staging system that does not use the term. If it were expanded, there is no reason to believe that it would not be a redundant fork for Stages 1–4 when Chronic kidney disease covers 1–5.Novangelis (talk) 03:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As noted above, it's not a term given significant coverage, and the topic could be better described at the CKD article. I don't see a compelling reason to keep this as a redirect, either. —C.Fred (talk) 03:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the revised and improved article. As noted in the revised article, the NDD-CKD and ESRD are mutually exclusive. Until recently, the term "non-ESRD" but "CKD" had to be used, but since the invention of the NDD-CKD, which has received significant coverage, the term NDD-CKD has been used vastly. --[[User:Burntout123|Burntout123]] ([[User talk:Burntout123|talk]] (talk) 05:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTDICT - revision not sufficient to dodge this guideline. Useful content can still be moved to CKD article. Elizium23 (talk) 05:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge additions into Chronic kidney disease (subject to WP:UNDUE), otherwise Delete. Article is a WP:CFORK#Redundant_content_forks of Chronic kidney disease. JoeSperrazza (talk) 12:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the above argment has merit, the paired article end-stage renal disease (ESRD) would also need to be deleted or merged with CKD.--S.Buntout123 (talk) 14:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It should be noted that "End-stage renal disease" is a redirect to "Chronic kidney disease", not an independent article, so the "other stuff" doesn't exist.Novangelis (talk) 15:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pardon me for not noticing. That end-stage renal disease redirects to Chronic kidney disease further weakens S.Buntout123 argument against Merging. A redirect of Non-dialysis dependent to Chronic kidney disease would work, too (after any materiel of value, if any, is merged). JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: because of licensing requirements, tracking the revision history, a redirect is part of the merge process.Novangelis (talk) 15:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am puzzled: The ESRD (end-stage renal disease) article used to be a stand-alone article for years. Since I have no expertise in Wiki-technicality, can somebody kindly ascerain who removed the ESRD page and why? Otherwise I agree with the constructive suggestion as long as a few lines from the curremt NDD article is copied and placed into the CKD article. --S.Buntout123 (talk) 00:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)Hi, perhaps you didn't notice it was a redirect? Looking at the history of the page in this link [45], the article End-stage renal disease was created as a REDIRECT on February 5th, 2005, and has not changed in that regard. In anticipation of a Merge, perhaps you could edit the current Chronic kidney disease article to make the additions from Non-dialysis dependent that you think are appropriate? Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to CKD article per above discussion. No need for a separate article. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 02:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consistent with the suggestions, a new subsection "NDD-CKD vs. ESRD" has been added to CKD article under section STAGING. Feel free to review/amend, and, assuming everbody's blessing, then the NDD-CKD can become a redirect. --S.Buntout123 (talk) 04:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That section could use references to reliable sources, and less bold words, per the Manual of Style. JoeSperrazza (talk) 01:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge relevant content with CKD, redirect there. Not sufficiently notable for its own article, especially since ample context is already available on the CKD page. Google search confirms that the concept NDD-CKD is in reasonably widespread use. JFW | T@lk 23:02, 11 June 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Memorial Day Remembered at Camp Buehring, Kuwait

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

No indication of notability; no attempt to give references. Looks like a personal reflection. Auntof6 (talk) 03:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination - this does not meet the relevant notability criteria (WP:EVENT) Nick-D (talk) 08:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 08:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability whatsoever. Memorial services are held all the time. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nomination and Nick D. Anotherclown (talk) 09:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTNEWS. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one of thousands of such memorial events, none notable. MilborneOne (talk) 15:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unencyclopedic and frankly not NPOV. - Yk³ talk · contrib 15:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to appalling slander against Royal Regiment of Scotland, referred to as the 'Royal Scottish Guard of England.' Buckshot06 (talk) 21:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google search only came up with 5 hits, none are reliable sources; fails WP:GNG. Also written in a way that appears to be an essay. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, simply per WP:NOTNEWS. No references, no significant ghits. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 12:10, 14 June 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. postdlf (talk) 17:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Tubbs

AfDs for this article:

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

Clearly, this character has no sources. JJ98 (Talk) 03:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, mostly original research and fan cruft, merge with List of The Cleveland Show characters. Frietjes (talk) 15:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that was already done and the article redirected there after the last AFD. Restore redirect/merge. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary AfD Implement previous AfD decision (redirect) and protect redirect. I call for a speedy close.--Crusio (talk) 15:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and protect per Crusio. Reyk _YO! 00:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of The Cleveland Show characters -- insufficient sourcing for a separate article. Rangoondispenser (talk) 23:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of The Cleveland Show characters and protect redirect: Per Crusio. The fictional character does not pass the criteria of the general notability guideline and it is a plot-only description of a fictional work. Nothing is referenced within the article, so there is nothing of value to merge. She is already in list of The Cleveland Show characters so a redirect is the best alternative. Jfgslo (talk) 00:10, 16 June 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 17:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sycksyde

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

Not a notable band. Zero hits in Google News, nothing in the books and magazines--perhaps it's not millions of acts that they influenced. Drmies (talk) 03:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ridiculous claims with no evidence. Quite possibly an hoax. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing significant found.--Michig (talk) 20:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not finding significant 3rd party coverage, even though they do seem to be promoting themselves everywhere possible. Qrsdogg (talk) 20:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 18:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blogoma

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

Article was deprodded after some blog sources were added as external links. But it still appears to fail WP:NEO, as I am unable to find reliable source coverage of the term at a level to establish notability (some sources use the term, but do not write about the term itself). This appears to be a neologism, and wikipedia is not a dictionary. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 02:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This term does not seem to be significant: the article states that it is a pormanteau, but there doesn't seem to be any reason to use this term. I could make a term blogoca to mean the Canadian blogosphere.Curb Chain (talk) 10:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment see also Blogma and its AfD 14:20, 17 June 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 keep. joe decker ^{talk to me} 17:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ghostery

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

Contested PROD. I do not see that this meets the criteria for inclusion. Looking at the references/external links, I can see a couple of reviews and a few minor mentions (the Fox News mentions says "Use a program like Ghostery to block tracking sites, or at least make you aware of who's following you"; the Wall Street Journal says "The technology company will collect data from a variety of sources, including a panel of about 300,000 people who have volunteered to use its Ghostery software. That software lets consumers see which companies track them as they surf the Web"; the Time article mentions it in a list of extensions, the main mention of Ghostery is in the comments) - there is a lack of significant coverage which is independent and at reliable sites. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here is a prime example of software that is obviously notable. ("The Mozilla Firefox Ghostery extension has been downloaded almost 2,400,000 times." That means 2,400,000 users have found it to be "notable" enough to add to their Firefox configuration. 2,400,000 independent notices in favor of the software.) Yet by wikipedia standards it is in danger of deletion for so-called lack of notability. The criteria is flawed. Dlw20070716 (talk) 01:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The figure given is for total downloads of all versions - I tried to find out how many downloads of each version there are, and especially of the current and previous versions, but couldn't find this information. There have been more than 20 versions of this software (the listing of versions at addons.mozilla.org only goes back to version 1.3.4). That means the average download per version is 120,000. Of course, that's an average - we have no way of knowing for sure about specific downloads for specific versions. I had a look at random (in no way scientific!) extensions, and found that while some of them were only about 300,000 downloads, many of the ones I looked at were showing 2,000,000+ downloads (and with few versions). I still do not see the 'significant coverage at multiple independent reliable sources' which the notability criteria says is required. Number of downloads in and of itself is not sufficient - you may not like the criteria, but we are not discussing whether the criteria should be changed (the place for that would be at the criteria's talk page), we are discussing whether (under the current criteria for notability) this article should be kept or deleted. Incidentally, I have taken the liberty of adding 'keep' to your comment, as that is implicit, but it makes it easier for people looking here to see that! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Contrary to what Phantomsteve writes, there are numerous quantitatively subjective criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. See WP:CREATIVE and WP:PROF for examples. I don't see why an academic topic that has been noted by one other academic is WP notable, or why an academic that has at least 100 citations (Google Scholar h-index of 10, which may well be self-citations) is WP notable, but this software which has millions of downloads is not. A search in Google books finds several mentions with more or less brief blurb: one in PC World (print) Volume 27, Issues 1-6, one in Windows 7 All-in-One For Dummies and one in Time (magazine) [46] that add to notability. Because it's a cross-browser extension it would be impractical to merge this to all four browser articles' involved. It also meets the letter of WP:GNG, with a long review in Macworld [47] and shorter ones in [48] PC World (also syndicated in Washington Post [49]) and [50] PC Advisor. A longer review appeared in PC Advisor for an older version [51]. FuFoFuEd (talk) 15:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The coverage about this software is sufficient to establish notability as pointed out by FuFoFuEd. -- Whpq (talk) 18:08, 14 June 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 Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) RadioFan (talk) 11:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PureBasic

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

unremarkable comercial programming language implementation. Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Google webserarch on the topic brings up manufacturer's website and forums plus some self published blogs. Google news brings up no hits and Google books brings up a single book on the topic. Not clear how this might meet WP:GNG RadioFan (talk) 01:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Go away, RadioFan. Your reasons for deletion are NOT valid. I can give photos of PureBasic on published magazines and newspaper articles to show its significant coverage, but you'd probably just brush them off as "original research". If you're going to delete this well-established BASIC language, then all other minor BASIC languages must also be deleted. Stop trying to do this, as we're always watching and will stop any vandalism attempt to delete the article. WPWatcher (talk) 12:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there are articles in magazines and newspapers about the language, please add citations to the Wikipedia article referencing them. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to delete anything, I'm not an admin. We are going to discuss whether or not this article meets notability guidelines and we are going to do it in a mature, calm way. Take the advice of others and provide reliable sources and this will all be settled. Also please dont remove the AFD notice from the article, it wont stop this discussion from taking place and is considered vandalism. Also, limit your comments to the discussion here, please do not make comments within the nomination or others comments. It's considered bad form at best and refactoring others comments at worst.--RadioFan (talk) 04:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, explain why it's STILL considered for deletion when we've added cites and mentions in published articles? You seem to have some sort of personal vendetta against PureBasic. No other BASIC languages are receiving such treatment from you. Why not? WPWatcher (talk) 05:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please explain how we can vote to KEEP this article, as I'm not sure and it seems unfair that the uneducated can miss this opportunity. WPWatcher (talk) 05:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PureBasic is an established cross-platform programming language, which is well known an spread all over the world. A lot of commercial as well as freeware programs have been and will be written in PureBasic. What is going on here on Wikipedia??!! KEEP the article about PureBasic!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.84.49 (talk) 06:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one that added the citations. I didn't realize that it couldn't be from the program's website. What about if it was citations from programs that were programmed in PureBasic? Would that be sufficient? --Travis.m.granvold (talk) 06:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I want to know why my cites, that are NOT from PureBasic.com, and INCLUDE computer magazine coverdiscs with tutorial, and newspaper article, and THREE PUBLISHED BOOKS directly about PureBasic, are not enough of a cite or notability. Seriously! Half the other BASICs on Wikipedia don't have ANYTHING like that to support them! Something suspicious is going on here. The entry has existed for years and suddenly, this year alone, it's being attacked by RadioFan for deletion. Why? (And yes, RadioFan, if it gets deleted it IS because of you, since you're spearheading this misguided smear campaign!). WPWatcher (talk) 08:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want this page deleted either but where are the cites you refer to? I can't seem to find them... also there seem to be other basic articles with similar issues but they aren't AfD (such as Turbo Basic XBasic ProvideX Run BASIC StarOffice Basic G-BASIC ScriptBasic Mallard BASIC Vilnius BASIC) --Travis.m.granvold (talk) 08:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The cites were added in my last edit, but RadioFan reverted them, thus making the article look citeless again. Smear campaign. WPWatcher (talk) 08:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I found them. RadioFan I understand that WPWatcher wasn't supposed to remove the AfD Header at the top of the page but was the references that he added unacceptable for some reason? --Travis.m.granvold (talk) 08:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cites and third-party references restored. I don't see why not. WPWatcher (talk) 09:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(software) that software is notable if it meets ONE of the specified criteria from a four-point list. PureBasic meets criteria #3: The software is the subject of multiple printed third party manuals, instruction books, or reliable reviews[1], written by independent authors and published by independent publishers. We have established this with the cites I and others have posted. Further, I see from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:99_Bottles_of_Beer_test that it states: This page in a nutshell: If nobody has published a "99 Bottles of Beer" program for a specific programming language, it probably isn't notable. and also The 99 Bottles of Beer test can be used to show the lack of notability of a programming language. We can establish that PureBasic therefore IS considered notable due to inclusion here: http://www.99-bottles-of-beer.net/language-purebasic-568.html Ergo, PureBasic IS notable, based on the criteria set by Wikipedia's own standards! I rest my case. Thank you. I vote KEEP. WPWatcher (talk) 11:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My apologies for the collator al damage in restoring the AFD notice, it took out external links to images that were being used as references, however there are some issues with those links as references. The PROgrammez reference seems reasonable as it appears to be a Spanish language programming magazine and is verifiable, however the other two do not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for verifiability as they are simply images of clipings with no context at all. Where did they come from? What magazine, what newspaper? One appeared to be a newspaper but its not clear which from the reference, the other mentions the product in an ad which doesn't do much to satisfy notability questions. I see that there is some context around those references now that will allow them to be verified. The article still needs some cleanup, particularly in its overuse of the official website as a reference and some better citations for the books mentioned but it at least now meets WP:GNG, withdrawing nomination. RadioFan (talk) 11:40, 11 June 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. However, it is now 2 days past the announced release date so it might be prudent to check and see if it's been released before renominating. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cinemetropolis

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

Article is about an unreleased album (releasing on June 14, 2011). No independent sources are provided (nor can I find any non-blog independent sources) for the album. As such, article fails WP:MUSIC. Article should be userfied until after it is released, but only recreated if notability can then be established through multiple, independent reviews in RS. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added a more reliable source for the release date (from the group's own website). The album is definitely notable as it's the third full-length album from a long-running and influential group. It is also definitely currently available, as I have a legit digital copy myself. Unless I'm mistaken, an album being unreleased is not reason enough for deletion. Reviews will come out as the official release date approaches. tdogg241^TC 20:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the album has been released (even digitially), then you need to show that the album meets WP:MUSIC. So far, none of the information from the article is from reliable, third party sources, thus there is no indication that this album is notable. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - According to WP: NALBUMS: "In a few special cases, an unreleased album may qualify for an advance article if there is sufficient verifiable and properly referenced information about it—for example, Guns 'n Roses' 2008 album Chinese Democracy had an article as early as 2004. However, this only applies to a very small number of exceptionally high-profile projects..."[emphases theirs] I see no indication that Cinemetropolis fits into this narrow category of "exceptionally high-profile projects". As already mentioned, there seems to be no information on the album from third party sources at all.--Martin IIIa (talk) 02:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 2 June 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeedigunta

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. I cannot find sufficient RS support to reflect notability of this singer. Others are welcome to try. Epeefleche (talk) 23:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --Epeefleche (talk) 00:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 20:13, 2 June 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) 00:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable, fails WP:MUSICBIO. Quasi human | Talk 12:16, 10 June 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. Hammer if you want to knock this around for another week then feel free to reopen this or renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Balham Alligators

AfDs for this article:

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

Kept at last AFD for having two albums for Proper Records, but the label itself is tagged for possible non-notability and is currently prodded. I see nothing at all that would otherwise get this band past WP:NMUSIC — Google News shows only 5 hits, all trivial, and Google Books has only tangential one-sentence mentions. The article hasn't changed one iota since the last AFD, and no more sources have been found than the singular one already there. It just doesn't cut it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Michaela den (talk) 09:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Geraint Watkins. This band seems to be focused around Geraint Watkins with an assortment of other musicians. Why not just merge the salient pieces into the Geraint Watkins article? That would preserve a reference in Wikipedia without giving undue importance to the band. Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:53, 3 June 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) 00:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 18:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Asia Pacific Indonesia

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

Questionable notability and no references. Gerardw (talk) 10:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It seems that there are Asia Pacific%22 Indonesia&btnG=Search&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_ylo=&as_vis=0 some potentially useful sources out there ╟─Treasury Tag►inspectorate─╢ 14:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The unreferenced BLP content should be deleted, though, of course. ╟─Treasury Tag►cabinet─╢ 14:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 22:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 22:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 6 June 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) 00:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable contest. Keb25 (talk) 01:59, 11 June 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoon Network (Israel)

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

Clearly, this channel does not exists yet, and appears to be a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. JJ98 (Talk) 00:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —JJ98 (Talk) 00:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —JJ98 (Talk) 00:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Marokwitz (talk) 05:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not for the last time not trying to violate WP:CRYSTAL.I know that Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball or not a collection of details — IanRootBeerDubber (talk · contribs) 16:48, June 10 2011 (UTC)

Delete. I couldn't find any information to even verify the subject, let alone to establish notability. The usual caveats applies - frankie (talk) 18:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sole line of prose in the article clearly indicates that it is a violation of WP: CRYSTAL. I ran a quick search to see if there is enough indication that this channel will soon exist that deleting the article wouldn't be worth the time, but couldn't find anything about the channel at all.--Martin IIIa (talk) 17:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find sufficient RS support for this.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:26, 16 June 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. In view of the limited participation, this is a "soft deletion", equivalent to deletion by PROD: the article will be automatically restored on request to me or at WP:REFUND, but may then be re-nominated. JohnCD (talk) 18:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Griffith

AfDs for this article:

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

His books are published by "Foundation for Humanity's Adulthood", an organisation he established to promote his theory. Neither the organisation nor his theories are notable; they dont appear to have had any lasting influence on anyone other than Tim Macartney-Snape, and that article covers the ABC controversy already. A small note may also be warranted on Tasmanian Tiger. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 22:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, apparently subject of one television report, but I can't find a transcript or details online (a brief mention here) though. However, as far as I can tell, Mr Griffith has not received coverage from any other source, thus falling afoul of the requirement for multiple sources at WP:BIO. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:40, 9 June 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) 00:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Celebration (Prince Tour)

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

Article appears to be a non-notable tour. It lacks reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for concerts. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 23:05, 2 June 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, -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I didn't find any solid sources either. If a strong newspaper of TV station can mention, the article has the OK to come back. SwisterTwister (talk) 02:36, 12 June 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. -- Cirt (talk) 18:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jamshid Behnam

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

Following a contestation of a prod, nominating a BLP that long relies on an external link as a reference (published by what appears to be an organization that publishes his work) and claims notability vaguely and unreinforced by additional external secondary sources. Sadads (talk) 19:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before this nomination was made I pointed out on the article talk page that many reliable sources are found by a Google Books search, as linked above. Could the nominator please explain how he or she came to the conclusion that those sources are inadequate for demonstrating notability? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did my own search of both Google books and Google scholar and only found 2 or 3 mentions that went beyond the casual aside that he was involved with 2 or other 3 people in commenting on sociology in Iran. The significant coverage part was lacking considerably in what I could find readily though Cindamuse appears to haev done a fairly good job unearthing things that I did not see, Sadads (talk) 09:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have to concur. The Google books and scholar search provided minimal details to support the article. I basically looked for his name in Farsi and translated to find other content. There really isn't much out there. Of course, the subject does have a Facebook account though. ;) Cind.amuse 09:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Following research and editing, I believe the article is sufficiently sourced. That said, I wasn't able to locate any ISBNs. Not familiar with Persian literature, I'm led to believe that they may not utilize them. Cind.amuse 08:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. - since nomination article has been expanding and improved, asserting at least a minimal level of wikipedia notability. Thanks to User:Cindamuse for that work. It is difficult researching such subjects. Off2riorob (talk) 09:16, 5 June 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, -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to meet WP:AUTHOR. Qrsdogg (talk) 19:38, 15 June 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) 19:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As We Fight

AfDs for this article:

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

The previous AfD for this article was relisted twice because no one was commenting and then the AfD was concluded with a non-admin closure. The only user who commented in that discussion cited some sources in order to try to establish the band's notability. I have reviewed those sources and most of them do not look reliable; there are broken links, websites that my browser blocks as "dangerous", and just generally unprofessional websites. It is also disconcerting that the creator of this article and the user who has by far contributed the most information to this article has admitted to being a former member of the band. This band does not appear to be the subject of a sufficient number of reliable secondary sources and the article itself only exists because of self-promotion. This is not the kind of article we should have on Wikipedia. Neelix (talk) 15:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability problems, I can't find any reliable 3rd party sources via a Google search, there's an absences of articles in music magazines or news magazines about them, the only hits are blogs and fan websites, as far as I can tell. --Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 20:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:45, 4 June 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, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. My usual practice back in my NAC days was to close AFDs such as the first one as "no consensus with leave to speedy renominate". However, it looks like this one predates the addition of the npasr clause at Wikipedia:Deletion process. I normally wouldn't punch "keep" on something like that now of days. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have no problem with the links from the first AfD, they go to good reviews of their albums and one interview. There's also these [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] - frankie (talk) 01:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability. For a Wikipedia article to sustain itself, it needs sufficient and reliable references. 21:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwisterTwister (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 18:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Shahym

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

Junior national champ, manager (not participant) of a national team and national association president might be just enough to be notable, but no references are able to be found to verify any of this, and the sport is so minor in english reliable sources I doubt that they are able to be found. Previously speedily deleted twice - and the national organisation has been previously deleted at AfD. The-Pope (talk) 16:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 20:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 22:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 6 June 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, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. I looked on Google and Yahoo! for references, and found 0 results except for a Facebook page featuring mirror information. SwisterTwister (talk) 05:42, 17 June 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. In view of the limited participation, this is a "soft deletion", equivalent to deletion by PROD: the article will be automatically restored on request to me or at WP:REFUND, but may then be re-nominated. JohnCD (talk) 18:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cliché Hot

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

Doesn't meet the notability guideline. Taged for more than 6 months without progress. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 23:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 00:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 00:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy - have tagged for speedy under A7, no point in an AfD. → ROUX ₪ 18:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy declined. Realise that the band is French -- you should search for French keywords, i.e. adding "actualité", "nouvelles", "critique" and the like. Some examples that make me think album may have notability: [58] [59] AFAIK these are not self-published sources. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 18:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oui, je sais et je voudrait que tout le monde le fait en francais. C'est juste que ce n'est pas sur la page. (Translation: Yes, I know and I would want that everyone does it in french. Its just that it is not on the page.) ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 21:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You know what? I love this album and I was listening to it while writing here. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 21:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 22:04, 4 June 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, 10 June 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. postdlf (talk) 17:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fuse Magazine

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

Non-notable magazine, no substantial Google or Google News hits. (Note that there are now, and have been in the past, quite a few different magazines named Fuse, so you have to be sure to which one any particular source refers.) TransporterMan (TALK) 20:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 22:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 6 June 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, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. GBooks does turn up a substantial number of references to this long-lived Canadian arts journal in other publications.[60] Many of them are only viewable as snippets so it's hard to know exactly what they say about the publication, but among them are some that might suggest hints of significance[61][62][63][64][65][66]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This one is tough. I am well-acquainted with Fuse (full disclosure: I've been published in Fuse). I know it's notable as a publication but there's not a great deal out there that can establish it. They are especially significant for what they have published; there's an important legacy here of articles about Canadian and international art, and a great deal have been republished in anthologies. I realize that this in and of itself does not necessarily establish notability. However, I do believe that a number of the sources provided by Arxiloxos help to point towards notability. At least a couple of them are more than trivial. As well, chapter 13 of the book Policy Matters: Administration of Art and Culture by Clive Robertson (Toronto: YYZ Artist's Outlet, 2006. ISBN 0-920397-36-0) is about Fuse in its entirety (pages 223-260). I think this chapter supported by some mentioned above establishes notability enough to make this a keep. I suspect there may be other significant sources available but this is what I found so far. Failing that, I'd ask that the closing admin, if this is deleted, userfies this for me and I'll try to recreate it with expanded sources. freshacconci talktalk 02:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've also found quite a bit on ProQuest which has an extensive Canadian periodical database. There's a number of sources I found in newspapers and journals, none of which I can link to as I found it through a university library catalogue. If there's time, I will try to expand the article a bit and add some of these sources. freshacconci talktalk 03:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —freshacconci talktalk 02:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the last two. Pity is isn't longer. Johnbod (talk) 03:20, 18 June 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.